DETAILED ACTION
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
Due to communications filed 5/12/25, the following is a final office action. Claims 1 is amended. Claims 2-20 are cancelled. Claims 21 is new. Claims 1 and 21 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows. The previous rejection has been modified to reflect claim amendments.
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 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With regard to the present claims 1-20, these claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and ultimately, is statutory.
In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite a method of “Mental Processes”. The claimed invention is a method that allows for access, analysis, update and communication of electronic data records, which are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the ”Mental Processes” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing data records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating information related to data records in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed 5/12/25, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1 and 21 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that as amended, claim 1 and new claim 21 are patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Specifically, with regard to Claim 1 and independent claim 21, Applicant argues that the claim describes a system comprising a plurality of application computing systems, each with data repositories storing electronic data records, and a computing platform equipped with at least one processor and memory storing computer-readable instructions, and integrates multiple computing components to perform specific functions, clearly qualifies as a machine, a statutory category. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The computing platform, data repositories, and a computing platform equipped with at least one processor and memory are all merely generic computers. Reciting these generic elements do not overcome the 101 rejection.
Applicant further argues that since the claims recite steps like determining business interest or generating a business model are executed by an AI/ML model that no human could practically process mentally. Applicant further argues that the aggregation of diverse data from social media, transaction records, and skill assessments requires sophisticated computerized techniques, and the automation of tasks like populating state-specific government forms, opening financial accounts, and generating websites involves technical operations that are not feasible in the human mind, requiring integration with external systems and databases which demand computational power and algorithmic precision, distinguishing them from mental activities. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Example 47 of the Subject Matter Eligibility examples, claim 2 is ineligible because it recites a judicial exception (abstract idea), and the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application (and is thus directed to an abstract idea), and the claim does not provide significantly more than the exception (does not provide an inventive concept.). Like Example 47, claim 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility examples, claims 1 and 21 of the present invention are ineligible because they also recite an abstract idea and do not provide significantly more than the exception. In fact, although the present claims recite the use of an AI/ML model to process the steps of the invention, the AI/ML model used in the present invention is recited at a high level, and the result of the AI/ML processing does not result in improvement of the computer technology used.
With respect to claim 1 and similarly claim 21, Applicant further argues that even if the claims were deemed to recite an abstract idea, the claims still integrate the idea into a practical application. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although, Applicant's claims disclose improving business creation technology by automating the identification of business opportunities and the execution of setup tasks, etc. via AI/ML, Examiner interprets the steps as "electronic transactions" facilitating business creation in an AI/ML environment. In other words, Examiner interprets that the claimed computer components are still recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing electronic transaction update process. Examiner has found that simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and accordingly the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea of "Mental Processes". Because of this, Examiner concludes that the claims a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Examiner maintains that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide an inventive concept, addition significantly more than any abstract idea by providing a novel technological solution that automates and personalizes business creation, the claim adds significantly more than any abstract idea. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The is nothing in the claims that add significantly more than the abstract ide itself.
Conclusion
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 Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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 (I N USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
June 26, 2025
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights