DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The previous 35 USC §101 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn, and new rejections have been set forth under 35 USC §101 to address the newly amended claim language.
Applicant's arguments and amendments, filed 12/22/2025, concerning the rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 USC §101, Applicants argue on pages 7-11 that the newly claims are not directed to a judicial exception, add significantly more than the idea itself, and are integrated into a practical application because the claims recite actions such as attributing, assigning, transforming and storing, because the claims provide better accuracy, involve technical improvements linking data sets and improve the functioning of a computer or another technology / technical field.
The Office respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that these claims actions/steps (e.g., are attributing, assigning, transforming) actions that may be performed mentally (e.g. linking or making associations between data, and changing data by coming up with a synonym, for example). Additionally, storing is essentially memorization (i.e., a mental process), or alternatively insignificant extra-solution activity, as indicated below. Second, there are no limitations that support a conclusion by one skilled in the art that that such general claim language results in improvements such as better accuracy. The language reflects the conventional use of generic computing components.
As noted in previous interviews, the best way to overcome the issue of abstractness is to claim implementation details (e.g., how a trajectory established) and integration that involves some sort of follow-on processing, not the mere storage of processed data (e.g., a unique mechanism for manipulating/archiving data to calculate the doppler effect would be abstract, but incorporating that unique mechanism and its data output into a radar tracking application would result in an “integration into a practical application”).
Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101 is believed to be reasonable.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-2, 5-9, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
These claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e., mental processes or mathematical concepts) without significantly more. The claims essentially recite at a very high level receiving and comparing data structures in order to correlate the data contained in each structure, and optionally (via a dependent claim) manipulating / transforming data structures.
Regarding the independent claims (1, 8 and 15):
Statutory Category: (At step 1): claim 1 is directed to a “method” and thus directed to a statutory category (therefore a process), claim 8 is directed to a “system” and thus directed to a statutory category (therefore a product/machine), claim 15 is directed to a “computer-readable storage medium” and thus directed to a statutory category (therefore a product).
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Judicial Exception Recited?): Yes. Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite limitations directed to an abstract idea: “determining a first trajectory associated with the entity based on the set of first records, the first trajectory indicating a behavior associated with the entity; identifying a second trajectory among a plurality of second records in a first data repository including data from a set of second data sources different from the set of first data sources; determining the second trajectory matching with the first trajectory using a probabilistic analysis; identifying a set of matching second records in the second trajectory that indicate the behavior associated with the entity; attributing, by a provisioning entity system, the set of matching second records to the entity associated with the set of first records; … assigning the entity identifier to the set of matching second records with the entity identifier”. As drafted, each of these limitations recites a mentally performable process as one can determine/identify information in records that indicates behavior, [likely or probabilistically] match such information between records and assign an identifier via a mental process or using paper and pencil. In the alternative, a probabilistic analysis may be construed as a mathematical concept. Thus these concepts, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass the performance of the limitations in the mind (i.e., mental processes), or alternatively the solving of a math problem (i.e., using a vague / unstated mathematical concept for comparing data elements). Use of a mathematical concept integrated into a practical application may represent patent eligible subject matter, but the mere solving of a math problem is considered an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Integrated into a Practical Application?): No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, "one or more processors”, and claim 8 recites "one or more processors” and “one or more memories”, and claim 15 recites “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “one or more processors”. Each of these are merely high-level recitations of generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Additionally, each of claims 1, 8 and 15 recites “receiving a set of first records …”, “retrieving an entity identifier …” and “storing the set of matching records …” which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as receiving and retrieval/storing of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claims as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. Therefore, each claim is directed to an abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Alternatively, other than reciting additional generic elements, such as processors and storage, nothing in the claim precludes characterization as a mathematical concept. For example, the claim encompasses the performance of an abstract mathematical operation based upon an abstract mathematical concept to determine a data “behavior” relationship and transformation of data. These limitations may therefore be reasonably characterized as encompassing mathematical concepts (i.e., an abstract idea).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. I.e., these limitations encompass mental processes, or in the alternative a mathematical concept (an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Integrated into a Practical Application?): No. The independent claims each recite a series of steps directed to receiving and comparing data structures in order to establish a correlation between the structures based on an abstract “behavior”. These concepts, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (i.e., mental processes). Alternatively, other than reciting additional generic elements, such as processors and storage, nothing in the claim precludes characterization as a mathematical concept. Each of these are merely high-level recitations of generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The computing elements (i.e., one or more processors) are recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is reasonably construed as being directed to an abstract idea.
Additionally, claims 1, 8 and 15 recites “receiving a set of first records …”, “retrieving an entity identifier …” and “storing the set of matching records …” which represents is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claims as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. Therefore, each claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Inventive Concept Provided?): No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the elements (i.e., “receiving a set of first records …”, “retrieving an entity identifier …” and “storing the set of matching records …” which represents] in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Therefore, each claim is not patent eligible, and is reasonably rejected under 35 USC §101.
Claims 2 and 5-7 depend upon claim 1, and do not correct the issues set forth above. Claims 9 and 12-14 depend upon claim 8, and do not correct the issues set forth above. Claims 16 and 18-20 depend upon claims 15, and do not correct the issues set forth above. I.e., the dependent claims are directed to either the particular data structure (e.g., data type or an associated identifier) or the manipulating of the data structures, and are not tied to a particular application. Therefore, these claims are likewise rejected as being not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Relevance is provided in at least the Abstract of each cited document.
US Patent Application Publications
Meierhoefer 2013/0054628
he data sets are provided with the demographic data (132b), the online behavior data (132a), and the additional user data (132c) associated with the users. The sets of matched users are determined based on the demographic data and online behavior data. An augmented data set is generated based on sets of matched users, and the reports (310) are generated based on the augmented data set. (Abstract).
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 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner ROBERT STEVENS whose telephone number is (571) 272-4102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:00 - 2:30.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on (571) 270-1698. 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.
/ROBERT STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
February 15, 2026