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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 12-15, filed 11 November 2025, 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 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 claims recite the following additional elements: ‘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’, and ‘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. § 102
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 15, filed 11 November 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections, have been fully considered, and are persuasive, in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections have been withdrawn, however, a new grounds of rejection is provided below, as necessitated by the claim amendments.
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) 1-20 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’; ‘analyze…the first set of attributes to identify a set of visual indicators associated with the analytical report’; ‘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’; ‘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’; ‘analyze…the association mapping to determine at least one visual indicator 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’, and ‘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 18-20 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 1-20 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20150088808), in view of Reina (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20230087304).
In regards to claim 1, Tyagi teaches:
A system comprising:
a processor (Tyagi: ¶15-16, ¶71-74);
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises one or more instructions which when executed by the processor (Tyagi: ¶15-16, ¶71-74), cause the processor to:
authenticate, using one or more servers, a user logging into a particular report generating application based on one or more log-in credentials, wherein the one or more servers are communicatively coupled to the processor over a network (Tyagi: ¶35, ¶37, ¶39, ¶65 disclose receive authentication credentials from a user 20. The client computing device 210 may then send the user authentication credentials to the business system 220. Based on the authentication credentials, the business system 220 may determine that the user is authorized).
Although Tyagi teaches obtain an analytical report having analytical data associated with an organization, the analytical report comprising one or more chapters, wherein each of the one or more chapters comprises at least a subset of the analytical data (Tyagi: ¶28-31, ¶35-41, ¶45-46, ¶65-67, ¶69 disclose receive metadata 245 associated with one or more of the report definitions 243. The metadata 245 describes the dimensions and specific analysis generated by the analytical operations defined by the report definitions), the reference does not explicitly state analyzing the analytical reports using a model trained based on historical analytical reports.
However, Tyagi and Reina together teach:
identify, using a visual indicator allocation model (Reina: ¶64, ¶76-78 disclose the analytics models include one or more machine learning models to identify/label data units of interest in reports and/or generate analytics results), 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 (Tyagi: ¶35-42, ¶67-69 disclose analyze the metadata 245 to determine the dimensions of the analytical data of a report that results from the application of the associated report definition 243 to a business object);
analyze, using a visual indicator allocation model (Reina: ¶64, ¶76-78 disclose the analytics models include one or more machine learning models to identify/label data units of interest in reports and/or generate analytics results), the first set of attributes to identify a set of visual indicators associated with the analytical report, wherein the visual indicators are to provide graphical representation of the analytical data present in the analytical report (Tyagi: ¶31-34, ¶43-51, ¶67-69 disclose analyze the metadata 245 to determine the dimensions of the analytical data of a report that results from the application of the associated report definition 243 to a business object);
receive, using a visual indicator allocation model (Reina: ¶64, ¶76-78 disclose the analytics models include one or more machine learning models to identify/label data units of interest in reports and/or generate analytics results), 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 (Tyagi: ¶30, ¶39, ¶47-49, ¶52-53, ¶65-69 disclose The analytics engine 320 may also examine a set of predetermined object-pattern mappings 260 that can be included in the pattern optimizer 250. The object-pattern map 260 can include a number of associations between specific objects 235 and corresponding alternative visual analytic patterns),
wherein the visual indicator allocation model is trained based on statistical analysis of one or more historical analytical reports (Reina: ¶64, ¶76-78 disclose the report analytics processor 120 is configured to train a machine learning model using a plurality of reports (historical reports and/or currently processed reports), associated analytics results, and/or user configurations (e.g., coding language, selected logical layer, etc.) to generate a trained machine learning model.); and
for each chapter, analyze, using a visual indicator allocation model (Reina: ¶64, ¶76-78 disclose the analytics models include one or more machine learning models to identify/label data units of interest in reports and/or generate analytics results), the association mapping to determine at least one visual indicator for representing the subset of the analytical data within the chapter (Tyagi: ¶30, ¶39, ¶47-49, ¶52-54, ¶65-70 disclose analyze the dimensions of visual analytic patterns 267 associated with specific business object 130 in an object-pattern map 260 to determine an alternative to the user pattern preferences and/or previously generated visual analytics 120); and
for each chapter of the analytical report, incorporate the at least one visual indicator into the chapter to generate a final analytical report (Tyagi: ¶43-51, ¶54-59, ¶65-70 disclose generate a corresponding visual analytic 121 by applying the selected visual analytic pattern to the corresponding analytical data of a previously generated visual analytic based on the user pattern preferences).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the analytics model, as taught by Reina, into the system and method of Tyagi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “identify correlations among…reports” when “there are possibly a large number of related…reports to review and analyze” (Reina: ¶57).
In regards to claim 2, Tyagi and Reina teach the system of claim 1. Tyagi further teaches wherein the first set of attributes comprises an organization attribute corresponding to the organization, a user attribute corresponding to the user associated with the organization and using the particular report generating application to finalize the analytical report, and an application attribute corresponding to the particular report generating application (Tyagi: ¶6, ¶29-34, ¶36-40, ¶52, ¶54-59, ¶65-70).
In regards to claim 3, Tyagi and Reina teach the system of claim 2. Tyagi further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: analyze the organization attribute and the third set of attributes to identify a first plurality of pre-defined visual indicators allocated to the organization, wherein the first plurality of pre-defined visual indicators are customized for being used by the organization (Tyagi: ¶29-30, ¶40-44, ¶47-53); analyze the user attribute and the third set of attributes to identify a second plurality of pre-defined visual indicators, from amongst the first plurality of pre-defined visual indicators, allocated to the user for being used in an analytical report associated with the organization (Tyagi: ¶37-39, ¶52-57, ¶65, ¶69-70); and analyze the application attribute and the third set of attributes to identify the set of visual indicators, from amongst the second plurality of pre-defined visual indicators, allocated to the user for being used in the analytical report with the particular report generating application (Tyagi: ¶6, ¶29-34, ¶36-40, ¶52, ¶54-59, ¶65-70).
In regards to claim 4, Tyagi and Reina teach the system of claim 1. Tyagi further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: obtain at least one historical analytical report, each of the at least one historical analytical report comprising one or more pre-defined chapters having historical analytical data, wherein each of the one or more pre-defined chapters comprises at least one assigned visual indicator graphically representing the historical analytical data (Tyagi: ¶28-31, ¶39-42, ¶45-46, ¶65-67, ¶69); for each of the at least one historical analytical report, identify a first set of historical attributes corresponding to the historical analytical report, a second set of historical attributes corresponding to each of the one or more pre-defined chapters, and a third set of historical attributes corresponding to each of the at least one assigned visual indicator; and analyze the first set of historical attributes, the second set of historical attributes, and the third set of historical attributes to generate the association mapping between the first set of attributes, the second set of attributes, and the third set of attributes (Tyagi: ¶30, ¶42-49, ¶52-53, ¶65-70).
In regards to claim 5, Tyagi and Reina teach the system of claim 4. Tyagi further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: receive a feedback input from a user, wherein the feedback input is to assign at least one desired visual indicator, from amongst the set of visual indicators, to the chapter of the analytical report (Tyagi: ¶49-51, ¶54-59, ¶67-70); identify a fourth set of attributes corresponding to the at least one desired visual indicator; and analyze the first set of attributes, the second set of attributes corresponding to the chapter, and the fourth set of attributes to improvise the association mapping between the first set of attributes, the second set of attributes, and the third set of attributes (Tyagi: ¶30, ¶35-49, ¶52-53, ¶65-70).
In regards to claim 6, Tyagi and Reina teach the system of claim 2. Tyagi further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: display the set of visual indicators on a user interface of the particular report generating application; and incorporate at least one desired visual indicator from the set of visual indicators in the chapter of the analytical report upon receiving an input from the user through the user interface, the input having instructions to incorporate the at least one desired visual indicator in the chapter (Tyagi: ¶31-34, ¶37, ¶44, ¶54-59, ¶61-70).
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 7-20 is not taught by the cited prior art and is considered novel/non-obvious. However, claims 7-20 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).
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 identifying, 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
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 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, Shannon 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628