DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Action of 06/13/2025, Applicant, on 09/15/2025, amended independent Claims 1, 19 and 20. Claims 6, 7 and 21 were previously cancelled; and Claims 2-5 and 8-18 are as originally or previously presented, but deemed amended since they depend from amended independent Claim 1.
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
4. The 35 USC §101 rejection of Claims maintained despite Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-5 and 8-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of system (machine), method (process) or medium (manufacture), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
7. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 19 recites A .. method for analyzing organizational influence data, the method comprising: .. a model to identify relationships between policymakers and organizations .., using .. documents comprising unstructured text, the documents being labeled to indicate the relationships between policymakers and organizations represented in the unstructured text; .. identify first data associated with a plurality of policymakers .. ; generating .. one or more first nodes within an issue graph model based at least in part on the first data, the one or more first nodes representing the plurality of policymakers, wherein generating the one or more first nodes includes: correlating, based on the first data, the plurality of policymakers with a predefined person node type, the predefined person node type being associated with a plurality of predefined data fields, and extracting information from the first data to include in the plurality of predefined data fields; receiving .. a selection of an organization; generating .. a second node within the issue graph model representing the organization; .. receiving .. a selection of at least one agenda issue of interest to the organization; accessing second data .., the second data comprising data associated with the organization; generating .. links within the issue graph model representing relationships between the first nodes and the second node .., the relationships being identified based at least in part on the first data, the second data, and the selected agenda issue, the links being associated with a plurality of labels indicating types of relationships between the one or more first nodes and the second node ..; determining an organizational influence factor, the organizational influence factor comprising a measure of how likely the second node is to affect a property of each of the plurality of first nodes, where the property includes a position of each of the plurality of policymakers on the at least one selected agenda issue, the position comprising at least one of a stance or political position of a policymaker on the at least one selected agenda issue and not an indicator of an outcome of a particular policymaking; identifying at least one node of the plurality of first nodes associated with the at least one selected agenda issue based on the organizational influence factor; receiving .. a selection of at least one type of relationship; .. the network representing the issue graph model and including at least a first graphical representation of the at least one node, a second graphical representation of the second node, and at least a third graphical representation of a link interconnecting the at least one node and the second node, .. further include graphical representations of a subset of the one or more first nodes connected to the organization by links having labels indicating the selected at least one type of relationship; receiving .. a user input associated with the link interconnecting the at least one node and the second node, wherein the link is represented in the network as a line connecting two associated nodes and the user input includes a selection of the line, and wherein the user input further includes at least one modification to a label associated with the link interconnecting the at least one node and the second node, the modification including a change in a type of relationship between the two associated nodes represented by the label; and updating the network and the issue graph model based on the user input to reflect the change in the type of relationship represented by the label, which under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, is an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), because identifying policymakers based on an organizational influence factor is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Further, it is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because determining an organizational influence factor is a process that, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves evaluation, judgement or observation. Claims 1 and 20 recite similar abstract ideas.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the independent Claims, including additional elements such as at least one processor, train, using a machine learning algorithm, training data, wherein the trained model is a neural network, scrape a first plurality of sources on the Internet using a web crawler and an extraction bot to identify first data, wherein the web crawler is configured to perform functions of finding, indexing, and fetching information from the plurality of sources on the Internet, and wherein the extraction bot is configured to perform processing on the information from the plurality of sources, using the trained model, via a user interface, a graph database, scraped from a second plurality of sources on the Internet, stored in the graph database, cause display of a network within the user interface, computer-implemented, storing the one or more first nodes and the second node in a graph database, the types of relationships being identified using the trained model, causing display of a network within the user interface, wherein the network is filtered, A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant Claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B of the analysis, the independent Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by Fig. 1 and paragraphs 114-123 and 128-140 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2-5 and 8-18 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract ideas noted in independent Claim 1 and further recite extensions of those abstract ideas.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 2, 3, 5, 8-12 and 14-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited in independent Claim 1 from which they depend, and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for independent Claim 1. These Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 4 and 13 do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application because these Claims, including additional elements such as those listed above for independent Claim 1 and a graph algorithm, wherein the displayed network is interactive, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, these Claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and these Claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant Claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). These Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, dependent 2, 3, 5, 8-12 and 14-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited in the independent claims from which they depend, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for independent Claim 1.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 4 and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above for independent Claim 1 and a graph algorithm, wherein the displayed network is interactive, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Fig. 1 and paragraphs 114-123 and 128-140 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/2025 have been fully considered, but are found not persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
9. Applicant argues (at pp. 13-14) that, at Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter analysis for patentability under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Office oversimplifies the abstract idea by distilling it down to "identifying organizational influence on policymakers" and "determining an organizational influence factor", and that “This form of conclusory analysis is legally deficient”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter analysis, the abstract idea recited in the claims is fully articulated at paragraph 7 above in this office action, as required - see MPEP 2106.07(a). As noted at MPEP 2106.07 (III), the courts consider the determination of whether a claim is eligible (which involves identifying whether an exception such as an abstract idea is being claimed) to be a question of law, and when performing the analysis at Step 2A Prong One, it is sufficient for the examiner to provide a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and explains why it is considered a judicial exception (e.g., that the claim limitation(s) falls within one of the abstract idea groupings). Further, as noted at MPEP 2111, claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification (MPEP 2111.01).
10. Applicant also argues (at pp. 12, 14) that “claim 19 recites steps that cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind .. The human mind is not equipped, for example, to "train[], using a machine learning algorithm .. claim 19 recites a complex machine-learning-based tool for analyzing and visualizing relationships” and is therefore not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes the referenced elements are recognized in the subject matter analysis as additional elements under Step 2A Prong Two of the subject matter analysis; at Step 2A Prong One, the claim language recites abstract ideas falling in the categories of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes, as explained in detail at paragraph 7 above in this office action.
11. Applicant further argues (at pp. 16-18) that “The claimed techniques thus recite a particular improvement in technology by reciting specific techniques for how data scraped from the internet may be used to generate a node network”, and thus the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above in this office action at paragraph 7, the additional (computer) elements are merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), and the claims are therefore ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C 101.
12. Applicant argues (at p. 19) that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea at Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 when the additional elements are considered.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar considerations to those above at Step 2A Prong Two apply to Applicant's arguments with regard to Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis - the combination of additional elements do not add an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception (as explained at paragraph 7 above in this office action), because the claims merely use generic computer elements as a tool to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(d), 2106.05(f)).
Also, as noted at MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), "It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology".
13. Applicant argues (at p. 17) that the amended claim language “meaningfully limits the purported judicial exception” and thus integrates into a practical application (and is therefore patent-eligible under 35 USC 101).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that MPEP 2106.04(I) states: "While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. .. the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible.".
Conclusion
14. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623