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
This is in reply to communication filed on 08/26/2025.
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
Claims 4, 8, 11-12, 17 and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-16, and 18-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 08/26/2025:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101” in pages 8-10, that:
“Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 13-16, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. This rejection is respectfully traversed.
Under Alice Corp. v.CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014), the determination as to whether a claim is directed to statutory subject matter is a two part test. The first part is to determine whether the claims are directed to a "patent-ineligible concept," such as an abstract idea. Id.; MPEP §2106(I). The second part is that "the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception." Id.
The USPTO's instructions for applying the two-part test are provided MPEP § 2106. At step 1 a determination is made whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. MPEP §2106(III). At Step 2A, Prong
1 a determination is made whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). At Step 2A, Prong 2 a determination is made whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2). At Step 2B a determination is made whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05.
The amended claims are directed to a problem in user interfaces in being
able to guide a user through event management. Specifically, the amended claims have the user acknowledge the event. Then, the interface interactively, presents the user with options having actions for responding to the event. Some of the actions may be disregarded outright. However, some of the actions are needed for further analysis. Thus, the user interface interactively allows the user to select particular actions with which the user may want to have further analysis. Amongst other limitations that are directed to calculating a reduced objective set that has minimizes the detrimental aspects and an increased probability set that maximizes the probability of occurring, the amended claims require a specific user interface. In the specific user interface, a first section is displayed separate from a second section. The first section of the user interface includes the reduced objective set linked to a first button and the second section includes the increased probability set linked to a second button. Through the user interface, a user may select the first button or the second button to cause code to be executed. By having such a user interface, embodiments solve, with a unique user interface, a user interface problem of how to guide the user through event management. Under MPEP §2106.04(a)(1), solving a problem of a user interface is an example of a nonabstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1 that is patent eligible.
Because the amended claims are directed to solving a user interface problem, the amended claims satisfy the requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested”.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the detecting, identifying, generating, identifying, generating, displaying, receiving, performing steps, whether taken individually or collectively, have not been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever, and are abstract idea. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is simply no showing of implementing any of the claim steps, individually or in combination, amounts to a technological improvement, nor the alleged “problem in user interfaces in being able to guide a user through event management” suggested by Applicant. Although Applicant asserts that “solving a problem of a user interface” the Examiner first notes that generating actionable recommendations is not reasonably understood as a technology, but instead involves mental process and/or organizing of human activity.
The data collection, recognition, and display concept described in the claim is similar to the data collection and management concepts that were held to be abstract ideas in Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Although the claim enumerates the type of information that is acquired, stored and analyzed, the Federal Circuit has explained in Electric Power Group and Digitech that the mere selection and manipulation of particular information by itself does not make an abstract concept any less abstract. Further, the claim is not made any less abstract by the invocation of a programmed computer. Unlike Enfish, where the claims were focused on a specific improvement in how the computer functioned, the claim here merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract concepts.
Furthermore, the additional limitations of (a user interface, a first computing system, a second computing system, an optimization controller, executing, responsive to the selection, code that causes a computer processor, server) this recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B. Displaying data per se is not consider improvements to the user-interface of the software as a technical improvement to the computer. In Core Wireless, the Federal Circuit found that claims for a mobile device user interface were directed to a technical advancement over the prior art because the specification explained that earlier interfaces "required users to drill down through many layers to get to desired data or functionality" and that such prior art interfaces "seem slow, complex and difficult to learn, particularly to novice users." Similarly, in Data Engine, the Federal Circuit held claims to be patent-eligible when they claimed a user-interface that used tabs to move between pages of a 3-D spreadsheet. The court believe that prior art techniques for navigating between multiple pages was burdensome and hindered the user's access to the power of the spreadsheet, while the tab interface "solved this known technological problem in computers." Of course, the simple display of a graphical user interface will not pass step one of will not pass 2nd prong and the step 2B, the claimed user-interface must have some usability improvement over prior art user interfaces other than a tool to collect/gathering data necessary to execute the abstract idea.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims amount to an improvement over prior art techniques of generating actionable recommendations, such an improvement would be considered, at most, an improvement confined within the abstract idea itself, which is not enough to confer eligibility on the claim. For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 13 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claims 14-16 and 18-19 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1 and 14 recite the abstract idea of generating actionable recommendations, see specification [0002]. This idea is described by the steps of
detecting an event comprising an event value defining a threshold for a combined action value;
displaying an event notification of the event with a first button;
processing as triggered by a selection of the first button, the event to identify an event action set comprising a plurality of actions responsive to the event having an action value;
displaying an options window showing a plurality of selectable action widgets presenting the plurality of actions and a second button;
receiving a selection of the second button and a subset of the plurality of selectable action widgets;
generating an objective value for each corresponding action of the plurality of actions in the event action set, the objective value numerically representing a detrimental aspect of performing the corresponding action;
processing the event action set to identify a probability of successfully performing each corresponding action of the plurality of actions;
filtering, according to the subset of the plurality of selectable action widgets andevent action set to generate a filtered action set responsive to the selection of the second button;
generating, by processing the filtered action set, a reduced objective set that is a first subset of the filtered action set that minimizes a combined objective value generated from the objective value of each corresponding action in the first subset and that has the combined action value greater than the event value;
generating, by processing the filtered action set, an increased probability set that is a second subset of the filtered action set that maximizes a combined probability value generated from the probability of each corresponding action in the second subset and that has the combined action value greater than the event value;
displaying a first section separated from a second section, the first section comprising the reduced objective set linked to a third button and the second section comprising the increased probability set linked to a fourth button;
receiving a selection of at least one of the first button and the second button to obtain a selected action set; and
perform an action in the selected action set.
The claims recite a mental process. Before computers one could mentally or a human using paper and pen to collect event data to be processed to detecting an event, displaying selectable choices; defining threshold; identifying an event action; generating data; processing data; filtering data; displaying results; preforming actions. The Examiner finds the recited claims to be similar to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which the courts have also found to recite a mental process.
These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the above abstract idea limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claims to simply recite a method of detecting an event defining threshold; identifying an event action; processing data; display selectable choices; generating data; filtering data; displaying results; receiving more selectable data; preforming actions, which reciting concepts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people include following rules or instructions. Which is considered to be managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – certain methods of organizing human activity group of abstract idea. The Examiner additionally finds the claims to be similar to an example the courts have identified as being a certain method of organizing human activity:
1) Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue in Voter Verified was voting. The patentee claimed "[a] method for voting providing for self-verification of a ballot comprising the steps of" presenting an election ballot for voting, accepting input of the votes, storing the votes, printing out the votes, comparing the printed votes to votes stored in the computer, and determining whether the printed ballot is acceptable. 887 F.3d at 1384-85, 126 USPQ2d at 1503-04. The Federal Circuit found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation", which is a "fundamental activity that forms the basis of our democracy" and has been performed by humans for hundreds of years. 887 F.3d at 1385-86, 126 USPQ2d at 1504-05.
2) filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis)
The data collection, recognition, and display concept described in the claim is similar to the data collection and management concepts that were held to be abstract ideas in Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Although the claim enumerates the type of information that is acquired, stored and analyzed, the Federal Circuit has explained in Electric Power Group and Digitech that the mere selection and manipulation of particular information by itself does not make an abstract concept any less abstract. Further, the claim is not made any less abstract by the invocation of a programmed computer.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: a user interface, a first computing system, a second computing system, an optimization controller, executing, responsive to the selection, code that causes a computer processor,
Claim 14: an event controller, a model controller, an action controller, an optimization controller, a server application executing on one or more servers, a user interface, executing, responsive to the selection, code that causes a computer processor,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to 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 uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15-16 and 18-19 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and 14 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15-16 and 18-19 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and 14 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 2-3, 15-16: executing the code causes the computer processor,
Claim 6: the optimization controller using a global optimization algorithm.
Claim 7: a user device,
Claim 10: instructions written using a logic programming language,
Claim 13: a symbolic system(s), a machine learning system,
Claim 18: the server application,
Claim 19: the server application, the optimization controller using a global optimization algorithm,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of generating actionable recommendations, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-16, and 18-19, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Distinguished Over Prior Art
The claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-16, and 18-19, in present form, have overcome the prior art rejections and the examiner has been unable to find the claimed limitations in the prior art. Accordingly, the examiner recommends addressing the outstanding rejections above. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-16, and 18-19 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached on (571) 270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627