DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
3/30/2026. In Applicant’s amendment, claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20 were amended. Claims 6, 16, and 21 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained. Rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 rebuttal arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 13-15 that the amended claim does not recite an abstract idea because the limitations do not merely organize human activity or recite a functional result. Instead, they recite a specific, concrete algorithmic approach and architectural arrangement for generating software and processing data streams that cannot be performed in the human mind. Because the claims are directed to a specific technological solution for managing complex rule sets and improving the speed and efficiency of the computer system, they are integrated into a practical application.Examiner respectfully disagrees. The interface uses “elements” to let users configure logic without programming. This does not amount to an improvement to user interface technology or a computer. Reducing the human effort of coding is also not an improvement to user interface technology or a computer. Automatically processing and compiling logic into executable code without developer intervention is a result. The claim does not recite a concrete mechanism directed to avoiding computer execution collisions.
Applicant argues on p. 15 that under Step 2B, the claim recites an ordered combination of a rule authoring environment that translates abstracted business logic into compiled code, coupled with a highly specific rules engine utilizing a working memory, a pattern matcher, and an agenda-driven conflict resolution strategy, is not a well-understood, routine, or conventional computing activity. Instead, this unconventional combination represents a specific, novel approach to solving the technical problems of rule generation and real-time execution collisions.Examiner respectfully disagrees. The ordered sequence is configuring a business rule, processing the business rule, compiling the rule, loading rules into an engine, receiving and storing customer data, applying the customer data to the rules, and reporting which customers may be contacted. This is the expected workflow of a rule configuration and execution system applied to customer contact decision making. Additionally, the abstract idea cannot supply the inventive concept. Further, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.05.I.
Applicant's prior art arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive to overcome the rejection. In particular, see Applicant’s Remarks on p. 15-18.
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, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium). Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12 are directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”). Claims 13-15 and 17-19 are directed toward the statutory category of a machine (reciting a “system”). Claim 20 is directed toward the statutory category of an article of manufacturer (reciting a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1, 13 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea by reciting … receiving, …, the user configuration of business logic; … deploying, …, a set of rules including the rule to …, the set of rules selected for a contact campaign from a rules repository of the rule authoring environment that includes one or more rules maintained by …; receiving, …, a data stream of customer data of a plurality of customers; storing, …, data extracted from the data stream of customer data into … of the rules engine; applying, by the rules engine of … and in real-time, the set of rules to the data stored in the … to identify the one or more customer contact restrictions for one or more customers of the plurality of customers, wherein applying the set of rules comprises performing pattern matching of the data in … against the set of rules using a pattern matcher; managing, by an agenda of the rules engine, an execution order of one or more conflicting rules of the set of rules in … using a conflict resolution strategy; outputting, … based on the pattern matching and the managed execution order, a first report comprising a plurality of customer identifiers for the plurality of customers, and for a particular customer identifier for a particular customer, an indicator of which customer contact restrictions apply to the particular customer; and outputting, …, a second report comprising a list of customer identifiers as a subset of the plurality of customer identifiers that are permitted to be contacted for the contact campaign (Example Claim 1).
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity like commercial interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claims recite collecting customer data, applying rules to the customer data to determine contact restrictions and outputting reports in response. Applicant’s disclosure does not recite a particular problem the claimed steps aim to solve, however, it is understood that the claimed steps aim to automate the filtering of customers by contact restrictions to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and customer preferences (Applicant’s Specification, [0006]). By this evidence, the claims recite a type of commercial interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) common to judicial exception to patent-eligibility. By preponderance, the claims recite an abstract idea (e.g., a “digital customer consent engine” for determining whether customers can be contacted).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as a computing system; a memory; and one or more processors; generating, by a computing system, data representative of a user interface comprising one or more user interface elements to enable a user to configure business logic; processing, by the computing system within a rule authoring environment, the user configuration of business logic into code representative of a rule to identify one or more customer contact restrictions from customer data; compiling, by the computing system within the rule authoring environment, the code into the rule without requiring software development of the rule by the user; a working memory of a rules engine) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10. 12, 14-15, and 17-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP
2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps of “generating” a user interface, “receiving” user configured business logic, “processing” the business logic into code, “compiling” the code into a rule, “deploying” the rule to a rules repository, “receiving” customer data, “storing” data, “applying” rules to the customer data, “managing” an execution order, “outputting” a first report, and “outputting” a second report (Example Claim 1).
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2009/0018822 A1: In one embodiment, a method comprises creating at least one individualized language resource, creating at least one individualized language rule referencing at least one of said individualized language resource, and transforming said at least one individualized language rule into computer executable format.
WO 2013/075044 A1: Technology is described for authoring and distributing business content. In various embodiments, the technology can receive a wordprocessing document, the wordprocessing document including a script tag and an instruction within the script tag, the instruction identifying at least the one named cell or region; and produce source code corresponding to the received wordprocessing document.
Cosentino et al., Extracting business rules from COBOL: A model-based framework, 2013: Organizations rely on the logic embedded in their Information Systems for their daily operations. This logic implements the business rules in place in the organization, which must be continuously adapted in response to market changes. Unfortunately, this evolution implies understanding and evolving also the underlying software components enforcing those rules. This is challenging because, first, the code implementing the rules is scattered throughout the whole system and, second, most of the time documentation is poor and out-of-date. This is specially true for older systems that have been maintained and evolved for several years (even decades). In those systems, it is not even clear which business rules are enforced nor whether rules are still consistent with the current organizational policies. In this sense, the goal of this paper is to facilitate the comprehension of legacy systems (in particular COBOL-based ones) by providing a model driven reverse engineering framework able to extract and visualize the business logic embedded in them.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights