DETAILED ACTION
The following is a non-final office action upon examination of 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 21 have been amended.
Claims 1-7 and 21-26 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 21-26 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.
(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 …;
determining a modification to the one or more data of the plurality of data sources based on the selection;
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;
… re-executing the … model on only a sub-portion of the one or more data within the data repository based on the one or more data 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;
retrieving… the one or more insights, wherein the one or more insights include at least one of a correlation or trend between the selection of one or more data such that the one or more insights are updated based on one or more additional correlation between the selection of one or more data and the one or more insights; and
… displaying … 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 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, and 26 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, 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…; 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. 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…; 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, 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. 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 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 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims are similar to the claim 1 from Example 39.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that the present claims are different than the eligible claim in Example 39. The claim in Example 39 did not recite an abstract idea in the groupings of abstract ideas. In contrast, the present 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, commercial interactions and sales activities.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Additional elements such as an application interface displaying…; …data into a data repository from the client device at one or more servers…; 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. Further, reciting that certain steps are performed automatically… only adds computer implementation of an abstract step. 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.
Additionally, performing a calculation based on a smaller data set does not improve the computer or technology. The reduction of data prior to processing is, at best, an abstract improvement, but it does not improve the performance of the computer itself.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims include limitations that amount to significantly more.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Additional elements such as an application interface displaying…; …data into a data repository from the client device at one or more servers…; 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, 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. 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 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.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims are similar to the claim 1 from Example 40.
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. Although the present claims recite steps related to the use of a threshold and consequent collection of data, the present claims are not directed to an analogous technology and there is no improvement over prior systems.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims provide an improvement to the technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Performing a calculation on a smaller data set does not improve the computer or technology. The reduction of data prior to processing is, at best, an abstract improvement, but it does not improve the performance of the computer itself. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Additionally, the claims do not recite any features related to linked datasets as described in paragraph 56; therefore, the present claims do not provide the asserted improvements related to linked datasets.
Conclusion
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