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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 16, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated September 17, 2025. In RCE, submitted December 16, 2025, claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 12, and 17 were amended; claims 9 and 11 were cancelled; and claims 21 and 22 were added. No new matter was introduced in these amendments. Therefore, claims 1-8, 10, and 12-22 are currently pending and subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 2 of the Response regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 2-12 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Pages 2-4 of the Response, Applicant argues “Applicant asserts that the Office Action has failed to establish a prima facie case that the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter as set forth below. … Applicant respectfully submits that the independent claims presented herewith do not recite a judicial exception, per se, there is no need to evaluate the independent claims further to determine whether such claims integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. … Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claims do not, per se, recite a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims recite concrete operations that are included as part of a computer-tracking process. … The specific examples that are recited in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) that describe business relations cover instances where the claimed inventions involve the relationship between two parties. … The claimed invention does not recite or resemble a business relation or commercial interaction because it does not involve contractual agreements, financial transactions, or interpersonal coordination. Instead, the amended independent claims recite a specific technical process for automatically tracking, storing, and printing documents through a document lifecycle as discussed in paragraphs [0070] and [0053]. These steps are inextricably tied to computing, database management technology, and document-handling technology and do not fall within the abstract idea grouping of organizing human activity. Applicant respectfully submits that as amended the independent claims do not per se recite an abstract idea and is, therefore, patent eligible under Prong One of Step 2A. Accordingly, the Patent Office has not satisfied its initial burden of presenting a prima facie case that the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Similarly, the claims dependent from the independent claims are also patent eligible.
Examiner notes, as explicitly demonstrated in paras. 27-28 of the Final Office Action mailed September 17, 2025 and again discussed in the detailed rejection below, the claim limitations recite an abstract idea which is categorized as “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically the commercial interactions involved in “automatically tracking, [and] storing… documents through a document lifecycle”. While “contractual agreements, financial transactions, or interpersonal coordination” may not be explicitly discussed, these do not represent the full non-exhaustive list of examples of commercial interactions provided in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), as the data that is communicated and tracked between parties as recited in the abstract idea clearly represent commercial interactions, and can be further sub-categorized as business relations. While certain examples are provided in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) regarding the relationship between two parties, it is also noted in the same section “the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”
Examiner further notes, computer elements and other additional elements related to “computer-tracking process[es]” are recited alongside the abstract idea, the presence of these additional elements do not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea, but rather indicate that there is a need to evaluate the independent claims, and dependent claims, further to determine whether such claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more by proceeding further with the Alice framework. Therefore, the Office’s prima facie burden is met through the explicit disclosure of the abstract ideas recited in the claim limitations, and the proper categorization of the abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One.
On Pages 5-8 of the Response, Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims presented herewith recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that judicial exception. … Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Instead, the amended claims provide details of how a solution to a particular problem in existing technology is accomplished. As a threshold matter, amended claim 1 recites additional elements that include: a credentialed system for an encrypted session, a user device and a user interface, and a network. … Applicant respectfully submits that the additional elements, when evaluated individually and in combination, integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application by (1) reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a technology or technical field, (2) implementing any recited judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, and (3) using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond general linking the use of any recited judicial exception to a technological environment. In particular, Applicant respectfully submits that when evaluating amended claim 1, as a whole, these recited additional elements outlined above integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application because the limitations presented in the amended claims do not merely link the alleged judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it can employ the actions provided by the alleged judicial exception to automate the printing, and tracking of documents. Thus, the claim recitations provide unconventional steps that confine any alleged abstract idea to a particular useful application. Applying the guidance to the claims recited herewith, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not ‘directed to’ an abstract idea. Instead, the amended claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into the practical application of automatically tracking of a document throughout the document’s lifecycle.”
Examiner notes, certain features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a credentialed system for an encrypted session and a user interface) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner additionally notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the additional elements which are positively recited in the claimed invention are disclosed at such high levels of generality that they amount to merely “apply it” or serve to generally link the abstract idea to a field of use. For example, the user device (claimed as “third-party/entity computing system”) is disclosed alongside numerous generic examples of “computing devices” in specification, para. 55 as well as a list of generic components the computing system “may include” in specification, para. 57. Similarly, the network is disclosed in specification, para. 64 as “provid[ing] wireless or wired communications among the components of the system 100 and the environment thereof” along side a list of high-level example implementations. These high-level generic disclosures support the analysis, discussed further in the detailed rejection below, that these additional elements are used merely as tools to perform the abstract idea, such as transmitting data, in the case of the network, and receiving, processing/indexing, generating, and transmitting data in the case of the “third-party/entity computing system”, that is, these elements amount to “apply it”. Even when these elements are evaluated as a whole/ordered combination, such as those depicted in Figures 1-2, they still only amount to “apply it”, which the courts have held do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to using the judicial exception in a meaningful way. While the claims allegedly disclose improvement through “unconventional steps”, these steps are part of the recited abstract idea, and therefore unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility.
Examiner further notes, it is unclear what technology is allegedly being improved by the invention. The claimed invention, and the arguments above, appear to be arguing alleged improvements to the abstract business processes associated with the potential problems of “automatically tracking of a document throughout the document’s lifecycle”. That is, the alleged improvements are found in the abstract ideas of receiving, aggregating, generating, and indexing data, but no technical improvements are argued (such as, to the third-party/entity computing system, network, or any other additional element). As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to technology. It is also unclear what “particular machine or manufacture” is alleged to be integral to the claim. The system and computing environment claims 1 and 12 rely on “a memory” (claim 1), “one or more processor” (claims 1, 12), and “one or more computer-readable storage media” (claim 12) to carry out the invention. As discussed further in the detailed rejection below, these additional elements are recited in the specification as high-level generic computer components, as noted in 2106.05(b)(I) “a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Examiner finally notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, to the extent that it is claimed in claim 12, “automat[ing] the printing” is disclosed in specification para. 55 simply as “automatically process[ing] one or more digital documents for physical printing without any involvement by human agents of the print vendors” and that “[a]utomated system(s) … may incorporate or otherwise utilize artificial intelligence” with no further detail provided. This high-level of generic disclosure supports that findings of the analysis that the additional element of “physically print, automatically and without involvement by a human agent” merely generally links the abstract idea to field of printing technology, but fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 17, as well as their dependent claims, do not positively recite the physical printing of the documents, only “the batch of one or more digital documents being transmitted to the third-party computing system for physical printing”. Further still, the tracking of documents is a recitation of the abstract idea, and is therefore unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility itself. The automation of this process, insofar as it is claimed, is performed through using the additional elements as tools to perform the abstract idea or to generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, therefore failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
On Pages 9-10 of the Response, Applicant argues “Similarly, Applicant’s amended claims 1, and 17 recite additional claim limitations that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a scheme for automatically tracking, storing, and printing documents throughout the document lifecycle. In paragraph [0002] and [0003], Applicant’s specification notes that the tracking of a physical mail piece becomes difficult when intermediary entities are introduced into the distribution process. The amended claims 1, and 17 automatically index regarding the digital documents into an index table of a SQL database avoiding the difficulties introduced by involving the third-party by automating the process as the information is received (‘index, automatically, information associated with the one or more digital documents to an index table of the SQL database, the indexing updating the index table as the information is received from the third-party computing system to track the information associated with the one or more digital documents’). In amended claim 12, the alleged judicial exception of physically printing the digital documents for distribution is amended to more specifically point out how the limitation is integrated into the practical application of tracking the document’s lifecycle. Specifically, as pointed out by paragraph [0053] of the description, the instructions cause the processor to: ‘physically print, automatically and without involvement by a human agent, one or more copies of at least one digital document from the batch of one or more digital documents for distribution.’ The additional limitation pointing out the lack of involvement of the human agent addresses the difficulties of the introduced intermediary entity. … Claim 2 [of Example 46] adds a meaningful limitation in the form of a feed dispenser that automatically adjusts the animal’s feed based on the analysis. This additional element ties the data processing to a tangible, real-world action, thereby transforming the claim into one that applies the abstract idea in a practical manner. When considering Applicant’s claim 1 and 17, the additional element of indexing information into the index table of the SQL database whenever updates are received ties the alleged judicial exception into a real-world action. When considering Applicant’s claim 12, the additional element of printing the document without human involvement also ties the alleged judicial exception into a real-world action. Applying the revised standards of Prong Two of Step 2A to the amended independent claims, Applicant respectfully submits that the claim recites additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and is, therefore, patent eligible under Prong Two of Step 2A.”
Examiner notes, that “automatically tracking, [and] storing… documents throughout the document lifecycle” and “tracking the document’s lifecycle” are recitations of the abstract idea and unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. While the automatically printing, claimed in claim 12 as “physically print[ing], automatically and without involvement by a human agent”, does in this case constitute an additional element, as discussed above and further in the detailed rejection below, when this additional element is evaluated both individually and as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to merely generally linking the abstract idea to the field of printing technology and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, it is unclear how the “physically print[ing], automatically and without involvement by a human agent” “addresses the difficulties of the introduced intermediary entity” as an intermediary entity still exists to perform the printing, it just happens to a high-level automated system in this case.
Examiner further notes, that while it may be accurate that “tracking of a physical mail piece becomes difficult when intermediary entities are introduced into the distribution process” this does not represent a technical problem, but rather potential issues in the abstract ideas of tracking and distributing items. Further, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below the discloseed solution of “index[ing], automatically, information associated with the one or more … documents to an index table …, the indexing updating the index table as the information is received from the third-party … to track the information associated with the one or more … documents” is itself abstract, and unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. The additional elements of the digital documents, the SQL database, and the third-party computing system fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, as, when analyzed both individually and as a whole/ordered combination, they are used only as a tool to perform the abstract idea (in the case of the third-party computing system) or to generally link the abstract idea to the fields of digital media and databasing. The support for these findings in regards to the third-party computing system have been discussed above. These findings are further supported by the generic disclosure of the SQL database as simply a “relational database” (specification, para. 74) and the digital documents by way of example as “e.g., a portable document format (PDF)” (specification, para. 72).
Examiner additionally notes, contrary to Example 46 claim 2, which recites specific structure, which reflects the detailed feeder disclosed in the specification, no such specific structure is positively recited in claim 12 for “printing the document without human involvement”. Additionally, the specification lacks to same detailed specificity that is found for how the feeder is able to carry out the adjusted feeding based on the analysis, as the structure for printing the documents is a high-level list of “[e]xample printers” and automated system is generically disclosed that it “may incorporate or otherwise utilize artificial intelligence”. Similarly, in claims 1 and 17, the “SQL database” is not given any specificity in its disclosure that would potentially help it integrate the abstract idea of “indexing information into the index table … whenever updates are received” into a practical application. Simply including “a real-world action” does not inherently integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
On Pages 10-12 of the Response, Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that upon considering the elements of the claims in combination, the claims amount to significantly more than a judicial exception since, at the very least, additional elements recited in the independent claim provide an inventive concept. … Applying Step 2B of the guidance to the claims recited herewith, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 includes a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, and, therefore, recite an inventive concept and are patent eligible under Step 2B. Applying Step 2B of the guidance to the claims recited herewith, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims include a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, and, therefore, recite an inventive concept and are patent eligible under Step 2B. Amended claim 1 recites a combination of elements that provide significantly more than an abstract idea because the recitation of claim 1 uses a not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity to those in the field of transmitting sensitive information using cryptological methods which improves data security as well as the security of the involved machines/computers. In particular, the amended claim is necessarily rooted in computer technology to address a problem specifically arising in the realm of data transmission using computers. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims presented herewith are patentable under 35 U.S.C. §101. It is respectfully submitted that Applicant’s recited computing system adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field and do not simply append well-understood routine, or conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the exception. For example, amended claim 1 recites ‘index, automatically, information associated with the one or more digital documents to an index table of the SQL database, the indexing updating the index table as the information is received from the third-party computing system to track the information associated with the one or more digital documents.’ Applicant respectfully submits that this particular combination of steps that indexes information into an index table of an SQL database is an unconventional manner of tracking documents. Because this combination of steps performs document tracking in an unconventional way, amended claim 1 recites significantly more than judicial exception and is, therefore, patent eligible under Step 2B. Further, amended claim 12 recites ‘physically print, automatically and without involvement by a human agent, one or more copies of at least one digital document from the batch of one or more digital documents for distribution.’ Applicant respectfully submits that this particular combination of steps that automatically prints without involvement by a human agent is an unconventional manner of tracking documents. Because this combination of steps performs document tracking in an unconventional way, amended claim 12 recites significantly more than judicial exception and is, therefore, patent eligible under Step 2B. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims presented herewith are believed patentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Examiner notes, “well-understood, routine, and conventional” is just one of the tests provided for Examiner to determine eligibility of the claims at Step 2B, however this test is not relied upon in the detailed rejection below or any previous Office Action, therefore the aspects of this argument related to regarding “well-understood, routine, and conventional” are moot. Similar to the discussion above regarding Step 2B Prong Two, when analyzed both individually and as a whole/ordered combination, the additional elements amount to either “apply it” or generally link the abstract idea to a field of use. Additionally similar to the discussion above regarding additional elements recited alongside the abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One, the presence of additional elements does not inherently mean that the claims are “necessarily rooted in computer technology”.
Examiner also notes, it is unclear why the conventionality to the field of “transmitting sensitive information using cryptological methods which improves data security as well as the security of the involved machines/computers” is relevant to this instant application as neither the specification nor any previous set of claims have discussed “transmitting sensitive information” “crytological methods” or data and machine/computer security outside of the conclusory statement found in this argument.
Examiner further notes, Applicant does not appear to argue that the “SQL database” is unconventional, rather that the abstract idea of “index[ing], automatically, information associated with the one or more … documents to an index table …, the indexing updating the index table as the information is received from the third-party … to track the information associated with the one or more … documents” is unconventional, however this is unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility, as the abstract idea itself cannot bring a claim to eligibility.
Examiner finally notes, the additional element of “physically print, automatically and without involvement by a human agent” is not rejected on the basis of being well-understood, routine, and conventional, rather because it merely generally links the abstract idea to the field of printing technology, but fails to amount significantly more for the same reasons as discussed above regarding Step 2A, Prong Two.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: limitation 4 recites “the embedded metadata being located located at a location” and should recite “the embedded metadata being located at a location”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8, 10, and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-8 and 10 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claims 12-16 are directed to a computing environment (i.e., a machine); claims 17-22 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 substantially recites receiving at least one document, wherein the at least one document comprises embedded metadata comprising a search key data string located within text of the at least one document, the metadata comprising a visually-undetectable font color, the embedded metadata being located at a location on the at least one document that was previously communicated to a third-party;
updating data with the at least one document received;
aggregating a batch of one or more documents that includes the at least one document;
transmitting, at a predefined interval, the batch of one or more documents to the third-party, the batch of one or more documents being transmitted to the third-party for physical printing, the physical printing converting the text into physical text printed on paper, and distribution;
receiving one or more communications from the third-party comprising archived status update information regarding physical printing and distribution of one or more physical documents associated with the at least one document from the batch of one or more documents, wherein the distribution of the one or more physical documents comprises mailing, via a mail courier, the one or more physical documents, the one or more communications comprising the metadata comprising an updated version of the search key data string;
generate, based on receiving the one or more communications and using the updated version of the search key data string, a status assessment identifying status of the physical printing and the distribution of the one or more physical documents performed by the third-party;
indexing, automatically, information associated with the one or more documents to an index table, the indexing updating the index table as the information is received from the third-party to track the information associated with the one or more documents; and
initiating application of an indication, in physical print format, of the status assessment of the one or more physical documents.
Independent claim 12 substantially recites receiving, at a predefined interval from an entity, a batch of one or more documents comprising metadata that comprises a search key data string located within each text of the batch of one or more documents, the metadata comprising a visually-undetectable font color, wherein the metadata is located at a location previously communicated;
archiving, the batch of one or more documents received, wherein the archiving the batch of one or more documents comprises updating data that is also accessible to the entity;
printing one or more copies of at least one document from the batch of one or more documents for distribution;
initiating distribution of the physically printed one or more copies of the batch of one or more documents, the distribution being via a mail courier; and
transmitting one or more communications regarding (a) the physically printed one or more copies and (b) distribution of the physically printed one or more copies, the one or more communications comprising the metadata that comprises an updated version of the search key data string.
Independent claim 17 substantially recites receiving at least one document, wherein the at least one document comprises embedded metadata comprising a search key data string located within text of the at least one document, the metadata comprising a visually-undetectable font color, the embedded metadata being located at a location on the at least one document that was previously communicated to a third-party;
updating data with the at least one document received;
aggregating a batch of one or more documents that includes the at least one document;
transmitting the batch of one or more documents to the third-party, the batch of one or more documents being transmitted to the third-party for physical printing, the physical printing converting the text into physical text printed on paper, and distribution;
receiving one or more communications from the third-party comprising archived status update information regarding physical printing and distribution of one or more physical documents associated with the at least one document from the batch of one or more documents, wherein the distribution of the one or more physical documents comprises mailing, via a mail courier, the one or more physical documents, the one or more communications comprising the metadata comprising an updated version of the search key data string;
generating, based on receiving the one or more communications and using the updated version of the search key data string, a status assessment identifying status of the physical printing and the distribution of the one or more physical documents performed by the third-party;
indexing, automatically, information associated with the one or more documents to an index table, the indexing updating the index table as the information is received from the third-party to track the information associated with the one or more documents; and
initiate application of an indication, in physical print format, of the status assessment of the one or more physical documents.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions) of tracking the printing and distribution of documents. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 12, and 17 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a memory (claim 1), (ii) one or more processor (claims 1, 12), (iii) executable program instructions (claims 1, 12), (iv) a network (claims 1, 17), (v) one or more digital documents (claims 1, 12, 17), (vi) digital text (claims 1, 12, 17), (vii) one or more computer-readable storage media (claim 12), (viii) an embedding software application (claim 1, 12, 17), (ix) a SQL database (claim 1, 12, 17), (x) a third-party/entity computing system (claim 1, 12, 17), (xi) a computing environment (claim 12), and (xii) physically print, automatically and without involvement by a human agent (claim 12).
The additional elements of (i) a memory, (ii) one or more processor, (iii) executable program instructions, (iv) a network, (vii) one or more computer-readable storage media, (x) a third-party/entity computing system, (xi) a computing environment are recited at a high level of generality (see [0057] of the Applicants PG Publication discussing the memory, the one or more computer-readable storage media, and the third-party/entity computing system, [0061] discussing the one or more processor, [0026] discussing the executable program instructions, [0064] discussing the network, and [0031] discussing the computing environment) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (v) one or more digital documents, (vi) digital text, (viii) an embedding software application, (ix) a SQL database, and (xii) physically print, automatically and without involvement by a human agent are recited at a high level of generality (See [0072] of the Applicant’s PG Publication discussing the one or more digital documents and digital text, and the embedding software application, [0074] discussing the SQL database, [0055] discussing the physically printing, automatically and without involvement by a human agent) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., digital media, software applications, databasing, and printing technology) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 1 and 2 showing all the additional (i) a memory, (ii) one or more processor, (iii) executable program instructions, (iv) a network, (v) one or more digital documents, (vi) digital text, (vii) one or more computer-readable storage media, (viii) an embedding software application, (ix) a SQL database, (x) a third-party/entity computing system, (xi) a computing environment, and (xii) physically print, automatically and without involvement by a human agent in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 12, and 17 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13-16, 18-20, and 22 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 12, and 17 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13-16, 18-20, and 22 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 3 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 3 also recites the additional element of an entity's document distribution system, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0081] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the entity's document distribution system) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., logistics systems) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of an entity's document distribution system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 6 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 6 also recites the additional element of a data extraction tool, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0081] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the data extraction tool) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., data reading technology) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a data extraction tool does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 7 and 21 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claims 7 and 21 also recite the additional element of compressed format, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0081] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the compressed format) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., digital file formatting) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of compressed format does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 7 and 21 are ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-22 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0114013 to Hyakutake et al (hereafter Hyakutake). Hyakutake discloses systems and methods for printing and distributing documents involving transmitting digital documents to third-party print entities and tracking progress of the document status via use of a search key data string embedded via an embedding software application, as well as indexing information associated with the documents.
The next closest prior art is Non-Patent Literature “How to add an invisible watermark to pdf documents” by TeX. (hereafter TeX). TeX discloses embedding search key data string within digital text of a digital document using visually-undetectable font colors.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0222427 to Mann et al (hereafter Mann). Mann discloses updating SQL database with digital documents and using said database to identify documents.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent No. 7,499,907 to Brown et al (hereafter Brown). Brown discloses indexing data in an SQL database.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0146777 to Cranitch et al (hereafter Cranitch). Cranitch discloses receiving updates across a network for tracking the status updates of a batch of documents from digital to printing to distribution via mail courier.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2013/0152210 to Petrovic et al (hereafter Petrovic). Petrovic discloses embedding metadata in a location that was previously communicated between the parties.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2004/0128513 to Wu et al (hereafter Wu). Wu discloses initiating application of status assessment in physical print format.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Specifically, Hyakutake in view of TeX and further in view of Mann and even further in view of Cranitch and even further in view of Petrovic and even further in view of Wu does not explicitly disclose transmitting the batch of one or more digital documents to the third-party computing system at a predefined interval and updating the index table by indexing data as it is received from the third-party computing system. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628