DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on 05/22/2025.
Claims 1-12 have been amended.
Claim 13 has been canceled.
Claims 1-12, 14 and 15 are pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/22/2025 has been entered.
Remarks
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. In page 9, the applicant asserted that the “[subjective] weightings allow custom valuation logic without hardcoding rules, while also enabling an efficient pointer architecture that decouples data storage from verification (e.g., improves speed and memory bandwidth) and a key isolation technique . . . this technology improves functioning of computers and is particularly relevant for applications requiring audit trails (e.g. in financial or regulatory contexts) . . .”. Furthermore, the applicant referred to McRo and cited one of the considerations in determining whether a claim improves technology. The Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and those of McRo (McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., 2015-1080 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016)). In McRo the patents relate to “automating part of a preexisting 3-D animation method”, which were to be done manually before the issuance of the patent. The claims were directed to an asserted improvement in computer animation technology such as directed to a patentable technological improvement over the existing, manual 3D animation techniques. In other words, “the claims are limited to rules with specific characteristics” which allow for the improvement realized by the invention. Specifically at McRo *22, “As the specification confirms, the claimed improvement here is allowing computers to produce “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters” that previously could only be produced by human animators. ’576 patent col. 2 ll. 49–50.” Hence the claims in McRo were patent eligible because they recited significantly more than an abstract idea. However, the Applicants’ invention is a business solution to a problem rooted in an abstract idea as stated multiple times above. The claimed limitations and the claimed computing functionality does not incorporate a complex set of rules which allow the computer to be improved. In contrast, the claimed functions such as “assigning . . . second subset of digital data received via the user interface”, “receiving . . . a data source . . .”, “adjusting . . . the value of the first token . . . weighting via the user interface”, “generating . . . second pointer”, “generating . . . third pointer” . . . “verifying . . . the authenticity of the first digital key . . .”, “updating the user interface . . .” are conventional functions of a computer system. The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented.
Also, the Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant application and those of DDR Holdings. In DDR Holdings an improvement in web technology was used to address the problem of retaining web customers. DDR Holdings was solving a problem introduced by technology, such that it was a technological solution to a technological problem. Whereas the Applicants’ invention is a technological solution to a problem rooted in an abstract idea. The claims of the instant case employ a computer system comprising a storage device and a processor suitably programmed to perform the claimed functions. In light of the Alice decision and the updated MPEP the features such as “generation of "a validation report reflecting setting of the renewal deductible, the validation report tracking and reporting changes related to the renewal deductible" and a "dwelling application system" which "accesses the validation report"” are not considered an improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. These features recited in the claim are only further refinements of the abstract idea. That does not change the fact that the claim is drawn to abstract ideas. There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. As discussed earlier, the claimed steps of the method are all functions that are conventional for a computer system, which in the Applicant’s invention comprises a storage device and a processor. The claimed sequence of steps comprises only "steps, specified at a high level of generality," which is insufficient to supply an "inventive concept." Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297, 1300). Also the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). In Alice also the system was specifically programmed to perform the claimed functions.
In page 10, the applicant asserted that “[even] if the Examiner disagrees with various reasoning above, claims 1 and 7 are particularly integrated into the particular practical application . . .”. Under Prong Two, step 2A analysis, the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. They are 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 – see MPEP 2106.05(f).
And under Step 2B Considerations, the limitations are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). They are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Given the claim recites an abstract idea, and even assuming arguendo, that the claim does not recite an abstract idea, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application under both Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B Prong Two analysis. Therefore, the claim is not paten eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
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.
Claim 1-12, 14-15 are directed to a method, a system which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1-12, 14-15 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. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 7 recite, in part, A method, comprising: receiving, via a server processor, a communication issued via a user interface through a browser program, wherein the user interface is in a first state at a first date and time as the communication is issued; assigning, via the server processor, responsive to the communication being received, a value to a first token comprising a first digital data at the first date and time, wherein the first digital data comprises a first subset of digital data and a second subset of digital data, and wherein the value is determined in response to a first subjective weighting of the first subset of digital data received in the communication via the user interface and a second subjective weighting of the second subset of digital data received in the communication via the user interface; receiving, via the server processor, an input from a data source located at a remote cloud computer network at or near the first date and time; adjusting, via the server processor, the value of the first token responsive to a modification of at least one of the first subjective weighting or the second subjective weighting via the user interface; generating, via the server processor, a first pointer in a server memory, responsive to a storage of a first record in a first record location of a database remote from the server processor and a storage of a second record in a second record location of the database, wherein the first pointer identifies the first record location and correlates the first record location in the database to the second record location in the database; generating, via the server processor, a second pointer, responsive to a storage of a third record in a third record location of the database, wherein the second pointer correlates the first record location in the database to the third record location in the database; generating, via the server processor, a third pointer, responsive to a storage of a fourth record in a fourth record location of the database, wherein the third pointer correlates the first record location in the database to the fourth record location in the database; generating, via the server processor, a first digital key responsive to the generation of generating the first pointer, the second pointer, and the third pointer, wherein the first digital Key comprising a second digital data formed from the first digital data, a first date and time identifier associated with the first state, and the data source input, wherein the first digital key is generated using a hashing function, wherein the first digital key is isolated from the first digital data, such that a digital transfer or a digital ownership of the first digital key does not affect the value as adjusted; storing, via the server processor, a copy of the second digital data in the first record location in the database, such that the copy of the second digital data is retrievable from the first record location in the database together with a copy of the first digital data, the first date and time identifier, and the input responsive to the first pointer, the second pointer and the third pointer being generated; storing, via the server processor, a copy of the first digital data in the second record location in the database; storing, via the server processor, the first date and time identifier in the third record location in the database; storing, via the server processor, the input in the fourth record location in the database; verifying, via the server processor, an authenticity of the first digital key using the copy of the second digital data, the copy of the first digital data, the first date and time identifier, and the input by (i) running a hash on the copy of the first digital data, the first date and time identifier, and the input and (ii) comparing the hash to the first digital key as hashed; and causing, via the server processor, the user interface to be updated to indicate a second state upon a completion of verifying the authenticity. The limitations are directed to concept of business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, they fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as server processor, a database, a user interface, a microprocessor, a memory at a high-level of generality (assigning, generating, storing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1, 7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least a computing device to perform receiving and identifying data are merely additional elements performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Additionally, the limitation of transmitting information over network is recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) see MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) additional elements such as locating a second digital data. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a server processor, a system, a microprocessor) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 3, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) additional elements such as digital key(s), dates and time, databases, record location(s) that describe method of assigning and adjusting values. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a server processor, a system, a microprocessor) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) using third pointer to locate second digital data. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a system, a microprocessor) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 4, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) assigning adjusted value based on certain data. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a server processor, a system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 5, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) assigning adjusted value based on type of data. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a server processor, a system, a microprocessor) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) classifying and detailing type of data. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a server processor) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) locating the data location. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as databases) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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, Mike W. Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693