DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the request for continued examination filed 10 November 2025.
Claims 2-4, 6, 10, 11, 15, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 2-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 2-16 are rejected as shown in this 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
The objections to the specification have been remedied by amendment of the specification and are withdrawn.
The rejections under 35 USC § 112 have been remedied by amendment of the claims and are withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s remarks but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues that the “claimed steps clearly refer to stored data such as claim be stored in data structures in memory. Moreover, there is no mention of any marketing, sales, or behaviors mentioned anywhere in the claims as presented, and performance of the claimed steps do not include any commercial or interpersonal activities or behaviors.” Remarks at 11. Maintaining a relationships of users such that proper earnings can be distributed (see claims 9 and 14) is considered commercial activity. Maintaining relationships of users is considered managing relationships between people. These concepts are recited in the claims. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the present claims recite a transformation, which weights towards finding an integration into a practical application under prong two of Step 2A. In particular, two separate data structures are merged to crate a new merged data structure, which is then further converted into new product tree data structure.” Remarks at 12. This “particular transformation” analysis is described in MPEP 2106.05(c) which indicates that the “”article” includes a physical object or substance. … For data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’" has not been deemed a transformation.” The merging of two data structures as recited is akin to basic mathematical constructs and does not constitute a particular transformation. Thus, 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 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims 2-14 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. Claim 15 recites a system and, therefore, is a machine. Claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and, therefore, is a manufacture.
Step 2A-Prong One
The claim recites the concept of merging multi-level marketing lines and allowing members to retain their lines following the merger (see storing member information in a database regarding memory, the member information stored in at least a first database having a first non-multiline data structure with a first set of lines corresponding to a first set of existing relationships between different levels of the first non-multiline data structure and a second database having a second non-multiline data structure with a second set of lines corresponding to a second set of existing relationships between different levels of the second non-multiline data structure; receiving data for at least one member associated with existing member information stored within at least one of the first non-multiline data structure or the second non-multiline data structure, the received data regarding at least a position of the at least one member within the respective non-multiline data structure and corresponding to a set of relationships of the at least one member; merging the first non-multiline data structure and the second non-multiline data structure to create a new merged multiline data structure that includes the member information of the at least one member, wherein the set of relationships of the at least one member is integrated into and maintained within the merged multiline data structure; storing data regarding the new merged multiline data structure in a multiline database; generating one or more product tree multiline data structures by rearranging the set of relationships of the at least one member in the new merged multiline data structure based on association to one or more products; and storing the product tree multiline data structures in one or more databases). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including commercial interactions and managing interactions between people. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea
The dependent claims further limit the above concept by allowing the data to be updated (claim 3), limiting the data that can be added (claim 4), assigning a threshold to govern the addition of data (claim 5), modifying the threshold (claims 6 and 7), setting criteria for the threshold (claim 8), evaluating the threshold (claim 9), identifying relationships (claim 10), updating data based on relationships (claim 11), enrolling members (claims 12 and 13), and applying rules for distribution (claim 14). These dependent claims further limit the claims but do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. All claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, the steps of merging the first non-multiline data structure and the second non-multiline data structure to create a new merged multiline data structure that includes the member information of the at least one member, wherein the set of relationships of the at least one member is integrated into and maintained within the merged multiline data structure and generating one or more product tree multiline data structures by rearranging the set of relationships of the at least one member in the new merged multiline data structure based on association to one or more products, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the mind. Thus, the claims also fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a memory, a first database, a second database, a multiline database, and one or more databases (claim 1), a first non-multiline database, a second non-multiline database, a merger module, a cloud computer, and a multiline database (claim 15) and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having embodied thereon a program executable by a processor, a first database, a second database, a multiline database, and one or more databases (claim 16) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622