DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the following communication: Pre-Brief Appeal Conference decision filed on 20 May 2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and present for examination. Claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 is/are in independent form.
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 Amendment
No claims have been amended.
No claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1, 19, and 20, the claim(s) recite(s) “obtaining… user input data”, “obtaining… large language model”, “obtaining… first resolved request data”, “obtaining… target parameters”, “obtaining… target-parameters deficit data”, “obtaining… a co-occurring parameter”, “obtaining… an automatically generated data query expressing the natural language string”, “obtaining… results data”, and “outputting data for presenting.”
The limitations directed towards “obtaining… user input data”, “obtaining… large language model”, “obtaining… first resolved request data”, “obtaining… target parameters”, “obtaining… target-parameters deficit data”, “obtaining… an automatically generated data query expressing the natural language string”, “obtaining… a co-occurring parameter”, “obtaining… results data” are interpreted to be the observation or judgment a user may make and, therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “apparatus”, “memories” and “processors” in claim 19, and “a computer readable medium” in claim 20, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, the “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user receiving and analyzing data items such as user input data, a language model, a data query, parameters data. Additionally, the analyzing of the obtained data (e.g., “a deficit value that is greater than zero” and “co-occurring parameter is absent from the first resolved request data”, and etc.) as claimed would encompass features which may be performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, Prong 2, of the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg., we determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the abstract idea integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54; MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05. The 2019 Guidance provides exemplary considerations that are indicative of an additional element or combination of elements integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by additional elements. In particular, the claim recites using a processor to perform the steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Additionally, the claimed feature of “outputting data for presenting the results data” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., necessary data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). At step 2A, prong two, considering these limitations individually and the claim as a whole, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements directed to “storing” and “presenting” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
At Step 2B, all claim elements, with the exception of the processor and memory, correspond to concepts determined to be abstract ideas for the reasons discussed above in connection with Prong One of the analysis and/or merely constitute extra-solution activity under Prong Two. Applicant's lack of a detailed disclosure of computer hardware or functional requirements and the lack of details describing a computer-specific implementation of the recited functions (such as might have been indicated by inclusion of a detailed flow chart depicting unconventional computer operations and/or routines for performing each of the claimed steps), persuades us that the omitted details are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum, the claims merely recite generic computer components performing generic computing functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. 5 See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (The "use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are 'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the industry.") ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71-73); see also Benson, 409
U.S. at 65 (Noting that a "computer operates then upon both new and previously stored data. The general-purpose computer is designed to perform operations under many different programs."); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that using generic computing components like a microprocessor or user interface does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (indicating components such as an "interface" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (citing Alice and Mayo) accord Berkheimer Memo 3-4.
In this case, the “outputting” limitations are clearly well-understood, routine, and conventional; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "receiving or transmitting data over a network." The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computing of measures only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). The claims provide that the measures may be computed by program code that may be stored in memory. Therefore, the computing is nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional search engine and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
As per claim 2, the additional limitations directed to further defining the user input data and target visualization data are interpreted as additional observations or judgments which may be made by the user. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 3, the additional limitations directed to further defining the target-parameters data and a count of parameters are interpreted as additional observations or judgments which may be made by the user. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 4, the additional limitations directed to further defining the parameter type and target-parameters deficit value are interpreted as additional observations or judgments which may be made by the user. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 5, the additional limitation directed to further defining the parameter type is interpreted as additional observations or judgments which may be made by the user. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 6, the additional limitations directed to further obtaining and identifying parameter data as claimed would encompass features which may be performed in the mind and are interpreted as additional observations or judgments which may be made by the user. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 7, the limitations further recite features describing the request parameter and utility score. These limitations merely specify the parameter and score used in the recited mental process and therefore define the judicial exception rather than integrating it into a practical application. Additionally, specifying these features does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it merely limits the information evaluated. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 8, the limitations further recite features describing the candidate co-occurring parameter and utility score. These limitations merely specify the parameter and score used in the recited mental process and therefore define the judicial exception rather than integrating it into a practical application. Additionally, specifying these features does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it merely limits the information evaluated. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 9, the limitations further recite features describing the candidate co-occurring parameter. These limitations merely specify the parameter used in the recited mental process and therefore define the judicial exception rather than integrating it into a practical application. Additionally, specifying these features does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it merely limits the information evaluated. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 10, the limitations further recite features describing the target-parameters deficit value and co-occurring parameters. These limitations merely specify the parameters used in the recited mental process and therefore define the judicial exception rather than integrating it into a practical application. Additionally, specifying these features does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it merely limits the information evaluated. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 11, the limitations further recite features describing the parameter type, co-occurring parameter, and the obtaining the automatically generated data query step. These limitations merely specify the parameters used in the recited mental process and therefore define the judicial exception rather than integrating it into a practical application. Additionally, specifying these features does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it merely limits the information evaluated. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 12, the limitations further recite features describing the request parameter, obtaining the co-occurring parameter, and the utility data index. These limitations merely specify the parameters and the utility data index used in the recited mental process and further elaborate on the mental step of obtaining the co-occurring parameter. Therefore, the claim limitations merely define the judicial exception rather than integrating it into a practical application. Additionally, specifying these features does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it merely limits the information evaluated. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 13, the limitations further recite features describing the parameter type, co-occurring parameter, and the obtaining the automatically generated data query step. These limitations merely specify the parameters used in the recited mental process and therefore define the judicial exception rather than integrating it into a practical application. Additionally, specifying these features does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it merely limits the information evaluated. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 14, the limitations further recite features describing the request parameter, obtaining the co-occurring parameter, and the utility data index. These limitations merely specify the parameters and the utility data index used in the recited mental process and further elaborate on the mental step of obtaining the co-occurring parameter. Therefore, the claim limitations merely define the judicial exception rather than integrating it into a practical application. Additionally, specifying these features does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it merely limits the information evaluated. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 15, the limitations further recite features describing the request parameter, the parameter type, co-occurring parameter, and the obtaining the automatically generated data query step. These limitations merely specify the parameters used in the recited mental process and therefore define the judicial exception rather than integrating it into a practical application. Additionally, specifying these features does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it merely limits the information evaluated. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 16, the limitations further recite features describing the request parameter, obtaining the co-occurring parameter, and the utility data index. These limitations merely specify the parameters and the utility data index used in the recited mental process and further elaborate on the mental step of obtaining the co-occurring parameter. Therefore, the claim limitations merely define the judicial exception rather than integrating it into a practical application. Additionally, specifying these features does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it merely limits the information evaluated. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 17, the limitations further recite features describing the parameter type, the request parameter, co-occurring parameter, and the obtaining the automatically generated data query step. These limitations merely specify the parameters used in the recited mental process and therefore define the judicial exception rather than integrating it into a practical application. Additionally, specifying these features does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it merely limits the information evaluated. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
As per claim 18, the limitations further recite features describing the request parameter, obtaining the co-occurring parameter, and the utility data index. These limitations merely specify the parameters and the utility data index used in the recited mental process and further elaborate on the mental step of obtaining the co-occurring parameter. Therefore, the claim limitations merely define the judicial exception rather than integrating it into a practical application. Additionally, specifying these features does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it merely limits the information evaluated. Accordingly, the instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to the aforementioned claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Issue 1
The Examiner has addressed the limitation directed to “obtaining… an automatically generated data query expressing the natural language string.” Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Issue 2
The Examiner has addressed each of the dependent claims 6-18 separately. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Issues 3-5
The Examiner maintains the rejections for the reasons below:
Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLSBankInt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Alice and Mayo. See id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.”
Id. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”’ Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO has published revised guidance on the application of § 101. See USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).2 Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or a mental process); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)—(c), (e)—(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 19, and 20 together, finding that the features of those claims correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as delivering results data for presentation. (citing Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Examiner finds that the limitations of the current claims are performed by the generically recited computer/processor, and that the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. The Examiner finds that these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination. Specifically, The Examiner finds that the use of generic computer components to obtain and output results data does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather, their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Judicial Exception (Step 2A, Prong 1)
As per the rejection of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, viewing the rejection through the lens of the Guidance, we must first consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. The USPTO has synthesized the key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas into three primary subject-matter groupings: mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., a fundamental economic practice), and mental processes. Id. at 52. As explained below, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors) and mental processes, which are identified by the Guidance as abstract ideas. Id.
Applicant asserts the argument that “[t]he claimed invention does not merely “analyze” data in a vacuum; rather, it performs a specific technical bridge between the high-level, often “incompatible, or incompletely compatible” output of a large language model, the “data analytics grammar” of the data access and analysis system, and the rigid “structured query language” required by a database system.” See Response, pages 12-13. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The steps of claims 1, 19, and 20 could be performed by a user in his or her head, but for claims’ recitations of generic computer hardware and instructions. For example, the “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user receiving and analyzing data items such as user input data, a language model, parameters data. Additionally, the analyzing of the obtained data (e.g., “a deficit value that is greater than zero” and “co-occurring parameter is absent from the first resolved request data”, and etc.) as claimed would encompass features which may be performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, claims 1, 10, and 16 recite concepts that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement), an example of a mental process. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”). The Guidance lists a mental process as another example of an abstract idea. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the instant claims recite abstract ideas, namely a mental process.
“Directed to ” the Judicial Exception (Step 2A, Prong 2)
Because the claims recite an abstract idea, the Examiner now proceeds to determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. Specifically, the Examiner looks to whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include additional elements that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. When a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Applicant asserts the argument that “the Office has misapplied Step 2A Prong Two.” See Response, page 13.
As previously provided, the Examiner notes that the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the limitations of the current claims are performed by the generically recited computer/processor and that the use of generic computer components to obtain and process data does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. As to the claim as a whole, the Examiner finds that there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology as evaluating data to present results data in accordance with a target visualization type is well-understood, routine, and conventional, and therefore does not add significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii), "receiving or transmitting data over a network").
Applicant asserts the argument that “The specification explains that this process "improves the efficiency with which system resources are utilized to access and use data" by automating the configuration of complex visualizations that would otherwise be "impracticable or impossible to achieve by the human mind.”” See Response, page 14. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant contends that this is a specific technical improvement.
The Examiner finds that the instant claims merely recite abstract ideas implemented on generic computer hardware, with generic programming instructions. Unlike the claimed invention in McRO, for example, that improved how a physical display operated to produce better quality images, the claimed invention here merely uses generic computing components to evaluate content triggers and insert triggered content on a media channel. In particular, the individual steps of the instant claims are recited as performed by generic computer equipment, including steps performed by “one or more memories storing instructions for automatic target visualization adaptation” and “one or more processors that execute the instructions.” Consistent with this, the Specification describes the invention as implemented on generic computer equipment with generic computer instructions. Spec. 22-33.
Simply reciting generic computer hardware for performing an abstract idea does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225—26 (“Viewed as a whole, petitioner’s method claims simply recite the concept of intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they affect improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer.” (internal citations omitted)); DealertrackInc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Simply adding a ‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.”). The invention of the instant claims does not focus on improving computers as tools, but rather certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. See Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354. The Guidance also discusses other ways that additional elements can integrate the judicial exception into a practical application—e.g., a particular machine or manufacture, a particular transformation, and a particular treatment of a disease. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The instant claims also lack such features.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. For the same reasons, independent claims 19 and 20 do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into practical applications.
Lastly, Applicant asserts the argument that “dependent claims 12, 14, 16, and 18, respectively recite “traversing a utility data index” and the Office has failed to establish that a person having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the “traversing a utility data index” as something that can be performed in the human mind and would not instead interpret “traversing a utility data index” as arising in the context of the computer, wherein the recited “utility data index” is a specialized data structure such as a “trie data structure.” See Response, page 15. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claim does not recite a trie or any other particular structure but merely refers to a “utility data index” in functional terms. In the absence of structural detail or express limitations in the claim language, the term must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), which can include both abstract and conventional indexing techniques. As such, traversing a utility index is a form of organizing or retrieving data, a task that is conceptually analogous to operations that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Even assuming the traversal is performed using a computer, merely executing a known or routine data lookup process on a general-purpose machine does not amount to a technological improvement or an inventive concept under Alice Step 2B. The claim does not describe how the traversal is performed in an unconventional manner, nor does it receive any specific implementation that improves the operation of the computer itself. Rather, it describes a generic act of accessing data in support of a larger abstract process. As such indexing or searching using known data structures remain abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the traversal of a utility data index, as presently claimed, is considered to be a conventional post-solution or data access activity. It does not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The Examiner finds that the additional limitations of the dependent claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical applications; rather, they simply recite the use of generic computer components and do not impose meaningful limits on the computer implementations of the abstract ideas.
Inventive Concept (Step 2B)
To determine whether a claim provides an inventive concept, the Examiner considers the additional elements - individually and in combination - to determine whether they (1) add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or (2) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Also, the Examiner reevaluates our conclusions about the additional elements discussed in the previous step. Id.
The Examiner finds that the limitations of the instant claims, individually and in an ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. It is noted that Applicant fails to provide how the claimed invention improves the technical field of the claimed invention. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit determined that claims to filtering content on the Internet, including “limitations of the claims, taken individually, recit[ing] generic computer, network and Internet components, none of which is inventive by itself,” was eligible because of its “nonconventional and non-generic arrangement” of the components, specifically, “the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user,” which “gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server.” 827 F.3d at 1349-50. Unlike the claims in BASCOM, Applicant’s claims do not recite unconventional or non-generic arrangements of components that improve computer functionality or a technological area. Rather, the Examiner finds that the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.”
In sum, the limitations of claims 1, 19, and 20, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept. For the same reasons, claims 2-18 do not provide inventive concepts.
Claims 1-20 are directed to mental processes. The additional limitations of the claims, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the instant claims do not recite patent-eligible subject matter.
Issue 6
The Examiner has amended the rejection directed to media content and transmitting an advertisement. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Niu et al, USPGPUB No. 2025/0103592.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/Paul Kim/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2166
/PK/
Prosecution Insights