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 .
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17/868,451, filed 07/19/2022, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seg. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed on 09/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 2 and 5-20 are pending in the instant patent application. Claims 2 and 19-20 are amended. Claims 1 and 3-4 are cancelled. This Final Office Action is in response to the claims filed.
Response to Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The rejections remain pending and are updated and addressed below in light of the amendments and per guidelines for 101 analysis (PEG 2019).
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections. Examiner has noted the incorporation of previously noted subject matter that was deemed distinguishable over the prior art, specifically Claim 4 has been added to Independent Claims 2, 19 and 20.
Applicant’s amendments though, have necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112d.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 5-12 are depending off of Claim 4. Claim 4 has been canceled. For the purpose of Examinations, Examiner interprets claims 5-12 to depend off Claim 2. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to 35 U.S.C. §101 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claim does not recite abstract ideas (Mental Processes), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, general purpose computer elements/structure, similar to the claimed invention, used to apply a judicial exception, by use of instruction implemented on a computer, has not been found by the courts to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind.
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.
Regarding Claims 2 and 5-18, they are directed to a method, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 2 and 5-18 are directed to the abstract idea of merging different user structures into a multiline user structure.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 2, claim 2 recites storing information, wherein the storing information includes regarding at least a first user structure with a first set of lines corresponding to existing relationships, and a second user structure with a second set of lines corresponding to existing relationships; receiving data for at least one member of the first user structure or the second user structure, wherein the data includes information regarding at least a position of the at least one member within the respective user structure and corresponding to a set of relationships of the at least one member, wherein the received data further includes a historical distribution of the least one member over one or more periods of time; merging the first user structure and the second user structure to create a new merged multiline user structure that includes 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 user structure; storing the merged multiline user structure, wherein the merged multiline user structure is updatable to add one or more additional lines corresponding to new relationships with the at least one member; creating simulated data based on a plurality of simulations run on the simulated data on a loop, wherein creating the simulated data includes generating a set of simulated distributions further based on a distribution rule retrieved; and applying to the simulated data to create a distribution plan for the new merged multiline user structure.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for each concept can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. Furthermore, the recitation of a learning algorithm does not take the claim out of the abstract idea grouping.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 5-18 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a first database, second database, third database, communication network, memory and applying a learning algorithm. The first database, second database, third database, communication network, memory and applying a learning algorithm are merely generic computing devices/functions and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a first database, second database, third database, communication network, memory, applying a learning algorithm and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0034-0051. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claim 2 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 19, it is directed to a system, however the claim is not directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claim 19 is directed to the abstract idea of merging different user structures into a multiline user structure.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 19, claim 19 recites a first user structure with a first set of lines corresponding to existing relationships; a second user structure with a second set of lines corresponding to existing relationships; receives data for at least one member of the first user structure or the second user structure, wherein the data includes information regarding at least a position of the at least one member within the respective user structure and corresponding to a set of relationships of the at least one member, wherein the received data further includes a historical distribution of the at least one member over one or more periods of time; merge the first user structure and the second user structure by: creating a new merged multiline user structure that includes at least one member, wherein the set of relationships of the at least one member is integrated into and maintained within the merged multiline user structure; stores the merged multiline user structure, and wherein the merged multiline user structure is updateable to add one or more additional lines corresponding to new relationships with the at least one member; and create simulated data based on a plurality of simulations run on the simulated data on a loop, wherein creating the simulated data includes generating a set of simulated distributions further based on a distribution rule retrieved, and applies to the simulated data to create a commission plan for the new merged multiline user structure.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for each concept can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. Furthermore, the recitation of a learning algorithm does not take the claim out of the abstract idea grouping.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a first database, a second database, a third database, a communication interface, a communication network, a merger module, a processor, a multiline database, memory, simulation module and applying a learning algorithm. The first database, a second database, a third database, a communication interface, a communication network, a merger module, a processor, a multiline database, memory, simulation module and applying a learning algorithm are merely generic computing devices/functions and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claim does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 19 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a first database, a second database, a third database, a communication interface, a communication network, a merger module, a processor, a multiline database, memory, simulation module applying a learning algorithm and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0034-0051. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claim 19 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 20, it is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, however the claim is not directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claim 20 is directed to the abstract idea of merging different user structures into a multiline user structure.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 20, claim 20 recites storing information regarding at least a first user structure with a first set of lines corresponding to existing relationships, and a second user structure with a second set of lines corresponding to existing relationships; receiving data for at least one member of the first user structure or the second user structure, wherein the data includes information regarding at least a position of the at least one member within the respective user structure and corresponding to a set of relationships of the at least one member, wherein the received data further includes a historical distribution of the at least one member over one or more periods of time; merging the first user structure and the second user structure to create a new merged multiline user structure that includes 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 user structure; storing the merged multiline user structure, wherein the merged multiline user structure is updatable to add one or more additional lines corresponding to new relationships with the at least one member; creating simulated data based on a plurality of simulations run on the simulated data on a loop, wherein creating the simulated data includes generating a set of simulated distributions further based on a distribution rule retrieved; and applying to the simulated data to create a distribution plan for the new merged multiline user structure.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for each concept can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. Furthermore, the recitation of a learning algorithm does not take the claim out of the abstract idea grouping.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a first database, a second database, a third database, a communication network, memory and applying a learning algorithm. The first database, a second database, a third database, a communication network, memory and applying a learning algorithm are merely generic computing devices/functions and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 20 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a first database, a second database, a third database, a communication network, memory, applying a learning algorithm and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0034-0051. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claim 20 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
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 TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5:30.
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, Rutao Wu 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.
/T.E.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623