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 06/16/2025, Applicant, on 09/15/2025, amended Claims 1, 12, 19, 20 and 21. Claims 15, 16 and 22 were previously cancelled; and Claims 2-11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 are as originally or previously presented, but deemed amended since they depend from amended independent Claim 1.
Claims 1-14 and 17-21 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
4. 35 USC §112 rejection of Claims withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
5. The 35 USC §101 rejection of Claims maintained despite Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-14 and 17-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of method (process), system (machine) or medium (manufacture), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
8. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 recites A .. method for identifying stakeholders relative to an issue, the method comprising: .. a model to identify relationships between individuals and policies .. includes documents comprising unstructured text, the documents being labeled to indicate the relationships between individuals and policies represented in the unstructured text; receiving .. a selection of an organization; accessing first data associated with a plurality of individuals associated with the organization, the first data being obtained from a plurality of data source providers; generating .. a plurality of first nodes within an issue graph model based at least in part on the first data, the plurality of first nodes representing the plurality of individuals, wherein generating the plurality of first nodes includes: correlating, based on the first data, the plurality of individuals 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; .. identify second data associated with one or more policies, .. perform processing on the information from the plurality of sources to generate the second data; generating .. one or more second nodes within the issue graph model, the one or more second nodes representing the one or more policies based at least in part on the second data; .. receiving .. a selection of an agenda issue from a plurality of agenda issues; generating .. links within the issue graph model representing relationships between the first nodes and the one or more second nodes .., the relationships being identified based at least in part on the data associated with the plurality of individuals, the second data associated with the one or more policies, and the selected agenda issue, wherein the links are associated with one or more labels indicating a type of the relationships between the first nodes and the second nodes ..; determining .. importance scores for the plurality of first nodes in the issue graph model based on the types of relationships; identifying at least one first node of the plurality of first nodes associated with the at least one selected agenda issue based on the importance scores; receiving .. a selection of at least one type of relationship; .. a network .., the network representing the issue graph model and including at least a first graphical representation of the at least one first node, a second graphical representation of at least one of the one or more second nodes, and at least a third graphical representation of a link interconnecting the at least one first node and at least one of the one or more second nodes, wherein the network is .. to further include graphical representations of a subset of the plurality of 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 first node and at least one of the one or more second nodes, 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, 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 stakeholders relative to an issue is mitigating risk, and following rules or instructions. Further, it is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because identifying nodes associated with agenda issues based on importance scores is a process that, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves evaluation, judgement or observation. Claims 20 and 21 recite similar abstract ideas.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis for the independent Claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the Claims, including additional elements such as computer-implemented, training, using a machine learning algorithm, training data, wherein the trained model is a neural network, via a user interface, using the trained model, scraping a plurality of sources on the Internet using a web crawler and an extraction bot, 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, storing the plurality of first nodes and the one or more second nodes in a graph database, the types of relationships being identified using the trained model; using a graph algorithm, via the user interface, causing display, within the user interface, filtered, the graph database, 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 2-14 and 17-19 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in independent Claim 1 from which they depend, and may further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 2-14 and 17-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to independent Claim 1 from which they depend. These dependent Claims 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, and are therefore also directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2-14 and 17-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to independent Claim 1 from which they depend, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for independent Claim 1.
Therefore, Claims 1-14 and 17-21 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
9. 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.
10. Applicant argues (at pp. 14-15) 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 stakeholders relative to an issue" and "identifying nodes associated with agenda issues", 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 8 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).
11. Applicant also argues (at pp. 16-17) that “claim 1 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” and further that “claim 1 recites a complex machine-learning-based tool for analyzing and visualizing relationships .. Accordingly, the Office has not established that the claims fall under the set of "certain
methods of organizing human activity" that have been deemed patent ineligible”, and the claim 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 8 above in this office action.
12. Applicant further argues (at pp. 18-19) 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 display interactive graphical representations of the nodes and links. .. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims recite a technological improvement in systems for collecting and tracking relationships between people and organizations”, 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 8, 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.
13. Applicant argues (at p. 20) 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 8 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".
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