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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 September 2025 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 12-13 of the Remarks that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, specifically that the claims are directed to computerized techniques for storing and visualizing entity data, by combining structural event data with temporal entity operating data. The Examiner disagrees because the concept of gathering and displaying information is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis found to be an abstract idea in Electric power group, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as well as placing an order based on displayed market information and gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, see TLI. Applicant argues on pages 14-16 that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, specifically that the claims provide technical improvements such as data storage efficiency, data security and support for additional capabilities. The Examiner does not agree because these alleged improvements are not present in the claim limitations and according to the MPEP an improvement must be present in the claim limitations in order for any alleged technical improvement to be a factor that favors eligibility. Applicant additionally argues the claims include an inventive concept on pages 15-16 of the Remarks and has identified claim limitations that the Examiner has identified as part of the abstract idea. The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive because the inventive concept has not been identified by the Applicant and the limitations are part of the abstract idea of gathering and displaying information similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Further, the Examiner has not alleged the identified additional elements as well-understood, routine and conventional.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-18, filed 29 September 2025, with respect to the 102 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of 28 May 2025 has been withdrawn.
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 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a “temporal entity tracking system”.
Claim 1 is directed to the concept of “gathering and displaying information” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice (placing an order based on displayed market information), commercial or legal interactions, and a mental process (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is similar to gathering and displaying information)” in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claim 1 recites receiving a request including an entity identifier associated with a first entity, and time data representing a previous time; determining, based at least in part on the entity identifier and the time data, a plurality of additional entities related to the first entity at the previous time; retrieving previous entity data for each of the plurality of additional entities, wherein the previous entity data is associated with the previous time; generating, responsive to the request, an entity graph associated with the first entity, the entity graph comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges connecting the plurality of nodes, wherein generating the entity graph comprises: generating, for each particular entity of the plurality of additional entities, a node associated with the particular entity, based at least in part on the previous entity data for the particular entity; and generating, for each particular entity of the plurality of additional entities, one or more edges associated with the particular entity, based on one or more relationships between the particular entity and the first entity or the plurality of additional entities; and outputting the entity graph. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claim such as one or more processors, computer-readable media, data stores, and a user interface represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of gathering and displaying information.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of gathering and displaying information using computer technology (e.g. one or more processors). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-9 and 12-20 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Prior Art
The prior art fails to teach or disclose at least “outputting via a user interface: …a selectable listing of the structural events retrieved from the first structural event data store; determining, by querying a first structural event data store based at least in part on the entity identifier: a list of one or more structural events associated with the first entity and a plurality of additional entities associated with the one or more structural events; and generating a plurality of graph nodes corresponding to plurality of additional entities, wherein representations of the graph nodes are, based at least in part on the previous entity data retrieved from the second temporal entity data store.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bullard US 11620338 Malik US 2019/0278777
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 DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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 P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692