DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on August 12, 2025. Amendments to claim 1 have been entered. Claims 1-10 are pending, of which claims 2-6 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected Species. Claims 1 and 7-10 have been examined. The statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art was already discussed in the Office action mailed on February 12, 2025 and hence not repeated here. The rejections and response to arguments are stated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for creating digital pathways between consumers and researchers which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the categories of Mathematical concepts such as Mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations and also Certain of methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice and commercial/legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Analysis
Step 1: In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations of “A computer-implemented method for creating digital pathways between consumers and researchers, the method comprising:
capturing data using a first operating system, wherein the first operating system includes a graphical user interface configured to receive inputs from one or more users of the graphical user interface the one or more users having first contact information;
adding the data to a relational database configured to perform database driven analytics on the data, wherein the relational database processes the data to analyze characteristics of the one or more users and stores measurement tools for creating behavioral models based on the data;
organizing the data into a table, wherein the table is configured to demonstrate different relationships between the data associated with the one or more users of the graphical user interface;
transferring the table to a second operating system, wherein the second operating system includes an analytical database containing research results related to one or more data points, the second operating system associated with researchers having second contact information;
analyzing the table within the analytical database by comparing the data in the table to at least one of the one or more data points;
constructing a hypothesis based on the comparison, the hypothesis being a consumer behavioral model configured to identify relationships between data points associated with the one or more users and to investigate correlated data patterns within the table using statistical factor analysis to extract underlying data relationships;
using the consumer behavioral model to automatically identify matching researchers from the analytical database whose research results correspond to the identified data relationships of the one or more users: and
providing the second contact information for the identified matching researchers to the one or more users via the graphical user interface of the first operating system and providing the first contact information for the one or more users to the identified matching researchers via the second operating system in order to implement the digital pathways” as drafted, when considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the categories of Mathematical concepts such as Mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations and also Certain methods of organizing human activity such as commercial/legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.
“Organizing the data into a table, wherein the table is configured to demonstrate different relationships between the data associated with the one or more users of the graphical user interface; transferring the table to a second operating system, wherein the second operating system includes an analytical database containing research results related to one or more data points, the second operating system associated with researchers having second contact information; analyzing the table within the analytical database by comparing the data in the table to at least one of the one or more data points; constructing a hypothesis based on the comparison, the hypothesis being a consumer behavioral model configured to identify relationships between data points associated with the one or more users and to investigate correlated data patterns within the table using statistical factor analysis to extract underlying data relationships; and using the consumer behavioral model to automatically identify matching researchers from the analytical database whose research results correspond to the identified data relationships of the one or more users” considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, covers the categories of Mathematical concepts such as Mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations.
“Using the consumer behavioral model to automatically identify matching researchers from the analytical database whose research results correspond to the identified data relationships of the one or more users: and providing the second contact information for the identified matching researchers to the one or more users via the graphical user interface of the first operating system and providing the first contact information for the one or more users to the identified matching researchers via the second operating system in order to implement the digital pathways” is a form of commercial/legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Disclosures in at least paragraphs [0002] - [0007] of the Specification make it clear that the claims recite at least the abstract idea of implementing marketing strategies for providers and consumers using data sciences. Also, creating an improved transfer of information and creation of data and information between end-users and decision makers is a form of marketing and fulfilling the needs of the parties concerned.
That is, other than, a first operating system (including a graphical user interface), a relational database, database driven analytics, behavioral models (including consumer behavioral model), and a second operating system (including an analytical database) nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a Mathematical concepts and a Method of organizing human activity. The additional elements in the claims are all interpreted to comprise generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers categories of Mathematical Concepts (such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations) and Certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical concepts“ and “Certain methods of organizing human activity” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of a first operating system (including a graphical user interface), a relational database, database driven analytics, behavioral models (including consumer behavioral model), and a second operating system (including an analytical database) a first operating system (including a graphical user interface), a relational database, behavioral models (including consumer behavioral model), and a second operating system (including an analytical database) to perform all the steps. The examiner has broadly interpreted the two operating systems to comprise a combination of generic hardware and software, both suitably programmed to perform the claim functions. The databases (relational database and the analytical database) are broadly interpreted to comprise generic databases suitably programmed to store the associated data. The database driven analytics, and behavioral models (including consumer behavioral model) are broadly interpreted to correspond to mathematical models and generic software elements suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The systems in all the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (identified above) to perform claimed the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 7-10, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
For instance in claim 7, the step “wherein at least one or more data points comprises risk data about the one or more users” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because it describes the data used in the analysis.
In claim 8, the step “further comprising analyzing the hypothesis to predict a conclusion associated with the comparison” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because it describes an intermediate step of the underlying process.
In claim 9, the steps “further comprising: transferring the conclusion from the analytical database to the relational database; and providing the conclusion via the graphical user interface to at least one of the one or more users of the graphical user interface” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because they describe they describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claim 10, the step “wherein the hypothesis predicts a conclusion based on a higher mass resulting from the comparison” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because it describes the final step of the underlying process.
In all the dependent claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
15. In response to Applicants arguments on pages 5-13 of the Applicant’s remarks that the claims are patent-eligible under 35 USC 101 when considered under MPEP 2106, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The fact that the claims are Patent-Ineligible when considered under the MPEP 2106 has already been addressed in the rejection and hence not all the details of the rejection are repeated here.
Response to Applicants’ arguments regarding Step 2A – Prong one:
The claim(s) recite(s) a method for creating digital pathways between consumers and researchers which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the categories of Mathematical concepts such as Mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations and also Certain of methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice and commercial/legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations as discussed in the rejection.
“Organizing the data into a table, wherein the table is configured to demonstrate different relationships between the data associated with the one or more users of the graphical user interface; transferring the table to a second operating system, wherein the second operating system includes an analytical database containing research results related to one or more data points, the second operating system associated with researchers having second contact information; analyzing the table within the analytical database by comparing the data in the table to at least one of the one or more data points; constructing a hypothesis based on the comparison, the hypothesis being a consumer behavioral model configured to identify relationships between data points associated with the one or more users and to investigate correlated data patterns within the table using statistical factor analysis to extract underlying data relationships; and using the consumer behavioral model to automatically identify matching researchers from the analytical database whose research results correspond to the identified data relationships of the one or more users” considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, covers the categories of Mathematical concepts such as Mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations.
“Using the consumer behavioral model to automatically identify matching researchers from the analytical database whose research results correspond to the identified data relationships of the one or more users: and providing the second contact information for the identified matching researchers to the one or more users via the graphical user interface of the first operating system and providing the first contact information for the one or more users to the identified matching researchers via the second operating system in order to implement the digital pathways” is a form of commercial/legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Disclosures in at least paragraphs [0002] - [0007] of the Specification make it clear that the claims recite at least the abstract idea of implementing marketing strategies for providers and consumers using data sciences. Also, creating an improved transfer of information and creation of data and information between end-users and decision makers is a form of marketing and fulfilling the needs of the parties concerned. Hence, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 of the response that “statistical factor analysis to extract underlying data relationships ….is rather the application of statistical techniques within a particular technological framework” is not persuasive because “statistical factor analysis to extract underlying data relationships and the application of statistical techniques” fall under the abstract category of Mathematical Concepts. “Using statistical analysis (to extract data relationships for behavioral modeling and matching), where it occurs (within the consumer behavioral model), and to enable automatic identification of matching researchers” is essentially applying the Mathematical Concepts in the context of the invention. The additional elements of dual operating systems, database analytics, behavioral modeling are used as tools in their ordinary capacity, to apply the abstract idea.
Response to Applicants’ arguments regarding Step 2A – Prong two:
According to MPEP 2106, limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e).
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The claim (exemplary claim 1) only recites the additional elements of a first operating system (including a graphical user interface), a relational database, database driven analytics, behavioral models (including consumer behavioral model), and a second operating system (including an analytical database) a first operating system (including a graphical user interface), a relational database, behavioral models (including consumer behavioral model), and a second operating system (including an analytical database) to perform all the steps. The examiner has broadly interpreted the two operating systems to comprise a combination of generic hardware and software, both suitably programmed to perform the claim functions. The databases (relational database and the analytical database) are broadly interpreted to comprise generic databases suitably programmed to store the associated data. The database driven analytics, and behavioral models (including consumer behavioral model) are broadly interpreted to correspond to mathematical models and generic software elements suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The systems in all the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The alleged advantages such as “actively processing user characteristics and storing measurement tools for behavioral modeling …. improving computer system functionality by enabling simultaneous comprehensive data capture and analytical processing …. using statistical factor analysis to improve data processing capabilities by automatically extracting underlying relationships that enable automated matching” are due to improvements in the abstract idea of a method for creating digital pathways between consumers and researchers. An improvement in abstract idea is still abstract (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 (“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea). The additional elements (identified in the rejection) are generic computer components used to apply the abstract idea. It does not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. Hence, Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Response to Applicants’ arguments regarding Step 2B:
As discussed in the rejection, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements (identified in the rejection) to perform the claimed steps, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
According to the MPEP 2106.04(d) appropriate forms of support that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity include one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
The additional elements in the claims are a first operating system (including a graphical user interface), a relational database, database driven analytics, behavioral models (including consumer behavioral model), and a second operating system (including an analytical database) a first operating system (including a graphical user interface), a relational database, behavioral models (including consumer behavioral model), and a second operating system (including an analytical database) to perform all the steps. The examiner has broadly interpreted the two operating systems to comprise a combination of generic hardware and software, both suitably programmed to perform the claim functions. The databases (relational database and the analytical database) are broadly interpreted to comprise generic databases suitably programmed to store the associated data. The database driven analytics, and behavioral models (including consumer behavioral model) are broadly interpreted to correspond to mathematical models and generic software elements suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. There is no indication in Applicants’ claims that any specialized hardware or other inventive computer components are required. The fact that a general purpose computing system, suitably programmed, may be used to perform the claimed method and the fact that the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or other components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces” but merely call for performance of the claimed functions “on a set of generic computer components, satisfies the MPEP 2106.04(d) requirement that the additional elements are conventional elements (as outlined in criterion 1 of the MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The Examiner does not see the parallel between the Applicant’s claims and those in BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and/or Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, 827 F.3d 1042, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, the Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive. In Summary, the computer system is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 USC § 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(a) Schall, Richard (WO 9927679 A2) discloses systems wherein structured information relating to similar objects is stored in data bank tables and non-structured, extensive information is stored separately in www pages. The tables are arranged in isolated trees in the table explorer in every work station. In order to reduce the m : n to 1 : n relation and to simplify data reception, content tables are created, from which data is transmitted to the user tables by means of transfer channels. Filtered new and modified data is systematically and automatically transmitted by the sender to the recipient. Instead of non-structured and extensive information, only references pertaining said information is transmitted. The invention makes it possible to develop new standard data banks for the Internet and PCs. This enables data exchange of structured information between computers thereby offering new possibilities for further Internet developments.
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Narayanswamy Subramanian whose telephone number is (571) 272-6751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax number for Formal or Official faxes and Draft to the Patent Office 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.
/Narayanswamy Subramanian/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
September 24, 2025