DETAILED ACTION
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of the application number 18/162510.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 21 have been amended.
Claims 27-33 are new.
Claims 1-7 and 21-33 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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 and 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
(Step 1) Claims 1-7 are directed to a method; thus these claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Claims 21-26 are directed to a system comprising a processor; thus the system comprises a device or set of devices, and therefore, is directed to a machine which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 27-33 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium, which is a manufacture, and this a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A) The claims recite an abstract idea instructing how to monitor data sources for updates and providing insights, which is described by claim limitations reciting:
determining an interaction with an … interface displaying a plurality of visualizations of a plurality of data sources;
determining a selection of one or more data of the plurality of data sources, wherein the selection is based on the interaction with the … interface …;
aggregating, by one or more … models, the one or more data into a data repository…,
analyzing … the selection of one or more data to determine updates to each of the selection of one or more data of the plurality of data sources exceeding one or more thresholds;
linking … datasets of the plurality of data sources having common dimensions based on the selection of the one or more data;
importing … the linked datasets and additional linked datasets having common dimensions based on the selection of the one or more data, wherein the linked datasets and additional linked datasets are imported into the data repository;
retrieving … the linked datasets, the additional linked datasets, and the selection of one or more data exceeding the one or more thresholds from the data repository;
… re-executing the … model on at least one of a sub-portion of the one or more data, the linked datasets, or the additional linked datasets within the data repository based on the one or more data, the linked data sets, and the additional linked data sets exceeding the one or more thresholds;
generating … one or more insights based on one or more patterns identified by the one or more … models, wherein the one or more patterns exceed the one or more thresholds associated with the plurality of data sources corresponding to the sub-portion of the one or more data, the linked datasets, and the additional linked datasets; and
… displaying … one or more visualizations including at least one of the sub-portion of the one more data of the data repository including the one or more insights based on the sub-portion of the one more data exceeding the one or more thresholds, the linked datasets, or the additional linked datasets.
The identified recited limitations in the claims describing monitoring data sources for updates and providing insights (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices. Dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, and 32 recite limitations that describe/further narrow the abstract idea (i.e., monitoring data sources for updates and providing insights); therefore, these claims are also found to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements such as the client device and one or more servers in claim 1; the memory storing instructions; and processor operatively connected to the memory and configured to execute instructions, client device, and one or more servers in claim 21; and the non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions in claim 27, do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea since these elements are only broadly applied to the abstract ideas at a high level of generality; thus, none of recited hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, in this case, implementation via a processor. Similarly, reciting that certain steps are performed automatically… only adds computer implementation of an abstract step.
Additional elements such as an application interface displaying…; …data into a data repository from the client device at one or more servers…; importing, by the one or more trained machine learning models … into the data repository; retrieving, by the one or more trained machine learning models, … from the data repository; and automatically displaying at the client device…, do not yield an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they yield improvements to a technical field or technology; further these additional elements only add insignificant extra-solution activities (data display/storage/retrieval). Additional elements reciting one or more trained machine learning models…; and automatically re-executing the trained machine learning model… do no yield and improvement; these limitations are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additional elements related to interaction with the application interface at a client device via an application programming interface (API) do not provide and improvement and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Similarly, limitations in claims 2, 7, and 22, related to displaying an icon and displaying data in an email, text message or application, add additional elements that do not yield an improvement and only add insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) The claims 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 of the abstract idea into a practical application, the hardware additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see Spec. [0103]). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additional elements such as an application interface displaying…; …data into a data repository from the client device at one or more servers…; importing, by the one or more trained machine learning models … into the data repository; retrieving, by the one or more trained machine learning models, … from the data repository; and automatically displaying at the client device…, do not yield an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they yield improvements to a technical field or technology; further these additional elements only add insignificant extra-solution activities (data display/data storage). Additional elements reciting one or more trained machine learning models…; and automatically re-executing the trained machine learning model… do no yield and improvement and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Additional elements related to interaction with the application interface at a client device via an application programming interface (API) do not provide and improvement and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Limitations in claims 2, 7, 22, 28, and 33 related to displaying an icon and displaying data in an email, text message or application, add additional elements that do not yield an improvement and only add insignificant extra-solution activity. With respect to data display limitations, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). With respect to data storage and retrieval limitations, the courts have found that storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues the claims are not recite a judicial exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains that limitations describing monitoring data sources for updates and providing insights (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices. The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. The term "fundamental" is not used in the sense of necessarily being "old" or "well-known." See, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1092 (Fed Cir. 2015) (a new method of price optimization was found to be a fundamental economic concept); In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (describing a new set of rules for conducting a wagering game as a "fundamental economic practice"); In re Greenstein, 774 Fed. Appx. 661, 664, 2019 USPQ2d 212400 (Fed Cir. 2019) (non-precedential) (claims to a new method of allocating returns to different investors in an investment fund was a fundamental economic concept). As described in the present Specification, the monitored data and insights are related to sales/commerce ([0059][0082][0092]).
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the specification discloses concrete technical improvements and the claims reflect the disclosed improvement.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of computers to speed up a process of tracking data points from a plurality of data sources does not amount to an improvement to a technical field or to the computer. In FairWarning, the court found that accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, reciting that certain steps are performed automatically… only ads computer implementation of an abstract step and does not provide an improvement. In Credit Acceptance Corp, the court found that mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase did not provide an improvement in computer-functionality, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the ordered combination of steps achieve the technical improvement of reducing processing time and resource use in information monitoring systems.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. When taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The use of computers to speed up a process of tracking data points from a plurality of data sources does not amount to an improvement to a technical field or to the computer. In FairWarning, the court found that accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argue that the claims are analogous to eligible examples.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims are not analogous to the claim in Example 40, which as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data. Specifically, the method in Example 40, limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. The claim in Example 40 was directed to monitoring computer network traffic and specifically avoided excess traffic on the network by limiting the generation and export of NetFlow records. Although the present claims are related to the monitoring of datasets based on thresholds, there is no analogous improvement in the collection of data. The use of computers to speed up a process of tracking data points from a plurality of data sources does not amount to an improvement to a technical field or to the computer.
Examiner finds that the present claims are different than those in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com because the claims in DDR Holdings improved the performance of the computer itself as it modified the way networks operated. There is no analogous improvement to the functioning of the computer itself in the present rejected claims; performing certain steps automatically does not provide an improvement. The court in DDR Holdings found that the claim had additional elements that amounted to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they modified conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, which differed from the conventional operation of Internet hyperlink protocol that transported the user away from the host’s webpage to the third party’s webpage when the hyperlink was activated; the additional elements in the present claims do not provide analogous modification to conventional practices in a technology. Additionally, accelerating a process does not show an improvement in computer-functionality when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0092602 (Liu) – describes a system that generates a dashboard based on a data feed from multiple sources.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights