DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 2/17/2026. Claim 17 has been canceled. Claims 1, 10, 20, and 97-98 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-16, 18-20, and 97-98 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
2. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-16, 18-20, and 97-98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 20:
The applicant’s disclosure fails to comply with the written description requirement, which demands that an applicant’s specification “describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the invention had possession of the claimed invention.” In cases involving computer-implemented functional claims, examiners are instructed to “determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed functions in sufficient detail….”
The MPEP explains that “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.”
The Applicant indicates support for amendments can be found in the Specification [¶ 0045, 0050-0051, 0066, 0068, 0075, 0086, 0094]
The claims now recite: “real-time synchronization”. The original specification filed 02/10/2023 does not mention real-time synchronization and fails to describe or explain use of real-time synchronization in sufficient detail. The written description requirement mandates the specification adequately describes the features of the claimed invention and applicant’s approach to how the claimed steps are performed. Since the original specification fails to clearly outline the features or steps, the support for the amendments to the claim encompasses new matter and is being rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-16, 18-20, and 97-98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claim 1 recites a process (i.e., an act or step, or a series of acts or steps), claim 20 recites a machine (i.e., a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
5. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 20 recite:
“identify…that maintains partner availability data…,one or more interaction events during which partners of a clinical enterprise will present information related to the clinical enterprise, wherein the clinical enterprise is a manufacturer of dental appliances that distributes the dental appliances through a network of dentists that facilitate provisioning of the dental appliances to patients”, “identify…a partner of the clinical enterprise recommended to present the information related to the clinical enterprise, wherein identifying the partner comprises: determining a plurality of constraints for the one or more interaction events, the plurality of constraints comprising a geographic location of the one or more interaction events, a temporal schedule of the one or more interaction events, a role necessary to present at the one or more interaction events, an experience level necessary to present at the one or more interaction events, and a language necessary to present at the one or more interaction events;”, “algorithmically filtering out against partners of the clinical enterprise that fail to satisfy the plurality of constraints to generate a ranked list of candidate partners;”, and “determining that the partner satisfies the a plurality of constraints based on the ranked list of candidate partners;”, “provide access for managing participation of the partner in association with an interaction event of the one or more interaction events;”, “receive, from the partner, the information related to the clinical enterprise that the partner is engaged to present during the interaction event;” and “facilitate approval of the information by the clinical enterprise before the interaction event, wherein facilitating the approval of the information comprises: determining a plurality of departments of the clinical enterprise whose approval is required; sending the information to the a plurality of departments for approval; generating a notification to each of the plurality of departments whenever the information is received, the notification indicating which other departments of the plurality of departments have approved the information and which other departments of the plurality of departments have not approved the information; receiving feedback from the a plurality of departments about the information; facilitating collaborative transfer of the information between the plurality of departments, wherein the collaborative transfer includes transferring department-specific data related to the approval of the information between the plurality of departments; determining whether the information is approved by each of the a plurality of departments; and responsive to determining that the information is approved by each of the a plurality of departments, authorizing presentation of the information at the interaction event.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations recite an abstract idea of managing event planning and coordinating activities for a partner which encompasses concepts such as a commercial interactions, (i.e., marketing or sales activities, business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (i.e., social activities), that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04
The Applicant’s Specification in at least [¶0002-0004] emphasizes the present technology pertains to customer event and engagement management based on customer relationship management, and in particular, to managing and coordinating events for an enterprise and customers based on customer relationship management.
Consistent with the disclosure, the limitations that recite “identifying”, “determining”, “algorithmically filtering”, “providing”, “receiving”, “facilitating”, “sending”, “generating”, “authorizing” in the context of the claim involve identifying an interaction event for a partner (such as from a manufacturer of dental appliances) to participate as a speaker and approving the presentation information that may be used by the partner by different departments before the partner is authorized to use the presentation information at the interaction event which cover tasks employees working for an enterprise may perform when attempting to schedule the partner to for participation the interaction event. Also, limitation of “receiving” in the context of the claim is a step a user performs (such as the partner) to provide presentation information for approval. Thus, the limitations can be reasonably characterized as concepts related to commercial interactions (such as marketing or sales activities, business relations), and managing personal behavior or interactions between people (such as steps a user may follow). As such, the claim recites an abstract idea.
6. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a computer-implemented method comprising”, “across a cloud environment”, “a partner management database”, “a system”, “one or more processors”, “at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to”, “from the partner management database”, – see claims 1 and 20 are recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification. Thus, because the specification describes the additional elements in general terms without describing the particulars the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting generic computer components performing conventional computer functions in light of the applicant’s specification. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claim add the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer processor as a tool to perform the abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The additional elements of: “maintaining…partner availability data” adds insignificant extra-solution, i.e., data gathering/storage, to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements of: “real-time synchronization” and “synchronized” is/are simply an attempt to limit the limitations recited in the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use but do not add anything meaningful to the claim, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
7. 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 of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a computer-implemented method comprising”, “across a cloud environment”, “a partner management database”, “a system”, “one or more processors”, “at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to”, “from the partner management database”, – see claims 1 and 20 at best amounts to nothing more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept.
The other additional element of “maintaining…partner availability data” was considered as insignificant extra solution activity, and must be re-evaluated at Step 2B to determine whether the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and/or conventional.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) cites the Alice, Ultramercial, Versata, and OIP Techs court decisions which indicated “electronic recordkeeping” and “storing and retrieving information in memory” is/are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, the limitations that recite the abstract idea and the combination of additional elements do provide an inventive concept.
8. Claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-16, 18-19, 97-98 are dependent of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the access for managing participation of the partner in association with the interaction event is provided by the clinical enterprise” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 3 recites “wherein the access for managing participation of the partner in association with the interaction event is provided by an entity that is distinct from the clinical enterprise.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 4 recites “wherein the partner is one of a contracted speaker of the clinical enterprise, a faculty member of the clinical enterprise, an expert in a field associated with the clinical enterprise, or a customer of the clinical enterprise.” which further describes the data or information recited within the abstract idea, but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 7 recites “wherein the dental appliances comprise at least one of aligners with attachments, aligners without attachments, palatal expanders, dental braces, retainers, dental appliances to treat class I malocclusions, dental appliances to treat class II malocclusions, or dental appliances to treat class III malocclusions.” which further describes the data or information recited within the abstract idea, but does not make the claim any less abstract. The dental appliances as recited are merely us to attempt to limit the claim to a particular field of use., Claim 8 recites “further comprising: providing access to scheduling tools for scheduling the partner to participate in the interaction event as part of providing the access for managing participation of the partner in association with the interaction event; receiving input that is generated by the clinical enterprise through the scheduling tools regarding scheduling of one or more partners including the partner to participate in the interaction event; and scheduling the partner to participate in the interaction event based on the input.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 10 recites “wherein filtering out the partners of the clinical enterprise that fail to satisfy the plurality of constraints comprise applying: a temporal availability filter for filtering partners based on a temporal availability of the partners in relation to the temporal schedule of the one or more interaction events; a geographical availability filter for filtering partners based on a geographic availability of the partners in relation to the geographic location of the one or more interaction events; an experience level filter for filtering partners based on an experience level of the partners in relation to a subject matter of the one or more interaction events; a role filter for filtering partners based on a role of the partners in relation to the one or more interaction events; a faculty tier filter for filtering the plurality of partners based on a faculty tier of the partners; and a priority filter for filtering the plurality of partners based on a priority of the partners in relation to the clinical enterprise.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 11 recites “further comprising: identifying one or more actions for the partner to take in participating in the interaction event; and facilitating performance of the one or more actions by the partner”, which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 12 recites further comprising managing transfer of consideration to the partner based on the participation of the partner in the interaction event.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 13 recites “further comprising: maintaining the partner management database, wherein the partner management database comprises a datastore of characteristics of the partners including the partner in relation to the clinical enterprise;” which further describes the data that may be used with the abstract idea. The additional elements of “partner management database comprises a datastore” is being used in its ordinary capacity to store or retrieve data. These are generic computing components that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract, Claim 14 recites “further comprising controlling access by the partner to data associated with the interaction event based on a relation between the partner and the clinical enterprise.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 15 recites “further comprising: identifying needs of the partner in participating in the interaction event; and coordinating performing of the needs for the partner.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 16 recites “further comprising: notifying the partner that the one or more interaction events require the information related to the clinical enterprise, the information comprising one or more partner provided materials;” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 18 recites “further comprising: receiving a conditional approval of the information by a department of the clinical enterprise, wherein the conditional approval indicates that the information will be approved responsive to one or more conditions being satisfied; and notifying the partner of the one or more conditions of the conditional approval.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 19 recites “wherein the information comprises a presentation.” which further describes the data or information recited within the abstract idea, but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 97 recites “further comprising: generating a message for the partner; determining whether the message is a first class message or a second class message; responsive to determining that the message is a first class message, performing the following comprising: providing the message as a pop-up on a user interface for the partner; and maintaining the pop-up on the user interface for the partner until the partner acknowledges the message; and responsive to determining that the message is a second class message, causing an icon to be shown on the user interface for the partner, wherein the user interface provides navigation tools for navigating to and reading the message, and wherein after the user reads the message the icon associated with the message is removed from the user interface.” further narrows how the abstract idea is performed. The additional elements of “a pop-up on a user interface”, “an icon to be shown on the user interface”, “the user interface provides navigation tools” are recited at a high-level of generality and is/are merely computer components being used to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 98 recites “providing, in a user interface for the partner, a tool usable by the partner to upload the information related to the clinical enterprise into the partner management database; and receiving the information based on user interaction with the user interface.” further narrow how the abstract idea is performed. The additional elements of “a user interface” and “a tool” are recited at a high-level of generality and is/are merely computer components being used to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, when the limitations are viewed individually and in combination with the abstract idea, the dependent claims do not recite limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “The Examiner has alleged that claim 1 is directed to "certain methods of organizing human activity." Even if arguendo the scheduling and approval aspects of the claim might be characterized as such, the claim as a whole embodies considerably more than the mere organization of human conduct. Nevertheless, for completeness Applicant addresses Prong 2.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Prong One of the two-part analysis. In the last Office Action (i.e., see pgs. 3-5 non-final) the Examiner identified the limitations that recite the abstract idea and explained why they fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Here, the response does not indicate the claim is non-abstract or properly challenge any of the identified limitations from the abstract idea previously identified under Prong One. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Specific Technical Implementation of Cloud Database Architecture. Claim 1 as amended now recites "maintaining real-time synchronization of partner availability data across a cloud environment in a partner management database." This limitation specifies a particular technical implementation of the database system that goes beyond generic data storage. The specification explains that the partner management database is a cloud database, which can be accessed through a cloud environment, for example, across various devices. As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0075]. The real-time synchronization of partner availability data across a cloud environment is a specific technical architecture that enables the system to maintain current partner information including temporal availability (e.g., no availability on weekends, blackout dates, etc.) and geographical availability across distributed computing resources. As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0045]. This is not merely generic storage but a specifically structured data repository with real-time synchronization capabilities that imposes a meaningful limit on any alleged abstract idea.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Prong Two of the two-part analysis. The Specification in [¶ 0045, 0075] does not discuss any features relied upon in the response (such as real-time synchronization). At best, the Specification in [¶ 0075] makes clear “in some examples, partner management database 206 is a cloud database, which can be accessed through a cloud environment, for example, across various devices.”
Here, the applicant relies on generic computing terms, i.e., a cloud database, that merely provide a generic technical environment for performing the abstract idea. See TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 611 (noting that "telephone unit" and "server" "merely provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea"). The cited passages from the Specification also confirm the asserted claims do not require specialized computing components and does not support a finding that the claims are directed to a technological improvement in cloud or database functionality. See MPEP 2106.05(a)-(b) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Algorithmic Filtering Against Synchronized Database to Generate Ranked Output. Claim 1 as amended further recites "algorithmically filtering out, against the partner management database, synchronized information on partners of the clinical enterprise that fail to satisfy the plurality of constraints to generate a ranked list of candidate partners." This limitation specifies that the filtering is performed algorithmically against the database to produce a ranked output. The specification describes that the event management system functions to identify one or more candidate partners for participating in one or more of the enterprise-related events based on the partners' information, and that the event management system can use the partners' information as one or more filters for filtering a candidate partner(s) to participate in the enterprise-related events. As-Filed Specification, paragraphs [0050]-[0051]. The algorithmic filtering against the synchronized database to generate ranked candidate lists represents a specific technical process that cannot be practically performed by a human mind or through manual organization.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Prong Two of the two-part analysis. The features relied on by Applicant (such as with respect to algorithmic filtering against…to generate ranked candidate lists) are part of the judicial exception discussed above in Prong One, and do not comprise additional elements, individually or in combination, that integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional element of “a partner management database” is used in its ordinary capacity to retrieve, filter, store, transfer information. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
As for the remarks regarding mental processes, the courts have previously held “moreover, although a human could not "detect events on an interconnected electric power grid in real time over a wide area and automatically analyz[e] the events on the interconnected electric power grid," we nevertheless found such claims to be directed to an abstract idea in Electric Power Group. 830 F.3d at 1351, 1353-54. Similarly, a human could not communicate over a computer network without the use of a computer, yet we held that claims directed to enabling "communication over a network" were focused on an abstract idea in ChargePoint. 920 F.3d at 766-67. Likewise, Applicant’s asserted claims can be directed to an abstract idea even if the claims require generic computer components or require operations that a human could not perform as quickly as a computer. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Claim 1 as amended also recites "determining that the partner satisfies the plurality of constraints based on the ranked list of candidate partners." This limitation ties the partner selection directly to the algorithmically-generated ranked list, further emphasizing the technical nature of the candidate identification process.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Prong Two of the two-part analysis. The features relied on by Applicant (such as with respect to determining that the partner satisfies the plurality of constraints based on the ranked list of candidate partners) are part of the judicial exception discussed above in Prong One, and do not comprise any additional elements, individually or in combination, that integrate the exception into a practical application. At best, the response narrows how the abstract idea without discussing any technical details related to the step. Thus, this claim does not reflect any technical improvements related to computers or any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Automatic Notification Generation with Real-Time Approval Status Visibility. Claim 1 as amended recites "automatically generating a notification to each of the plurality of departments whenever the information is received, the notification indicating which other departments of the plurality of departments have approved the information and which other departments of the plurality of departments have not approved the information." This limitation specifies an automated notification system that provides real-time visibility into the approval status across multiple departments. The specification describes that the event management system can notify the plurality of departments of the clinical enterprise which other departments of the clinical enterprise have approved the information and which other departments of the clinical enterprise have not approved the information. As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0068]. The automatic generation of notifications with real-time approval status information represents a specific technical implementation that enables departments to coordinate their approval activities without manual tracking or communication.
This automatic notification feature is not merely generic computer functionality but a specific technical mechanism that monitors approval states across multiple departments and automatically disseminates status information whenever new content is received. The system tracks which departments have approved, which have not, and automatically generate and transmit notifications containing this aggregated status information-a technical process that cannot be practically performed by a human mind or through manual organization.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Prong Two of the two-part analysis. The features relied on by Applicant (such as with respect to generating a notification to each of the plurality of departments whenever the information is received, the notification indicating which other departments of the plurality of departments have approved the information and which other departments of the plurality of departments have not approved the information) are part of the judicial exception discussed above in Prong One, and do not comprise any additional elements, individually or in combination, that integrate the exception into a practical application. Here, the asserted benefits of “real-time visibility” and “real-time approval status information” merely limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use. The fact that notifications may be automatically generated and transferred by a computer (such as one or more processors) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. "[I]f a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to `implemen[t]' an abstract idea `on . . . a computer,' . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Technological Improvement to Computer Functionality.
The amended claims recite a specific technical solution involving: (1) a cloud-based database architecture with real-time synchronization capabilities for partner availability data; (2) algorithmic filtering operations performed against that database; (3) generation of ranked candidate lists based on multiple constraint parameters including geographic location, temporal schedule, role, experience level, and language requirements; and (4) automatic notification generation with real-time approval status visibility across multiple departments. The specification describes that the interface can include various filters where the list of partners can be filtered based on specified criteria including a temporal availability filter, a geographical availability filter, an experience level filter, a role filter, a faculty tier filter, and a priority filter. As-Filed Specification, paragraphs [0086], [0094]. The application of multiple filters algorithmically against a synchronized database to produce ranked results is a technical process rooted in computer technology.
These technical features are not merely generic computer components performing conventional functions. The combination of real-time synchronized cloud database operations with algorithmic multi-constraint filtering to generate ranked outputs, together with automatic notification generation providing real-time approval status visibility, represents a specific technical improvement to partner management systems. This materially accelerates processing, reduces latency, and provides consistent results-an improvement to the functioning of the partner management system itself, not merely to business efficiency.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Prong Two of the analysis. As for the features of “real-time” and “synchronized”, there are not mentioned or discussed in the disclosure and cannot be relied upon to support eligibility. It is also important to note the none of the independent claims recite a user interface. The Applicant’s Specification [¶ 0031] frames the inventor’s problem in terms of how to “keep track of customer information up to date in one place and coordinates engagements of the customers in enterprise-related events.” In describing the invention, [¶ 0086, 0094] of the Specification and remarks focus on “the types filters” that may be used to generate a ranked list of candidate partners. The cited passages from the Specification confirm the claimed invention is not limited to specific technological solutions. These passages confirm different types of selection criteria that may be used to rank candidate partners which is part of the abstract idea rather than providing details relating to a technological solution to a technological problem. At best, the Applicant is relying on generic computing equipment, i.e., a partner management database – cloud-based database, one or more processors, to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 ("use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Field-Specific Application that Avoids Pre-emption. The claim is narrowly confined to a clinical enterprise that manufactures dental appliances and distributes them through dentist partners. By requiring this specific context-as well as the real-time synchronized cloud database, algorithmic multi- constraint filtering, and multi-department approval with collaborative transfer of department-specific data-the claim does not pre-empt all manners of partner selection or content approval, but only the particular computerized technique disclosed. This meaningful limitation further demonstrates integration into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As for remarks directed towards preemption, the Examiner asserts the courts have previously held that claims that are otherwise directed to patent-ineligible subject matter cannot be saved by arguing the absence of complete preemption. See, e.g., Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1150 (holding that an argument about the absence of complete preemption "misses the mark"); FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1098 ("But even assuming that the ... patent does not preempt the field, its lack of preemption does not save these claims.") "While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." In the instance case, arguments about the lack of preemption risk cannot save claims that are deemed to only be directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Similarity to USPTO Example 42 -Medical Record Updates.
Claim 1 as amended is analogous to the eligible claim in USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 42, which involved a method of organizing human activity specifically, "a method that allows for users to access patients' medical records and receive updated patient information in real time from other users which is a method of managing interactions between people." The USPTO found that claim eligible because "the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user." Claim 1 as amended now even more closely parallels Example 42 because it includes automatic notification generation-one of the key features that made Example 42 eligible. Specifically, Example 42's eligible claim recited "automatically generating a message containing the updated information by the content server whenever updated information has been stored," and claim 1 as amended similarly recites "automatically generating a notification to each of the plurality of departments whenever the information is received." Furthermore, Example 42's claim recited "transmitting the message to all of the users over the computer network in real time, so that each user has immediate access to up-to- date patient information," and claim 1 as amended similarly provides each department with immediate access to up-to-date approval status information through the notification that indicates "which other departments of the plurality of departments have approved the information and which other departments of the plurality of departments have not approved the information." Like Example 42, claim 1 as amended provides "a specific improvement over prior art systems" by enabling departments to share approval status information in real time, eliminating the need for manual tracking of which departments have approved and which have not. The combination of (a) real-time cloud database synchronization, (b) algorithmic multi-constraint filtering, (c) automatic notification generation with real-time approval status visibility, and (d) collaborative transfer of department-specific data represents a specific technical implementation that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, like Example 42, claim 1 as amended integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Because the additional elements "apply, rely on, and use" any alleged abstract idea in a concrete technological environment to yield tangible improvements, Revised Step 2A is satisfied. The inquiry should end, and the claims declared patent-eligible. PEG at 15-16.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, unlike the cited training example the presently recited claims do not recite a comparable technological improvement. The applicant merely argues the claim includes an improvement over the prior art, however, a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Synopsys, Inc, v. Mentor Graphics Corp At best, the remarks are conclusory allegations that the prior art lacks elements of the asserted claims which is insufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept. The ability to automatically generate and transfer notifications between departments using computers amounts to implementation of computers using generic computing technology. Also, merely "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Even if arguendo the Examiner were to conclude that the claims are "directed to" an abstract idea and not already resolved under Step 2A, the analysis under Step 2B confirms eligibility. The ordered combination of elements in claim 1 as amended is not "well-understood, routine, and conventional" as that term is used in Alice and the PEG. Specifically, the combination of real-time cloud database synchronization with algorithmic filtering against that database to generate ranked candidate lists based on multiple heterogeneous constraints represents significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. This specific combination of technical elements-maintaining real-time synchronization of partner availability data across a cloud environment, algorithmically filtering against that synchronized database, and generating ranked candidate lists-is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The synergy created by combining these features results in a previously unattainable operational capability and represents "significantly more" than any alleged underlying abstract idea. Therefore, even under Step 2B, the claims recite an inventive concept that transforms any abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, whether viewing the claim limitations individually or as an ordered combination, the asserted claims do not add an inventive concept. As can be seen there is nothing inventive in the ordered combination of elements. See Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1341 ("The steps are organized in a completely conventional way—data are first processed, sent, and once sent, information about the transmission is recorded."). So is the case here, the asserted claims are recited in a results oriented manner and organized in an expected way: receiving partner availability data, identifying and filtering partners, receiving partner information for presenting, approving and authorizing presentation of the partner information. Thus relying on using a cloud environment is merely limiting the claimed invention to a field of use and relying on the generic computer components as claimed, i.e., one or more processors, a partner management database, to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 ("use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Claims 1 and 20 as amended and their dependent claims satisfy Step 1, are not "directed to" a judicial exception under Revised Step 2A, and, even if they were, include "significantly more" under Step 2B. Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 20 and by dependency, claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-19, and 97-98 are drawn to statutory subject matter. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejection and allowance of the claims.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, applicant's arguments with respect to the dependent claims fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b). Independent claim 20 recites subject matter substantially similar to limitations recited in claim 1, therefore is being held ineligible under the same grounds for rejection. The present rejection provides findings for each of the dependent claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-16, 18-19, and 97-98, explaining why the additional limitations recited by these claims do not impart subject matter eligibility. For these reasons the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
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 EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights