DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1,4-8,11-15 and 18-20 are pending in the application and claims 1,4-8,11-15 and 18-20 are rejected.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/9/2025 has been entered.
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 1,4, 6-8,11-15 and 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “a method for..” which recites a series of steps and therefore is a process. Claim 15 recites “A system…” therefore is a machine. Claim 8 recites A non-transitory computer-readable medium” therefore is a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite limitations “obtaining, assigning, transforming” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting processor or a producer party, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the obtaining and assigning steps in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper writing the changes down on a sheet of paper and examine the list to identify the relevant ones
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements "transmitting” and “generating” this limitation amounts to data gathering and transferring which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); (MPEP 2106.05(g). The elements are elements merely invoking a generic computer environment (processor, database, memory) and basic data-gathering or outputting functions (MPEP 21.96.05(f)) hence reciting insignificant extra solution activities.
The one or more hardware processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations "transmitting” and “generating”are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. No elements individually or in combination adds “significantly more” than the abstract idea hence are no more than well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions that merely apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. When viewed as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims are rejected for depending off independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,4-8,11-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Independent claims recite obtaining data after assigning a query to an indexing cluster. It is unclear how the data being obtained is related to the query or whether or not there is some connection. If there is no link it seems that obtaining data is conveniently magically appearing right after a query is issued making the inventive concept unclear and indefinite.
Dependent claims are rejected for depending off independent claims.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s argument: Claims are not an abstract idea
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is considered but is not persuasive. The bulk of the claim deals with organizing data which is a mental process which is defined as an abstract idea. Steps of generating a query and getting a response to the query are considered more but not significantly more as it merely applies to abstract idea. Examiner suggests adding more detail to the claims to overcome 101 rejection as for now the claims are reciting the claimed concept very broadly. Applicant makes the argument that claims are not an abstract idea and that concepts are integrated into practical application. These arguments would be more persuasive given the claim set in the parent case where the inventive concept is explained in detail. With the current set of claims it is a combination of well known concepts with none of the inventive nuances in the parent case. Examiner notes that claims 5 and 19 are not rejected under 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN S LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. 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.
/ALLEN S LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153