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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7, 15-17, and 19 have been amended.
Claim 18 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 12-17, filed 17 April 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the claims of the current application are not directed to an abstract idea because the claimed limitations cannot be performed/executed by human mind and cannot be performed using pen and paper by human.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a system and series of steps for analyzing, identifying, and incorporating visual indicators into an analytical report, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes.
Despite the complexity of the multi-variable statistical computations, the claimed limitations as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
Applicant further submits that the claims of the current application are not directed to an abstract idea because the subject matter of the amended claims improves functioning of computers and reporting systems by automating selection and incorporation of visual indicators, reducing manual effort, and enabling secure, authenticated access to reporting tools.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application, such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technical field, as considered below in view of MPEP 2106. In particular, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. Applicant’s improvement in this case is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technological field.
The following are examples of eligible subject matter based on technological improvements: see, e.g., McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315 ("The claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters."); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding patent eligible a claim drawn to a behavior-based virus scan that protects against viruses that have been "cosmetically modified to avoid detection by code-matching virus scans"); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1330, 1333 (discussing patent eligible claims directed to "an innovative logical model for a computer database" that included a self-referential table allowing for greater flexibility in configuring databases, faster searching, and more effective storage); CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that the claims at issue focus on a specific means for improving cardiac monitoring technology; they are not "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery" (quoting McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314)).
In contrast, the claims of the current application are similar to gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result (TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48), wherein the courts have indicated not to be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Instead, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (‘a processor’, ‘a memory’, ‘one or more servers’, ‘a data acquisition module’, ‘a visual indicator allocation module’, ‘a report generation module’, ‘a user interface’, ‘a non-transitory computer-readable medium’, ‘a processing resource’). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (‘a report generating application’, ‘a visual indicator allocation model’).
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 17-18, filed 17 April 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, have been fully considered, and are persuasive, in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following typographical error: ‘…analyze the third set of attributes to identify, from the set if visual indicators, a subset of visual indicators…’ 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.
Claim(s) 1-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 17 recite(s) a system and series of steps for analyzing, identifying, and incorporating visual indicators into an analytical report, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes.
The limitation(s) of, ‘authenticate…a user logging into…based on one or more log-in credentials’; ‘obtain an analytical report having analytical data associated with an organization’; ‘identify…a first set of attributes corresponding to the analytical report and a second set of attributes corresponding to each of the one or more chapters’; ‘retrieving…user details of a user of the organization’; ‘obtain… a third set of attributes corresponding to each visual indicator’; ‘analyze…the first set of attributes to identify a set of visual indicators associated with the analytical report’; ‘analyze the third set of attributes to identify, from the set of visual indicators, a subset of visual indicators…’; ‘receive…an association mapping between the first set of attributes, the second set of attributes, and a third set of attributes corresponding to each visual indicator of the set of visual indicators’; ‘analyze… a pre- assigned weighted score for each attribute of the first set of attributes, the second set of attributes, and the third set of attributes…’; ‘obtain a pre-assigned weighted score for each attribute of the first set of attributes, the second set of attributes, and the third set of attributes corresponding to each visual indicator of the set of visual indicators’; ‘compute…a probability score indicating a probability of the visual indicator occurring in the chapter of the analytical report’; ‘determine… at least one visual indicator from the set of visual indicators for representing the subset of the analytical data within the chapter…’; ‘incorporate the at least one visual indicator into the chapter…’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a processor’, ‘a memory’, ‘one or more servers’, ‘a report generating application’, ‘a visual indicator allocation model’, ‘a data acquisition module’, ‘a visual indicator allocation module’, ‘a report generation module’, ‘a user interface’, ‘a non-transitory computer-readable medium’, and ‘a processing resource’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (‘a processor’, ‘a memory’, ‘one or more servers’, ‘a data acquisition module’, ‘a visual indicator allocation module’, ‘a report generation module’, ‘a user interface’, ‘a non-transitory computer-readable medium’, ‘a processing resource’). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (‘a report generating application’, ‘a visual indicator allocation model’).
Claim(s) 2-6, 8-16, and 19-20 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for analyzing, identifying, and incorporating visual indicators into an analytical report, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
Additionally, the claims recite(s) the additional elements of receiving and transmitting data over a network. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and transmitting data), and amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As detailed in MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the reception and transmission of data was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The generic functions of receiving and transmitting data are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is similar to how ‘using the Internet to gather data’ was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
As analyzed above, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-17 and 19-20 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 1-17 and 19-20 is not taught by the cited prior art and is considered novel/non-obvious. However, claims 1-17 and 19-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as described above.
The closest prior art of record is Tyagi (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20150088808), Narayanan (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120030276), Sahibzada (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20250139120), Lehmann (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20140372427), Asthana (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190318287), Reina (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20230087304), Lu (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20150134596).
The cited prior art, taken either individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest computing, for each visual indicator, a probability score indicating a probability of the visual indicator occurring in the chapter of the analytical report, wherein the visual indicator allocation model is trained based on statistical analysis of one or more historical analytical reports and determining, by the visual indicator allocation model, at least one visual indicator from amongst the set of visual indicators, for representing the subset of the analytical data within the chapter, wherein the probability score of the at least one visual indicator satisfies a pre-determined selection criterion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wayne S Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights