Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/457,644

CUSTOMIZABLE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Final Rejection §101§DP
Filed
Aug 29, 2023
Examiner
VIG, NARESH
Art Unit
3622
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Thermodynamic Design, LLC
OA Round
4 (Final)
37%
Grant Probability
At Risk
5-6
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 37% of cases
37%
Career Allow Rate
223 granted / 607 resolved
-15.3% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+38.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
654
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§103
43.9%
+3.9% vs TC avg
§102
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
§112
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 607 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §DP
DETAILED ACTION This is in reference to communication received 09 October 2025. Addition of claim 27 is acknowledged. Claims 1 – 27 are pending for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Independent claim 1, representative of claims 13 and 25, in part is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites invention directed to preventing duplicate presentation of event data on a channel (or feed). Event-data for plurality of events is generated and an event identifier is associated with the event. A representation of at least one event-data is provided to plurality of consumer-users. Event-data that have been presented to a first-consumer-user are identified and excluded from repeat presentation to the first user (e.g., filtered out) thereby resulting in a subset of event-data that can be subsequently provided for presentation to the first-consumer-user. Event-data from the subset of event-data is provided for presentation to the first-consumer-user on an new-channel (new-feed) for presentation of event-data that was not previously presented (displayed) to the first-consumer-user, and, event-data that have been previously presented to the first-consumer-user have been excluded (filtered-out) therefore they are not made available for presentation to the first-consumer-user, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. advertising). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception. Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: storing the event data for each of the plurality of events and consumer-user data comprising a consumer-user data object for each of a plurality of consumer-users in at least one repository. Examiner understands this limitations to be insignificant extrasolution activity. (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle in to a patentable process.”). Represented claims 13 and 25, which do recite statutory categories (machine, product of manufacture, for example), the same analysis as above applies to these claims since the method steps are the same. However, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. These claims add the generic computer components (additional elements) of an apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors and a memory (claim 13), and a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by a processor of a machine cause the machine to perform the method addressed above (claim 25). The processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. When taken as an ordered combination, nothing is added that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. When viewed as a whole, the marketing activities amount to instructions applied using generic computer components. As for dependent claims 2 – 12, 14 – 24, and 26 – 27 dependent on the aforementioned independent claims, and include all the limitations contained therein. These claims do not recite any additional technical elements, and simply disclose additional limitations that further limit the abstract idea with details regarding defining condition that conversation data will be generated when there is an intent from the first-consumer-user to initiate a conversation; transmitting of the conversation data along with the consumer identifier to a device of a second-consumer-user; defining that conversation data will be generated when there is a response from the second-consumer-user, and transmitting the response to the first-consumer-user; defining what consumer-input will represent; storing the conversation in a repository; defining that the consumer-users will use GUI to generate information; and defining that information will be presented to the consumer-users using a GUI, defining what information does the event comprise, defining the triggering event and basis for generating of information that will be transmitted to the device of the first-consumer-user, and defining the triggering event for identifying event-data for the first-event to a second-consumer-user. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural (and predominantly non-functional) details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s). Therefore, claims 1 – 27 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Double Patenting The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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 nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting 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. 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). Claims 1 – 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 – 13 of U. S. Patent No. 11,907,966 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Application 18/457,644 US Patent 11,907,966 processing, using at least one processing unit, event data received via at least one communications network, the event data concerning a plurality of events, each of the plurality of events involving a performing artist or sports team; generating, using at least one processing unit, event data for each of a plurality of events, the event data for each event comprising an event data object having an event identifier identifying an event of the plurality of events; generating, using the at least one processing unit, for each one of the plurality of events, an event data object comprising an event identifier identifying the one event; storing, in at least one repository, the event data for each of the plurality of events, the at least one repository also storing consumer-user data comprising a consumer-user data object for each of a plurality of consumer-users, each consumer-user data object comprising a consumer-user identifier identifying a consumer-user of the plurality of consumer-users; storing the event data object for each of the plurality of events in at least one repository, the at least one repository also storing consumer-user data comprising a consumer-user data object for each of a plurality of consumer-users, each consumer-user data object comprising a consumer-user identifier identifying a consumer-user of the plurality of consumer-users, at least some of the plurality of consumer-users being target consumer-users who are followed by one or more follower consumer-users; transmitting, using the at least one processing unit and via at least one communications network, a representation of the event data for one or more of the plurality of events to devices respectively associated with consumer-users of the plurality of consumer-users, each of the devices comprising a screen interface, the act of transmitting comprising transmitting a representation of event data to a first device associated with a first consumer-user of the plurality of consumer-users; transmitting, using the at least one processing unit, a representation of the event data associated with one or more of the plurality of events via the at least one communications network, to devices coupled to the at least one communications network, each of the devices being associated with one of the plurality of consumer-users and comprising a screen interface, the transmitting comprising transmitting a representation of event data for a first event to a first device associated with the first consumer-user; detecting, using the at least one processing unit, input received via a screen interface of the first device in relation to the representation of the event data for the first event, the input indicating intent to initiate a conversation regarding the first event; responsive to the detecting, generating a conversation data object comprising a conversation identifier, and storing, in the at least one repository, the conversation data object and an association between the consumer-user identifier of the first user, the event identifier of the first event, and the conversation identifier of the conversation data object; retrieving, by the at least one processing unit from the at least one repository, a consumer-user identifier for a second consumer-user who follows the first consumer-user; transmitting a representation of the conversation data object, via the at least one communications network, to a second device coupled to the at least one communications network, the second device being associated with the second consumer-user; identifying, using the at least one processing unit, a first subset of the plurality of events for which a representation of event data has previously been displayed via the screen interface of the first device associated with the first consumer-user so that a representation of event data associated with the first subset is excluded from transmission to the first device via the at least one communications network and is not processed by the first device, the identifying thereby producing a second subset of the plurality of events for which a representation of event data has not previously been displayed via the screen interface of the first device associated with the first consumer-user; identifying a subset of the plurality of events for which a representation of event data has not previously been displayed via the screen interface of the first device associated with the first consumer-user; transmitting, using the at least one processing unit and via the at least one communications network, a representation of event data for each event in the identified second subset to the first device for display via the screen interface of the first device on a new channel designed to display event data representations not previously displayed to the first consumer-user without the first consumer-user having to search for such event data representations; and transmitting a representation of event data for each event in the identified subset via the at least one communications network to the first device for display via the screen interface of the first device, on a new channel designed to display event data representations not previously displayed to the first consumer-user without the first consumer-user having to search for such event data representations, wherein the new channel is accessible via input to the screen interface of the first device selecting the new channel option and choosing to view the new channel; and excluding from transmission, via the at least one communications network to the first device, a representation of event data for each event in the identified first subset, so that a representation of event data for each event in the identified first subset is not processed by the first device and is not displayed via the screen interface of the first device on the new channel. responsive to determining that one or more event data representations have been previously displayed on the new channel via the screen interface of the first device, removing the event to which each previously displayed event data representation relates from the identified subset, such that each previously displayed event data representation is no longer displayed via the screen interface of the first device on the new channel; wherein the act of retrieving comprises retrieving a plurality of consumer-user identifiers respectively associated with a group of consumer-users who follow the first consumer-user, and the act of transmitting the representation of the conversation data object comprises transmitting the representation of the conversation data object to devices respectively associated with each of the group of consumer-users. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804. Response to Arguments Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent under 35 USC 101 because the claimed amended invention focuses on process steps of improving the functionality of a computing system (e.g., by reducing network bandwidth usage by excluding from transmission event data that had previously been displayed via a screen interface of a user device); identifying a subset of a plurality of events for which a representation of event data has not previously been displayed to a user, and transmitting a representation of that event data, which has not previously been displayed to the user is acknowledged and considered. However, upon further review, it is deemed that the amended claimed invention is not eligible for patent under 35 USC 101, and has been responded in Rejection under 35 USC 101 section. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gibson et al. US Publication 2010/0131366 teaches system and method for providing location-based upcoming event information using a client-side web application implemented on a client device. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Naresh Vig whose telephone number is (571)272-6810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 06:30a - 04:00p. 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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571.270.7537. 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. /NARESH VIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 December 30, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 29, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 11, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §DP
Dec 04, 2024
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 04, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 06, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §101, §DP
Apr 23, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 23, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 16, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §DP
Oct 09, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §101, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12346935
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION TO A PASSENGER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 01, 2025
Patent 12314966
Providing Wireless Network Access
2y 5m to grant Granted May 27, 2025
Patent 12282936
OMNI-CHANNEL DIGITAL COUPON CLIPPING AND REDEMPTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 22, 2025
Patent 12277580
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PERSONALIZING VISITOR EXPERIENCE, ENCOURAGING PHILANTHROPIC ACTIVITY AND SOCIAL NETWORKING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 15, 2025
Patent 12254494
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION TO A PASSENGER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 18, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
37%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+38.2%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 607 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month