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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of 05/15/2026, Applicant, on 08/14/2026, amended claims 1, 11, and 16,. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. The updated 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20 are applied in light of Applicant's amendments.
The Applicant argues the claims are eligible over 35 USC 101 (Remarks 08/14/2026)
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has thoroughly reviewed and analyzed the claims, arguments, and specification. The Examiner attempted to find eligible subject matter in the claims and/or specification, but was unsuccessful; and thus, is unable to provide any suggestions/Examiner’s amendment to overcome the 101 rejection. The claimed subject matter, is directed to an abstract idea by reciting fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) which falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of methods of organizing human activity.
The claimed subject matter is merely claims a method for receiving and analyzing information regarding record status data. Although it may be intended to be performed in a digital environment, the claimed subject matter (as currently claimed in the independent claim) speaks to the calculating and analyzing data. Such steps are not tied to the technological realm, but rather utilizing technology to perform the abstract idea, organizing human activity.The steps of calculating data, updating models, and generating a report can be performed by a human (mental process/pen and paper). The practice of determining information and constructing models with set parameters and timelines can be performed without computers and thus are not tied to technology nor improving technology.
The solution mentioned in the amended limitation is not implemented/integrated into technology and thus not an improvement to the technical field. Further, there is no integration into a practical application as the claims can be interpreted as humans per se, as the claims fail to tie the steps to technology; insignificant extra solution activities (which are merely calculating and/or analyzing data). Additionally, the recited backend server is a generic computing component used merely as a tool to store and retrieve the result of the abstract idea. Persisting the determined match time events and reading them back to generate a report is an insignificant extra solution storage/gathering. No particular data structure, indexing scheme, or storage architecture is recited, and this no technical improvement to the computer functionality is integrated into the claim. The recited persisting of movement data “as a time series … rather than an instantaneous current state” specifies the content of the stored information (a history of an account’s sale status changes), not a particular data structure or an improvement in how the backend server stores or retrieves data. The specification identifies only a business benefit (visibility to partner opportunities (0022)), and a generic server storing records is conventional electronic record keeping, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The steps relied upon by the Applicant as recited does not improve upon another technology, the functioning of the computer itself, or allow the computer to perform a function not previously performable by a computer. The claims do not mention to any use of a specialized computer and/or processor. The Applicant is using generic computing components (processors) to perform in a generic/expected way (obtaining and analyzing data).The abstract idea is not particular to a technological environment, but is merely being applied to a computer realm. The process of calculating and analyzing data specifically for account movement between partner population segments, and performing additional analysis can be done without a computer, and thus the claims are not “necessarily rooted", but rather they are utilizing computer technology to perform the abstract idea. The Examiner does not recognize any elements of the Applicant's claims and/or specification that would improve or allow the computer to perform a function(s) not previously performable by the computer or improve the functioning of the computer itself. It is insufficient to indicate that the claims are novel and non-obvious and thus contain “something more.” Just because the components may perform a specialized function does not mean that that the computer components are specialized. As such the application of the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing data regarding account movement, and performing correlation analysis is insufficient to demonstrate an improvement to the technology.
For instance, even if the claim recites specific steps related to data collection, preprocessing, or post-processing, these steps often represent well-understood, conventional activities. As demonstrated in Examples 47-49, adding such conventional elements to a claim directed to an abstract idea does not necessarily transform it into a patent-eligible application. These examples illustrate situations where the additional steps were deemed insufficient to provide an "inventive concept" that meaningfully narrowed the scope of the abstract idea. In the context of machine learning, simply collecting and preparing data for input into a model, or applying the model's output to a particular problem, falls into this category of conventional activity. The Applicant has not created a new learning algorithm but rather optimizing existing algorithm(s) or the application of known techniques to a new dataset. Such incremental advancements, while potentially valuable for business, do not automatically confer patent eligibility or a technological improvement. As highlighted in the Alice framework, the mere recitation of known components or processes does not necessarily amount to an inventive concept.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-10), computer program product (claim 16-20), and system (claims 11-15) are directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) which falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of methods of organizing human activity.
The limitations reciting the abstract idea(s), as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: receiving…population data representing respective population segments of a first partner and a second partner that are distinct entities associated with different organizations in a partner ecosystem, wherein the population data is imported from a plurality of data sources and is processed into master records data including normalized field names and data, wherein the master records data includes normalized record data of records in the respective population segments, the records comprising data objects that represent accounts, wherein the normalized record data includes network addresses of accounts, and wherein, for a record that lacks a network address, the network address is predicted and completed based on historical data, and wherein the respective population segments include a record overlapping between the first partner and the second partner based on the normalized record data of the record in the respective population segments having a same network address; determining…first movement data including a first match time at which the record enters or exits the respective population segments for one of the partners; determining…in response to the record entering or exiting the respective population segments for one of the partners, second movement data indicating a second match time of the record; persisting…the first movement data and the second movement data in a backend server as movement data representing record movement events for presentation as a time series at an individual-record level, wherein the time series represents changes and events for the record rather than an instantaneous current state of the record; and generating…report data representing a chronological history of record statuses of the record including time. Independent claims 11 and 16 recite the system and CRM for performing the method of independent claim 1 without adding significantly more. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a processing device of a computing system… based on the movement data representing record movement events persisted in the backend server and to present on a display of the computing system; a memory… a processing device…; A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processing device of a computing system, cause the computing system to…; (as recited in claims 1, 11, and 16). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) is/are directed to: a processing device of a computing system… in a backend server… based on the movement data persisted in the backend server and to present on a display of the computing system; a memory… a processing device…; A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processing device of a computing system, cause the computing system to…; (as recited in claims 1, 11, and 16) for implementing the claim steps/functions. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.
The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the acquiring steps are considered as additional elements, these steps at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0100]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. See, e.g., Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The dependent claims (2-10, 12-15, and 17-20) are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract idea via additional details of the abstract idea. For example claims 2-10 “determining, by the processing device, an overlap of the record between the first partner and the second partner; wherein determining the overlap includes determining the record has a same domain name in the respective population segments of the first partner and the second partner; wherein the change in the first record status to the second record status includes movement of the record from a first population segment of the first partner to a second population segment of the first partner; wherein the change in the first record status to the second record status includes movement of the record from a first population segment of the second partner to a second population segment of the second partner; the report data in an activity timeline indicating movement of the record into the respective population segments of the first partner and the second partner; the report data in an activity timeline indicating movement of the record from a first population segment of the first partner to a second population segment of the first partner; the report data in an activity mapping matrix including a plurality of cells representing overlaps between the respective population segments of the first partner and the second partner; wherein a cell of the plurality of cells represents overlaps between a first population segment of the first partner and a second population segment of the second partner, and wherein the cell includes a count of overlaps between the first population segment and the second population segment; wherein a cell of the plurality of cells represents overlaps between a first population segment of the first partner and a second population segment of the second partner, and wherein the cell includes a revenue of overlaps between the first population segment and the second population segment ”, without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and without additional elements that amount to significantly more to the claims. The remaining dependent claims (12-15 and 17-20) recite the system and CRM for performing the method of claims 2-10. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied. Thus, all dependent claims have been fully considered, however, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea itself, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:Strutt, David. Data Warehouse Model And Methodology, .U.S. PGPub 20020133368 This invention relates generally to business intelligence systems and in particular to a business model of an integrated data warehouse system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
/Arif Ullah/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights