DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This office action is in response to the claimed amendment filed on December 01, 2025, in which claims 1-25 were cancelled and claims 26-45 are presented for further examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 01, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 26-45 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejection set forth in the last office action has been withdrawn in light of the terminal disclaimer filed on July 8, 2024.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para. [0009] recites “……collect data pieces from one or moe data sources”. Appropriate correction is required.
Note that 35 USC 112(pre-AIA ), Sixth Paragraph is not invoking for the limitations of claims 26 and 35.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 26 recites “a signature table data structure configured to map a tag, of a plurality of tags, to a data piece of the plurality of data pieces”; and claim 35 recites “a signature table data structure configured to identify records that have already been stored and make calculated determinations as to whether a new record should be created, or an old record re-used/replaced”.
The specification, pars. [0124], [0127]. [0128] and [0129], mentions “signature table”. Therefore, the recited language “signature table data structure” is considered to refer to “signature table” in order to be consistent with the specification. Should the Applicant disagrees with the assertion, clarification and a mapping correspondence should be provided.
Claims 26 and 35 recite “the data glob comprises the plurality of data pieces and the plurality of tags, and the data glob is modifiable and searchable”. It is unclear how would the data glob be modifiable and searchable. The claims do not provide any correspondence how the data glob would be modified or searched. Clarification is advised.
Claims 27-34 and 36-45 are rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claim by dependency.
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 26-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
At Step 1:
With respect to subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it is determined that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The limitation “an analyzer module operable to determine a correlation between two or more data pieces of the plurality of data pieces” in claims 26 and 35, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an analyzer module”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “determine”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can manually with the aid of pen and paper determines a correlation between two or more data pieces
The limitation “a signature table data structure configured to map a tag of a plurality of tags, to a data piece of the plurality of data pieces” in claim 1, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the language, “map”, in the context of the claim encompasses one can manually with the aid of pen and paper map a tag of a plurality of tags.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements:
That the method is "implemented by a computing system" is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
.
" communicate a data glob to one or more big-data databases for storage, wherein the data glob comprises the plurality of data pieces and the plurality of tags, and the data glob is modifiable and searchable " recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result and mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
“analyzer module” is recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
At Step 2B:
With respect to the “ communicate….” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and "i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible.
The dependent claims 27-34 and 36-45 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 27 recites “wherein the analyzer module is operable to use one or more data services to manage the communication of the data globs to the big-data databases” herein the analyzer module is operable to use one or more data services to manage the communication of the data globs to the big-data databases. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for managing the communication of the data globs to the big-data databases, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 28 recites “wherein the computer- implemented data processing system is configured to de-normalize the data pieces”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for de-normalizing the data pieces, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 29 recites “wherein an analyzer module is operable to track the number of data pieces received and the number of data globs created”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for tracking the number of data pieces received and the number of data globs created, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 30 recites “wherein an analyzer module is operable to add one or more tags, of the plurality of tags, to each data piece, wherein the plurality of tags are searchable in the big-data databases”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for adding one or more tags, of the plurality of tags, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 31 recites “wherein each data piece represents a message with one or more of the following fields: source, sender, timestamp, subject, intended recipients, actual recipients and metadata”. There is no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly.
Claim 32 recites “wherein each data piece is associated with one or more profiles, where each profile may be a sender, a recipient and/or an observer”. There is no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly.
Claim 33 recites “wherein the computer- implemented data processing system is programmed to identify related source-profiles in order to determine a single profile for each unique person”. There is no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly.
Claim 34 recites “wherein the analyzer module is operable to use an intensity algorithm to determine a degree of correlation among the data pieces”. There is no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly.
Claim 36 recites “wherein the big-data database tags the data globs when the big-data database stores the data globs such that the data globs are searchable and comparable”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for grouping the policies of the managed directories, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 37 recites “wherein the big-data database is operable to be searched by a user, where the search is based on one or more of the following: content of data pieces in data globs, tags, and relationships”. There is no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly.
Claim 38 recites “wherein the big-data database uses the signature table to ensure that duplicate copies of the same data piece are not stored in the big-data databases”. There is no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly.
Claim 39 recites “wherein the big-data database includes one or more of the following big data tools: Hadoop, Hbase or Elastic Search”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for using Hadoop, Hbase or Elastic Search, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 40 recites “wherein the big-data database communicates with one or more of the following: a query and analysis module; a big data analytics module; and/or one or more custom applications that allow users to interface with the big-data database”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for interfacing with the big-data database, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more
Claim 41 recites “wherein each of the one or more tags is editable, and each of the one or more tags is designated as being visible to a single user, visible to several users, or visible throughout a domain”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for updating each of the one or more tags, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more
Claim 42 recites “wherein the big-data database organizes stored data globs by row keys”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for organizing stored data globs by row keys, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 43 recites “wherein the big-data database analyzes the data globs to determine one or more sentiment scores”. There is no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly.
Claim 44 recites “wherein the collected data pieces are de-duplicated according to a level of similarity the collected data pieces have with stored information associated with data globs in the big-data database”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for de-duplicating the collected data pieces, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 45 recites “wherein the big-data database keys, indexes and sorts the data globs when the big-data database stores the data globs”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for indexing the data globs, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120197907 A1 (involved in detecting, importing and reconciling relevant electronic communications into data storage and retrieval system).
US 20120150888 A1 (involved in maintaining a database of user profiles based on user interaction with third-party systems.)
US 20090198670 A1 (involved in importing data stored in several servers into a memory, after authenticating the server. The stored data is converted into XML format or plain text format, to produce uniform data. An interface is provided to the user for accessing the uniform data. Several subsets of uniform data are presented to the user in response to the request of user).
US 20090198651 A1 (involved in analyzing data related to event like user request and incident in business and government entities).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. 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.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 December 13, 2025