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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 30 September 2025. Claims 2, 4-16, 18-30 and 32-43 have been amended. Claims 2-43 are currently pending. The rejections are as stated below.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-43 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-57 of US Patent 11922516 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to methods and systems for dynamically analyzing transaction data to detect a pattern in the transaction data indicative of a fraud attempt. Claims 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22-24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 36-38, 41 and 42 of the instant application essentially repeat all the features listed in claims 1-57 of US Patent 11922516 B2. However, certain language has been removed from the above issued Patents. Therefore, the omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375. Further:
Claims 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 17, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29, 31, 34 ,35, 39, 40, and 43 are obvious combinations of the elements present in the ‘516 patent (Sarda et al., hereinafter (Sarda).
Claims 3, 17 and 31, further recite “the pattern includes a plurality of requests for a transaction, wherein the plurality of requests for the transaction share a first type of data but include variations in a second type of data”.
However, Roumeliotis discloses the pattern includes a plurality of requests for a transaction, wherein the plurality of requests for the transaction share a first type of data but include variations in a second type of data (Figure 3, column 8, line 56 thru column 9, line 42 and column 10, lines 28-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sarda to incorporate that the pattern includes a plurality of requests for a transaction, wherein the plurality of requests for the transaction share a first type of data but include variations in a second type of data, as taught by Roumeliotis, to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of the system by detecting or identifying suspected fraudulent financial activity using aggregated financial data (see Roumeliotis, column 1 ,lines 7-36).
Claims 6, 20 and 34, further recite the step of “generating a summary of the transaction data based on analyzing the transaction data, wherein the summary is indicative of the at least one fraud attempt, and wherein the alert includes the summary”.
However, Roumeliotis discloses the step of generating a summary of the transaction data based on analyzing the transaction data, wherein the summary is indicative of the at least one fraud attempt, and wherein the alert includes the summary (abstract, figure 4c, element 250 and column 1, lines 22-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sarda to incorporate the step of generating a summary of the transaction data based on analyzing the transaction data, wherein the summary is indicative of the at least one fraud attempt, and wherein the alert includes the summary, as taught by Roumeliotis, to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of the system and make it user friendly.
Claims 7, 21 and 35, further recite the step of “identifying that specific data associated with a specific transaction is missing in the transaction data; extracting information from a data store; and modifying the transaction data using the information to in place of the specific data that is missing”.
However, Roumeliotis discloses the step of identifying that specific data associated with a specific transaction is missing in the transaction data; extracting information from a data store; and modifying the transaction data using the information to in place of the specific data that is missing (column 3, lines 28-51 and column 9, lines 7-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sarda to incorporate the step of identifying that specific data associated with a specific transaction is missing in the transaction data; extracting information from a data store; and modifying the transaction data using the information to in place of the specific data that is missing, as taught by Roumeliotis, since both systems are directed to aggregating data from a plurality of operational databases that will enhance the efficiency of the system and make it user friendly.
Claims 11, 12, 25, 26, 39 and 40, further recite the “one of the plurality of transactions is associated with a request to grant a line of credit, and wherein the alert indicates a decision not to grant the line of credit based on the at least one fraud attempt, generating a chart based on the transaction data, wherein the alert includes the chart; and dynamically updating the chart as the transaction data continues to be received”.
Official notice is hereby taken that granting a line of credit and notifying the user of a denial notification, generating a chart based on transaction data, wherein the alert, prompt or notification includes the chart; and dynamically updating the chart as the transaction data continues to be received.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sarda to incorporate one of the plurality of transactions is associated with a request to grant a line of credit, and wherein the alert indicates a decision not to grant the line of credit based on the at least one fraud attempt, generating a chart based on the transaction data, wherein the alert includes the chart; and dynamically updating the chart as the transaction data continues to be received, as taught by Roumeliotis, for enhancing the functionality of the system by greatly improving the performance/accuracy of the system.
Claims 15, 29 and 43, further recite the step of “updating the trained machine learning model based on a response to the alert”.
However, Roumeliotis discloses the step of updating the trained machine learning model based on a response to the alert (column 10, lines 7-33, abstract, figure 3 and column 8, line 56 thru column 9, line 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sarda to incorporate the step of updating the trained machine learning model based on a response to the alert, as taught by Roumeliotis, to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the system by improving decision-making capabilities.
For these reasons, claims 2-43 of the instant application are not identical to claims 1-57 of US Patent 11922516 B2, but they are not patently distinct.
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 2-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 2 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for dynamically analyzing transaction data to detect a pattern in the transaction data indicative of a fraud attempt.
The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of storing a filtering scheme for filtering data based on a data category; retrieving filtered transaction data associated with a plurality of transactions, wherein the filtered transaction data is filtered based on the filtering scheme to reduce bandwidth usage, and wherein the filtered transaction data continues to be retrieved over time; periodically analyzing the filtered transaction data as the filtered transaction data continues to be retrieved; recognizing a pattern across a subset of the plurality of transactions in the filtered transaction data based on the periodic analyses of the filtered transaction data, wherein the pattern is associated with the data category, and wherein the pattern is indicative of a fraud attempt by a malicious party; and declining access to a program by the malicious party based on the fraud attempt.
The claimed system simply describes series of steps for dynamically analyzing transaction data to detect a pattern in the transaction data indicative of a fraud attempt. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performances and concepts performed in the human minds (including observation; evaluation; judgment; opinion); and a method of organizing human activity which includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) that enhance managing a financial account and, therefore, fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity category of the USPTO’s Guidance. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14. Observations and evaluation occur when the system periodically analyzing the transaction data as the transaction data continues to be received, wherein analyzing the transaction data results in recognizing a pattern in the transaction data; mitigating risk occurs because the system outputs an alert indicative of the at least one fraud attempt. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or abstract ideas, then it falls within the “mental processes” and “a method of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The recited judicial exception may be integrated into a practical application by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim recites no additional limitation in claim 1. However, thew additional limitations (of claim 16) include a memory and a processor to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Merely adding generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not integrate those ideas into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “merely includ[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” as an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application). Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the computer at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claims 2, 16 and 30. Furthermore, the dependent claims 3-15, 17-29 and 31-43 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims.
Dependent claims 14, 15, 28, 29, 42 and 43 include the additional elements of a machine learning model. As discussed above with respect to the independent claims The machine learning model in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic model performing a generic computer function of processing data. The limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the computer at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
The remaining dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Dependent claims, recite additional limitations and steps. However, as mentioned above with respect to the independent claims, the claimed limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a device, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic device to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 2-43 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 2-7, 10, 14-21, 24, 28-35, 38, 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Roumeliotis (US 9786015 B1), hereinafter “Roumeliotis” in view of Jain et al. (US 20210201330 A1), hereinafter “Jain”.
Regarding claims 2, 16 and 30, Roumeliotis discloses a method and corresponding system for dynamic data analysis, comprising the steps of receiving transaction data associated with a plurality of transactions, wherein the transaction data continues to be received over time; periodically analyzing the transaction data as the transaction data continues to be received, wherein analyzing the transaction data results in recognizing a pattern in the transaction data, and wherein the pattern is indicative of at least one fraud attempt; and outputting an alert indicative of the at least one fraud attempt. (abstract, figure 3, column 1, lines 7-21, column 8, line 56 thru column 9, line 42 and column 10, lines 28-33).
Roumeliotis fails to teach the steps of storing a filtering scheme for filtering data based on a data category; retrieving filtered transaction data associated with a plurality of transactions, wherein the filtered transaction data is filtered based on the filtering scheme to reduce bandwidth usage, recognizing a pattern, wherein the pattern is associated with the data category.
Jain teaches the steps of storing a filtering scheme for filtering data based on a data category; retrieving filtered transaction data associated with a plurality of transactions, wherein the filtered transaction data is filtered based on the filtering scheme to reduce bandwidth usage, recognizing a pattern, wherein the pattern is associated with the data category (abstract and ¶¶ 0019-0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Roumeliotis to incorporate the steps of storing a filtering scheme for filtering data based on a data category; retrieving filtered transaction data associated with a plurality of transactions, wherein the filtered transaction data is filtered based on the filtering scheme to reduce bandwidth usage, recognizing a pattern, wherein the pattern is associated with the data category, as taught by Jain, since both systems are directed to fraud detection that will enhance the accuracy/efficiency of the system.
Both Roumeliotis and Jain fail to explicitly teach the step of declining access to a program (line of credit) by the malicious party based on the fraud attempt.
Official notice is hereby taken that granting a line of credit and notifying the user of a denial notification, is old and well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Roumeliotis to include the step of declining access to a program (line of credit) by the malicious party based on the fraud attempt for enhancing the security of the system by greatly improving the performance/accuracy of the system.
Regarding claims 3, 17 and 31, Roumeliotis discloses the pattern includes a plurality of requests for a transaction, wherein the plurality of requests for the transaction share a first type of data but include variations in a second type of data (Figure 3, column 8, line 56 thru column 9, line 42 and column 10, lines 28-33).
Regarding claims 4, 18 and 32, Roumeliotis discloses the pattern is associated with a discrepancy between a first data set received from a first data store and a second data set from a second data store (Figure 3, column 8, line 56 thru column 9, line 42 and column 10, lines 28-33).
Regarding claims 5, 19 and 33, Roumeliotis discloses the step of identifying a trend based on the pattern, wherein the fraud attempt is associated with the trend (Figure 3, column 8, line 56 thru column 9, line 42 and column 10, lines 28-33).
Regarding claims 6, 20 and 34, Roumeliotis discloses the step of generating a summary of the transaction data based on analyzing the transaction data, wherein the summary is indicative of the at least one fraud attempt, and wherein the alert includes the summary (abstract, figure 4c, element 250 and column 1, lines 22-59).
Regarding claims 7, 21 and 35, Roumeliotis discloses the step of identifying that specific data associated with a specific transaction is missing in the transaction data; extracting information from a data store; and modifying the transaction data using the information to in place of the specific data that is missing (column 3, lines 28-51 and column 9, lines 7-42).
Regarding claims 10, 24 and 38, Roumeliotis discloses the transaction data includes one or more requests to process at least a subset of the plurality of transactions (column 1, line 7-46).
Regarding claims 14, 15, 28, 29, 42 and 43, Roumeliotis discloses the steps of analyzing the transaction data includes analyzing the transaction data using a trained machine learning model to identify the pattern and updating the trained machine learning model based on a response to the alert (column 10, lines 7-33, abstract, figure 3 and column 8, line 56 thru column 9, line 42).
Both Roumeliotis and Jain fail to explicitly teach the step of outputting an alert associated with the access to the program being declined.
Official notice is hereby taken that notifying a user of a denial notification (line of credit), is old and well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Roumeliotis to include the step of outputting an alert associated with the access to the program being declined for enhancing the security of the system by greatly improving the performance/accuracy of the system.
Claims 8, 9, 11-13, 22, 23, 25-27, 36, 37 and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roumeliotis in view of Jain and further in view of PAUL (US 20100250566 A1) hereinafter, “PAUL”.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 22, 23, 36 and 37, Roumeliotis fails to teach the steps of generating a script to extract the transaction data from a data store, wherein the script is customized for the data store based on a data structure type of the data store, and wherein receiving the transaction data includes extracting the transaction data using the script and generating a script to process the transaction data before analyzing the transaction data, wherein the transaction data is received from the data store.
PAUL teaches the steps of generating a script to extract the transaction data from a data store, wherein the script is customized for the data store based on a data structure type of the data store, and wherein receiving the transaction data includes extracting the transaction data using the script and generating a script to process the transaction data before analyzing the transaction data, wherein the transaction data is received from the data store (abstract and ¶ 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Roumeliotis to incorporate the use of a script to extract the transaction data from a data store, wherein the script is customized for the data store based on a data structure type of the data store, and wherein receiving the transaction data includes extracting the transaction data using the script and generating a script to process the transaction data before analyzing the transaction data, wherein the transaction data is received from the data store, as taught by PAUL, since both systems are directed to aggregating data from a plurality of operational databases that will enhance the efficiency of the system and make it user friendly (see PAUL ¶ 0004).
Regarding claims 11-13, 25-27 and 39-41, Roumeliotis fails to teach one of the plurality of transactions is associated with a request to grant a line of credit, and wherein the alert indicates a decision not to grant the line of credit based on the at least one fraud attempt, generating a chart based on the transaction data, wherein the alert includes the chart; and dynamically updating the chart as the transaction data continues to be received and generate a filtering scheme based on a characteristic of the pattern; and filtering out further transaction data that includes the characteristic of the pattern using the filtering scheme.
Official notice is hereby taken that granting a line of credit and notifying the user of a denial notification, generating a chart based on transaction data, wherein the alert, prompt or notification includes the chart; and dynamically updating the chart as the transaction data continues to be received and generate a filtering scheme based on a characteristic of the pattern; and filtering out transaction data is old and well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Roumeliotis to include one of the plurality of transactions is associated with a request to grant a line of credit, and wherein the alert indicates a decision not to grant the line of credit based on the at least one fraud attempt, generating a chart based on the transaction data, wherein the alert includes the chart; and dynamically updating the chart as the transaction data continues to be received and generate a filtering scheme based on a characteristic of the pattern; and filtering out further transaction data that includes the characteristic of the pattern using the filtering scheme for enhancing the functionality of the system by greatly improving the performance/accuracy of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 2-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The proposed amendments do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant amended the claims to include the above claim limitations. The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed above and in the previous office action rejections.
The claims apply the abstract idea on the computer system at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The focus of the claims in the present case is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Even the “metadata cryptographically signed” and “storing locally” are standard and well understood, routine and conventional.
The technology implemented in the instant application is useful to solve a business problem, but the additional elements are not a technological solution to a technological problem, or a solution to the problem introduced by the technology itself. Rather, the additional elements simply limit the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment.
The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer [] a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”).
A claim may be found to be eligible if it integrates a judicial exception into a practical application as cited by Applicant. However, examiner notes that "claiming the improved efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).) Claiming improved data processing efficiency inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. -see MPEP 2106.05(f). The instant claims do not attempt to solve an unconventional technological solution. Using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea and the way the information is processed and displayed does not make it less abstract. The claimed use of computer elements recited at a high level of generality is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic computer components claimed to perform their basic functions. The processor is a general-purpose processor that performs general-purpose functions. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic recitation of a computer processor performing its generic computer functions. Accordingly, claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
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 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 Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691