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 AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Non-Final office action in response to RCE filed on 05/11/2026. Claims 1, 11 and 19 have been amended. Claims 2-6, 8-9, 12-15 and 17 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 1, 7, 10-11, 16 and 18-20 are currently pending and have been addressed below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1, 11 and 19 to overcome the 112(a) rejections. Therefore, Examiner withdraws the 112(a) rejections.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 appears to have a copy and paste error. Beginning at the bottom of page 3 of claim 1 with limitation reciting: “tracking one or more activities ...” and ending on page 5 of claim 1 appears the claim limitations are accidently copied and pasted. Therefore, Examiner is interpreting claim 1 as intended to be written as independent claims 11 and 19. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 appears intended to be written as claims 11 and 19, however, claim 1 has a copy and paste error. The apparent copy and paste error in claim 1 is replete with insufficient antecedent basis.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the parent claims and thus dependent claims are rejected on the same basis as indicated above for the respective parent claims.
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, 7, 10-11, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without a practical application and significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). In the instant case, claims 1, 7 and 10 are directed to a method (i.e. a process). Claims 11, 16 and 18 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine). Claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium (i.e. an article of manufacture). Thus, each of these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas
Claims 1, 7, 10-11, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Independent claim 11, analogous to independent claims 1 and 19 recites: A system comprising: receiving one or more first data representing one or more enrollment criteria from a particular school; generating, based on the one or more first data that identifies whether the one or more enrollment criteria are satisfied; reading second data representing school searchers registered, wherein the second data represent attributes of the school searchers and the store values of the attributes; identify the values of the attributes; identifying, from school searchers registered, a subset of second data representing a set of school searchers meeting the one or more enrollment criteria of the particular school; tracking one or more activities of the set of school searchers, wherein tracking activities of the set of school searchers comprises causing: tracking the one or more activities of at least one of the school searchers; identifying, a subset of school searchers from the set of school searchers, wherein the subset of school searchersincluding a school searcher, a conditional admission offer, a conditional admission date, and a conditional scholarship.
The limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under at least the abstract groupings of:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). As independent claims discuss enrollment criteria from a school; identifying whether the one or more enrollment criteria are satisfied; attributes of school searchers, a set of school searchers meeting the one or more enrollment criteria of the school from the school searchers registered; tracking the one or more activities of at least one of the school searchers, and generating information related to a conditional admission offer and a conditional scholarship offer for the school searchers, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent claims add additional limitations, for example: (claim 7) sending one or more notifications reminding the one or more conditionally admitted school searchers of one or more actions to be taken associated with enrollment in the particular school; (claim 10) receiving a school report including enrollment data of the particular school; identifying school searchers enrolled in the particular school based on the school report; and excluding the school searchers enrolled in the particular school from receiving a new conditional admission offer from other schools; (claim 16) sending one or more notifications reminding one or more conditionally admitted school searchers of one or more actions to be taken associated with enrollment in the particular school; (claim 18) outputting the one or more visual indicators of canceling the conditional admission offer of one or more school searchers based on no interest expressed from the one or more school searchers among the subset of school searchers; (claim 20) receiving a school report including enrollment data of the particular school; identifying school searchers enrolled in the particular school based on the school report; and excluding the school searchers enrolled in the particular school from receiving a new conditional admission offer from other schools, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements – (claims 1, 11 and 19) a data processing system, a web platform, data structures, executable logic, a hardware storage device, a parser, fields of data structures, a display device, a graphical user interface, link(s), client device(s), URL, tracking pixel, computing device, web page, code, secure file transfer protocol (SFTP), ciphertext, encrypted data, an SFTP server; (claim 19) a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, as it adds 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). The limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
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 discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, claims 1, 7, 10-11, 16 and 18-20 have been fully analyzed to determine whether there are additional limitations recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations fail to include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to an abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Additional Prior Art Consulted
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure includes the following:
McCrory et al. US 2014/0279644 A1 - A method of matching applicants, such as high school students seeking college admissions, to institutions, such as colleges, includes the creation of applicant profiles for the various applicants and institutional profiles for the various institutions. The profiles can incorporate psychometric, psychographic, demographic, and/or biographical attributes. The attributes of institutions can be matched to those of applicants, thus providing colleges with improved data useful in admissions decisions, as well as providing students with improved data useful in making college application decisions. Social media functionality can also be included.
Applicant is advised to review additional references supplied on the PTO-892 as to the state of the art of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.5.C. § 101 rejections: Examiner has updated the 101 rejections in light of the most recent claim amendments. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the computing elements are additional elements to perform the steps and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Examiner fails to see how the generic recitations of these most basic computer components and/or of a system so integrates the judicial exception as to “impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. Thus, Examiner finds that the claims recite the judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activity and are not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to the tracking pixel, as an initial matter, the tracking pixel is merely described once in Applicant’s specification in para 0052, and is described in its ordinary and expected capacity. Further, the claims are not rooted in web tracking technologies, and the claims do not solve a technical problem that only arises in tracking technology. MPEP § 2106.05(a). The generically implemented tracking pixel being referred to does nothing more than generally link the abstract idea to the technological environment and/or merely apply a generic tracking technology, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or significantly more.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks: “Claim 1 further addresses the technical problem of data interoperability and security between disparate systems by providing for the generation and execution of the specifically claimed computer program with a claim sequence of operations. The claimed sequence, storing information in plain text, encrypting it via an SFTP client into ciphertext, and then automatically mapping that data into a specific CRM database schema, represents a specialized data transformation...” Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to SFTP (secure file transfer protocol), the claims are not rooted in SFTP or encryption technology, and the claims do not solve a technical problem that only arises in encryption technology. MPEP § 2106.05(a). Applicant’s own specification merely describes SFTP in its known and expected capacity. See Applicant’s specification, para 0057, recites: “In some implementations, the platform can send information related to the conditional admission offer and the optional scholarship offer to the school through a secure file transfer protocol (SFTP). SFTP is a network protocol for securely accessing, transferring, and managing files and sensitive data.” Examiner notes this simply describes what the technology is. Examiner further notes, SFTP (Secure File Transfer Protocol) is a highly common and widely used encryption technology. The generically implemented SFTP technology being referred to does nothing more than generally link the abstract idea to the technological environment and/or merely applying generic SFTP and encryption technology, which are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or significantly more.
With respect to Applicants remarks (page 14) “Claim 1 does not preempt the general concept of student admissions...”. Examiner notes that pre-emption is not the proper standard for determining eligibility. “While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B).” MPEP 2106.04(I). Further, Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Each step does no more than require a generic
computer to perform generic computer functions. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. In addition, the claims do not affect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The specification spells out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using the concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access. Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer(s). Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections. Applicant amended representative independent claim 11 to recite: “A system comprising: at least one processor associated with a web platform; and a memory storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: receiving one or more first data structures representing one or more enrollment criteria from a particular school; generating, based on the one or more first data structures, an executable logic that identifies whether the one or more enrollment criteria are satisfied; reading, from a hardware storage device, second data structures representing school searchers registered on the web platform, wherein the second data structures are structured with fields, wherein the fields represent attributes of the school searchers and the fields store values of the attributes; parsing the fields of the second data structures to identify the values of the attributes; executing the executable logic against the identified values of the attributes; based on the executing, identifying, from school searchers registered on the web platform, a subset of second data structures representing a set of school searchers meeting the one or more enrollment criteria of the particular school; tracking one or more activities of the set of school searchers performed on the web platform using a tracking pixel, the tracking pixel comprising a graphic having a pixel loaded via a snippet of code incorporated into a web page's hypertext markup language (HTML) code wherein tracking activities of the set of school searchers comprises causing: accessing a link to a uniform resource locator (URL) of the tracking pixel when a computing device of at least one of the set of school searchers accesses the web page that comprises the HTML code including the link, wherein the web page is associated with the particular school, wherein the URL is a memory location associated with the web platform; loading the tracking pixel by accessing the link to the URL; and tracking the one or more activities of at least one of the school searchers using the loaded tracking pixel; identifying, using the loaded tracking pixel, a subset of school searchers from the set of school searchers, wherein the subset of school searchers add the particular school to a school list or favorites;generating information related to a conditional admission offer and a conditional scholarship offer for the identified subset of school searchers; transmitting, to one or more client devices associated with the identified subset of school searchers, one or more electronic messages including the generated information; storing the generated information in a plain text format; encrypting, by a secure file transfer protocol (SFTP) client, the generated information stored in the plain text format into encrypted data in a ciphertext format; transferring the encrypted data to an SFTP server associated with the particular school; decrypting, by the SFTP server, the encrypted data into the generated information in the plain text format; and incorporating, at the particular school, the generated information into a customer relationship management (CRM) system by automatically mapping the plain text format data into a database schema comprising one or more fields including a school searcher identifier, a conditional admission offer field, a conditional admission date field, and a conditional scholarship field.” The closest prior art CAINES et al. (US 2017/0140488 A1), teaches an integrated system and method that allows bi-directional information and communication exchange between a plurality of past, prospective and current students, and a plurality of community colleges, colleges and universities. Prior art O’Malley (US 2019/0392355 A1), teaches (see at least para 0205), tracking cookies (Examiner notes tracking cookies are data files that follow users across multiple websites to collect information about a user’s web usage for targeted advertising.) See at least O’Malley, para 0273, 0357, 0957 and para 0583, teaches The “Online Advertisements” content option allows Accounts to target and track participants through online advertisements that can be targeted to appear to a particular person using a particular webpage, mobile device, and/or a particular type of person, based upon known information from previous interactions, web usage, and the like. These Advertisements can, among other options, contain a call to action to a particular URL to a specific user. Yet, the prior art does not teach “tracking one or more activities of the set of school searchers performed on the web platform using a tracking pixel, the tracking pixel comprising a graphic having a pixel loaded via a snippet of code incorporated into a web page's hypertext markup language (HTML) code wherein tracking activities of the set of school searchers comprises causing: accessing a link to a uniform resource locator (URL) of the tracking pixel when a computing device of at least one of the set of school searchers accesses the web page that comprises the HTML code including the link, wherein the web page is associated with the particular school, wherein the URL is a memory location associated with the web platform; loading the tracking pixel by accessing the link to the URL; and tracking the one or more activities of at least one of the school searchers using the loaded tracking pixel; identifying, using the loaded tracking pixel, a subset of school searchers from the set of school searchers, wherein the subset of school searchers add the particular school to a school list or favorites;generating information related to a conditional admission offer and a conditional scholarship offer for the identified subset of school searchers; transmitting, to one or more client devices associated with the identified subset of school searchers, one or more electronic messages including the generated information; storing the generated information in a plain text format; encrypting, by a secure file transfer protocol (SFTP) client, the generated information stored in the plain text format into encrypted data in a ciphertext format; transferring the encrypted data to an SFTP server associated with the particular school; decrypting, by the SFTP server, the encrypted data into the generated information in the plain text format; and incorporating, at the particular school, the generated information into a customer relationship management (CRM) system by automatically mapping the plain text format data into a database schema comprising one or more fields including a school searcher identifier, a conditional admission offer field, a conditional admission date field, and a conditional scholarship field”. After consideration of Applicants arguments and conducting an updated prior art and non-patent literature (NPL) search, the examiner has yet to find applicable references for these limitations. Thus, prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA R NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571) 272-6782. 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.
/R.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights