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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on October 10, 2025. Claims 1-20 were pending in the Application. Claims 1, 10, and 18-19 are amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 2-3, 7, 11-12, and 16 have been canceled, with claims 4, 13, 15, and 20 remaining canceled. Claim 1, 10, and 19 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 1 and 10. Thus claims 1, 5-6, 8-10, 14, and 17-19 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “claim 1 language provides a technical improvement that elevates the claim language as a whole to a practical application; the suppression avoids duplicative news from being sent for a period of time, thus limiting the news alert to the initial individual transmission, and this results in a geometric savings in computer resources, electrical power and bandwidth to send only a single news alert rather than multiple duplicative news alerts; this savings is a technological improvement in how the computer elements operated, and thus a practical application; the savings in computer resources, electrical power and bandwidth, and the corresponding technical improvement, is even greater for dependent claim 6; each news alert message thus calls for computer resources, electrical power and bandwidth to send two additional messages – the prompt message and the response to the prompt message, and suppressing duplicative news alerts in the first place also avoids all of the corresponding additional two messages, resulting in even more savings in computer resources, electrical power and bandwidth; simply stated, sending one alert message via the initial alert and the suppression period consumes a fraction of the computer resources, electrical power, and bandwidth compared with the computer resources that would be needed to send a hundred alert messages, and this is a technical solution to a technical problem, and thus a practical application; the causing a link to the news to display on the user interface is similar to PTO Example 21’s eligible claim that recites distribution of a URL to a remote computer; the specific language of claim 1 “wherein the alert message causes the transmitted information including the clickable link to display on the user interface and to enable retrieval of the news article via the clickable link” parrots the eligible claim language from Example 21: “wherein the alert activates the stock viewer application to cause the stock quote alert to display on the remote subscriber computer and to enable connection via the URL to the data source over the Internet”; and the language of claim 1 as a whole therefore recites meaningful limitations that add more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea (the general concept of organizing and comparing data) to the Internet, because they solve an Internet-centric problem with a claimed solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology.”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20250022051 A1, para 4), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘051 A1, para 4), discloses that the invention relates to delivering real-time alerts about significant news events in order to facilitate assessments for managing wholesale credit risk, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 1 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations “establishing, for a first category of news, a baseline volume of news; receiving a news article that relates to an entity; first determining, using natural language processing, that the news article contains important content defined as negative news and/or merger and acquisition (M&A) activity with respect to the entity within the first category of news; second determining to issue an alert for the important content in response to at least: the important content falls into the first category of news; a volume of news articles for the first category of news within a time period exceeds the baseline volume by at least an amount; no suppression exists that would suppress issuance of an alert; generating in response to the second determining an alert message that includes a notification that the news article contains important content; transmitting to the user interface at a destination, the alert message and information that corresponds to the news article, the information including a clickable link to the news article; suppressing, for a period of time, issuance of another alert for the important content; wherein the alert message causes the transmitted information including the clickable link to display on the user interface and to enable retrieval of the news article via the clickable link”, where the italicized claim language represents the abstract idea of “identifying negative news to issue an alert.” (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim (the bolded claim language), such as “at least one processor”, “using natural language processing”, “the user interface at a destination”, “including a clickable link”, and “including the clickable link to display on the user interface”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “identifying negative news to issue an alert.”
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “identifying negative news to issue an alert”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “identifying negative news to issue an alert.” The claims are not directed to improving computers or related technologies, but improving the abstract idea for “identifying negative news to issue an alert”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea, “identifying negative news to issue an alert”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. an identifying negative news to issue an alert concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 10 also recites the abstract idea of “identifying negative news to issue an alert”, as well as the additional elements of the claim such as “a computing apparatus”, “a user interface”, “a processor”, “a memory”, “using natural language processing”, “the user interface at a destination”, “including a clickable link”, and “including the clickable link to display on the user interface”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “identifying negative news to issue an alert”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of “identifying negative news to issue an alert” using computer technology (e.g., “a processor” and “a memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 10 is non-statutory.
Claim 19 also recites the abstract idea of “identifying negative news to issue an alert”, as well as the additional elements of the claim such as “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a user interface”, “a processor”, “using natural language processing”, “the user interface at a destination”, “including a clickable link”, and “including the clickable link to display on the user interface”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “identifying negative news to issue an alert”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “identifying negative news to issue an alert” using computer technology (e.g., “a processor” and “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 19 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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, 5-6, 8-10, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1, 5-6, and 8-9 are directed to “a method”; claims 10, 14, and 17-18 are directed to “an apparatus”; and claim 19 is directed to “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.” Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites “establishing, for a first category of news, a baseline volume of news; receiving a news article that relates to an entity; first determining, using natural language processing, that the news article contains important content defined as negative news and/or merger and acquisition (M&A) activity with respect to the entity within the first category of news; second determining to issue an alert for the important content in response to at least: the important content falls into the first category of news; a volume of news articles for the first category of news within a time period exceeds the baseline volume by at least an amount; no suppression exists that would suppress issuance of an alert; generating in response to the second determining an alert message that includes a notification that the news article contains important content; transmitting to the user interface at a destination, the alert message and information that corresponds to the news article, the information including a clickable link to the news article; suppressing, for a period of time, issuance of another alert for the important content; wherein the alert message causes the transmitted information including the clickable link to display on the user interface and to enable retrieval of the news article via the clickable link”, where the italicized claim language represents the abstract idea of “identifying negative news to issue an alert”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “at least one processor”, “using natural language processing”, “the user interface at a destination”, “including a clickable link”, and “including the clickable link to display on the user interface”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “identifying negative news to issue an alert”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “identifying negative news to issue an alert” using computer technology (e.g., “at least one processor” and “natural language processing”). Therefore, as these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 10 also recites the abstract idea of “identifying negative news to issue an alert”, as well as the additional elements of the claim, such as “a computing apparatus”, “a user interface”, “a processor”, “a memory”, “using natural language processing”, “the user interface at a destination”, “including a clickable link”, and “including the clickable link to display on the user interface”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “identifying negative news to issue an alert”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “identifying negative news to issue an alert” using computer technology (e.g., “a processor” and “a memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 10 is non-statutory.
Claim 19 also recites the abstract idea of “identifying negative news to issue an alert”, as well as the additional elements of the claim, such as “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a user interface”, “a processor”, “using natural language processing”, “the user interface at a destination”, “including a clickable link”, and “including the clickable link to display on the user interface”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “identifying negative news to issue an alert”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “identifying negative news to issue an alert” using computer technology (e.g., “a processor” and “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 19 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 5-6, 8-9, 14, and 17-18 further describe the abstract idea of “identifying negative news to issue an alert”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 10, and 19, above. Also, dependent claims 5-6, 8-9, 14, and 17-18 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “identifying negative news to issue an alert”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the dependent claims 5-6, 8-9, 14, and 17-18 do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the dependent claims merely describes the concept of “identifying negative news to issue an alert” using computer technology. Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Hence, claims 1, 5-6, 8-10, 14, and 17-19 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sarkar et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220292524 A1) – System And Method To Monitor Relevance Of Customer’s Business Risk Due To Market Changes
Sarkar discloses a computer-implemented system, method and/or computer program product to monitor changes in business risk of a targeted entity including retrieving one or more industry classifications for one or more core businesses of the targeted entity; receiving news feeds related to the one or more industry classifications; detecting and extracting negative news related to the core businesses of the targeted entity from the news feeds; calculating an industry confidence score based upon the negative news; determining if the industry confidence score is greater than an industry confidence threshold; calculating, in response to the industry confidence score being larger than the industry confidence threshold, an entity confidence score for the targeted entity based upon negative news; and generating, in response to the entity confidence score being larger than an entity confidence threshold, an alert report for the targeted entity.
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 extension fee 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 STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 January 30, 2026