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 .
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 1-3, 5-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category, a method, apparatus, and non-transitory media, respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 or claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea of provide a user-facing application that accesses; and perform processing based on user interaction with a goal-based planning application that processes data from a plurality of user accounts to generate a set of requests to retrieve or update the data from the plurality of user accounts, wherein the goal-based planning application is capable of generating one or more instructions sets that are used to automatically reconfigure the plurality of user accounts to ensure that a goal is met; and a batching service coupled to and configured to: receive the set of requests from; determine whether a time required for processing the set of requests meets or exceeds a threshold; when the time meets or exceeds the threshold, process, the set of requests asynchronously such that the remains responsive to user interaction without latency caused by the processing of the set of requests; and provide notification via when the processing is complete to cause to update, based on notification. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or claim 6 include: a secure messaging system, comprising: a data retention system and a predictive analytics system, the data retention system and the predictive analytics system both being in secure isolation from a remainder of the secure messaging system; a message bus coupled to the data retention system and the predictive analytics system; a user-facing application, via the message bus, the data retention system and the predictive analytics system; and a goal based planning application , the goral-based planning application automatically reconfigure; the message bus; the application server layer; via the message bus, asynchronously such that the user-facing application; via the message bus, to the application server layer when the processing is complete to cause the application server layer to update the user-facing application. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system/method. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a secure messaging system, comprising: a data retention system and a predictive analytics system, the data retention system and the predictive analytics system both being in secure isolation from a remainder of the secure messaging system; a message bus coupled to the data retention system and the predictive analytics system; a user-facing application, via the message bus, the data retention system and the predictive analytics system; and a goal based planning application , the goral-based planning application automatically reconfigure; the message bus; the application server layer; via the message bus, asynchronously such that the user-facing application; via the message bus, to the application server layer when the processing is complete to cause the application server layer to update the user-facing application is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claims claim 6 recites similar limitations and are ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, claims 1 and 6 are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-3 and 5, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 7-9 and 11-20, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 6. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the claims. The examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 based on applicant’s amendment.
In response to applicant’s argument that pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A prong 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claims are directed to an abstract idea of provide a user-facing application that accesses; and perform processing based on user interaction with a goal-based planning application that processes data from a plurality of user accounts to generate a set of requests to retrieve or update the data from the plurality of user accounts, wherein the goal-based planning application is capable of generating one or more instructions sets that are used to automatically reconfigure the plurality of user accounts to ensure that a goal is met; and a batching service coupled to and configured to: receive the set of requests from; determine whether a time required for processing the set of requests meets or exceeds a threshold; when the time meets or exceeds the threshold, process, the set of requests asynchronously such that the remains responsive to user interaction without latency caused by the processing of the set of requests; and provide notification via when the processing is complete to cause to update, based on notification. This concept of preventing and detecting identity theft falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors. This concept of determining a fixed rate based on behavior falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to specification, the limitations that applicant argues in the specifications are not recited in the claims. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument to 101 rejections under step 2A, Prong Two and 2B, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above. The claimed invention does not recite improvement to another technology or another technical field or the computing device. The claimed invention does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the computer system itself. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to Berkheimer Memo and additional elements not well-understood, routine, and conventional, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The current case is all of the elements in the current case are doing merely communicating or sending data back and forth and courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be routine and conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. The current claims do not recite anything non-conventional and non-routine. The claim is merely gathered information of information over conventional network. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 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 I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights