DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 6/20/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 10 and 19 have been amended.
Claim 1-27 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejection previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101. As such, said rejection is herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
With the amendment of claims 1, 10 and 19, applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection. Clark-Joseph and Shanafelt do not teach “a graphical user interface, "receiving at least one user input to the graphical user interface for modifying at least one of the analyzed data...", "automatically generating an updated version of the compiled batch report,” etc.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0003]) that review and analysis of batch production records is needed as part of drug development. So a need exists to organize these human interactions through automated data analysis and reporting of pharmaceutical batch production records using the steps of “extracting data, receiving commands, performing statistical analyses, generating and storing figures and tables, identifying discussion boxes, compiling batch requests, saving reports, displaying user interfaces, receiving user inputs, generating updates,” etc. Applicant’s method is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “automated data analysis and reporting of pharmaceutical batch production records,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0002]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. 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 conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-27 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, method for performing the steps of “extracting data, receiving commands, performing statistical analyses, generating and storing figures and tables, identifying discussion boxes, compiling batch requests, saving reports, displaying user interfaces, receiving user inputs, generating updates,” etc., that is “automated data analysis and reporting of pharmaceutical batch production records,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1-27 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. processors, input devices, communication devices, output devices, memory storage (Applicant’s Specification [0103]-[0105], [0109]-[0114]), etc.) to perform steps of “extracting data, receiving commands, performing statistical analyses, generating and storing figures and tables, identifying discussion boxes, compiling batch requests, saving reports, displaying user interfaces, receiving user inputs, generating updates,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1-27 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e. processors, input devices, communication devices, output devices, memory storage, etc.) are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept (Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. processors, input devices, communication devices, output devices, memory storage, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0103]-[0105], [0109]-[0114], Applicant’s specification describes generic computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “processors, input devices, communication devices, output devices, memory storage,” etc. to perform the functions of “extracting data, receiving commands, performing statistical analyses, generating and storing figures and tables, identifying discussion boxes, compiling batch requests, saving reports, displaying user interfaces, receiving user inputs, generating updates,” etc. The recited “processors, input devices, communication devices, output devices, memory storage,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the 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, or improves a technical field, or provides a technical improvement to a technical problem. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1-27 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11-18 and 20-27 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20-27 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20-27 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim(s) 1, 10 and 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/20/2025 with respect to claims 1-27 have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 6/20/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/20/2025 with respect to claims 1-27 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) Clark-Joseph and Shanafelt do not render obvious the present invention because Clark-Joseph and Shanafelt do not disclose “a graphical user interface, "receiving at least one user input to the graphical user interface for modifying at least one of the analyzed data...", "automatically generating an updated version of the compiled batch report,” etc. in the previously presented and/or presently amended claims, (B) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
103 Responses
In response to Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s arguments with regard to the application of Clark-Joseph and Shanafelt to the amended limitations have been found persuasive. Clark-Joseph and Shanafelt do not teach “a graphical user interface, "receiving at least one user input to the graphical user interface for modifying at least one of the analyzed data...", "automatically generating an updated version of the compiled batch report.” Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (B), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant amended claims recite “displaying a graphical user interface,” “receiving at least one user input to the graphical user interface for modifying at least one of the analyzed data…,” and “in response to the at least one user input, automatically generating an updated version of the compiled batch report.” These are information processing steps that is part of Applicant’s abstract idea and does not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Core Wireless
Further, the claims in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. provide a technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology (i.e. an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens). The claims were found to be directed to a non-abstract improvement in user interfaces for electronic devices with small screens. Simply adding a generic computing device that performs routine and conventional functions or presenting abstract claims that are directed to generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity (i.e. extracting data, receiving commands, performing statistical analyses, generating and storing figures and tables, identifying discussion boxes, compiling batch requests, saving reports, displaying user interfaces, receiving user inputs, generating updates, etc.) is not equivalent or similar to addressing a user interfaces for electronic devices with small screens challenge as is the case in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. While the claims are directed to a process that is performed on a computer, they are not directed to a user interface for electronic devices with small screens challenge. In fact, the claims are not directed to user interfaces for electronic devices with small screens at all or functions that are particular to user interfaces for electronic devices with small screens as is the case in the claims of Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. Therefore, because the claims fail to provide a technical solution to any user interface for electronic devices with small screens challenges, the ordered combination of limitations do not amount to significantly more than a method of managing interactions between people and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. As explained above, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Further, as explained above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements – Advantageous over previous methods
The test for patent-eligible subject matter is not whether the claims are advantageous over previous methods. Even if Applicant’s claims provide advantages over manual collection of data, Applicant’s claims no technological improvement beyond improvement beyond the use of generic computer components/a generic computer network. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements
Despite recitation of processors, input devices, communication devices, output devices, memory storage, Applicant’s claims are, at bottom, directed to the collection, organization, grouping and storage of data using techniques such as information processing. The processors, input devices, communication devices, output devices, memory storage recited in Applicant’s claims are merely tools used for organizing human activity, and are not an improvement to computer technology. This, the claims do not present any specific improvement in computer capabilities. Applicant’s arguments are nothing more than conclusory statements unmoored from specific claim language. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant claims the improvement of “improved user interface that improves computer functionality,” etc. It has been held that it is not enough to merely improve a fundamental practices or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool (Affinity Labs. of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation). In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), it was held that “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible. In SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC it was held that patent directed to “selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying results,” are ineligible, and claims focused on an improvement in wholly abstract ideas are ineligible. Further, invocation of “already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be in advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional” (SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Abstract Idea Cannot Supply the Inventive Concept
Applicant’s reliance on “improved user interface that improves computer functionality,” etc. is misplaced because “the abstract idea itself cannot supply the invention concept, no matter how groundbreaking the advance” (Trading Technologies International, Inc. v IBG LLC). Thus, the claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Significantly More
Further, the Examiner is not persuaded that “extracting data, receiving commands, performing statistical analyses, generating and storing figures and tables, identifying discussion boxes, compiling batch requests, saving reports, displaying user interfaces, receiving user inputs, generating updates,” etc. constitutes significantly more than the abstract idea. “[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.” Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355. Moreover, the claims “do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions…by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept.” Id. at 1356. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer processor to perform generic computer functions. See Applicant’s specification at paragraph(s) [0103]-[0105], [0109]-[0114] describing generic computer components (i.e. “processors, input devices, communication devices, output devices, memory storage”, etc.). And considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s system/method/ computer readable medium add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. For example, “extracting data, receiving commands, performing statistical analyses, generating and storing figures and tables, identifying discussion boxes, compiling batch requests, saving reports, displaying user interfaces, receiving user inputs, generating updates,” etc. is/are purely conventional in computer systems and its use in the claim both individually and in the ordered combination fails to transform the nature of the claim. Each step of the claimed system/method/computer readable medium does no more than require a generic computer to form a generic computer function. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) for 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 for 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 extension free 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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, ROBERT W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683