DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment filed July 8, 2026. Claims 1-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Preliminarily, it is noted that the claim amendments overcome the previously-pending claim objections.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to recite a specific technical architecture that cannot be performed in the human mind (pages 12-14 of Applicant’s response). The Examiner has addressed the additional elements in Steps 2A – Prong 2 and 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis. The claims still simply present generic processing elements that are only generally applied to perform the abstract ideas at a high level of generality. The fact that events are conducted on-line (as opposed to off-line) merely presents a link to a field of use. A human can perform a hash algorithm. Metadata is simply data about data. Tokens may also simply convey data. The claims do not present anything beyond a distributed computing environment to implement the abstract ideas, which alone is insufficient to overcome the rejection.
On pages 14-15 of the response, Applicant argues that the specific technical architecture includes a distributed graph processing framework. A distributed graph processing framework may merely be guidelines for illustrating data in a graph. A human user can use such guidelines to depict data in a graph.
Regarding the recitation of non-human-readable tokens in the claims (which Applicant mentions various times throughout the arguments), these limitations have raised issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b).
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejections; however, this indication of allowable subject matter may be affected by any future amendments, including those made to address the rejections raised under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 5, and 9 have been amended to recite that a “publish/subscribe message platform” is used to distribute messages received over time. While the Specification provides support for a “message layer” in paragraph 21 of the original Specification, it is not clear that a “publish/subscribe message platform” is necessarily the same as a “message layer” and there is no explicit mention of a “publish/subscribe message platform” in the original disclosure; therefore, this amendment presents new matter.
Independent claims 1, 5, and 9 have been amended to recite that “an entity identity token that is not human-readable” is generated. Applicant’s original disclosure does not describe “an entity identity token that is not human-readable”; therefore, this limitation presents new matter.
Independent claims 1, 5, and 9 have been amended to recite “the entity identity graph including at least one entity identity indicators that are not tokenized.” Applicant’s original disclosure talks about customer identities that meet linkage rules and those that do not in paragraph 43 of the Specification. However, it is not clear that this is the same as “the entity identity graph including at least one entity identity indicators that are not tokenized” and there is no explicit mention of “the entity identity graph including at least one entity identity indicators that are not tokenized” in the original disclosure. Thus, this limitation presents new matter.
The dependent claims inherit these issues.
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 1-20 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.
Independent claims 1, 5, and 9 have been amended to recite that “an entity identity token that is not human-readable” is generated. Given that this is a negative limitation, the Examiner has looked toward Applicant’s Specification for implied examples of what would qualify a token as being “human-readable” vs. “non human-readable.” Applicant’s original disclosure does not describe “an entity identity token that is not human-readable” or provide any guidance as to what would make a token “human-readable.” Without having any guidance as to what makes a token “human-readable” vs. “non human-readable,” the scope of “an entity identity token that is not human-readable” is not clear in the claims.
Independent claims 1, 5, and 9 have been amended to recite “the entity identity graph including at least one entity identity indicators that are not tokenized.” It is not clear what is meant by entity identity indicators not being tokenized, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of this limitation ambiguous.
The dependent claims inherit these issues. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to monitoring a user’s behavior across multiple channels without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Process (claims 5-8, 15, 18), Apparatus (claims 1-4, 14, 17, 20), Article of Manufacture (claims 6-13, 16, 19)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claims 1, 5, 9] A system/method/operations to:
communicate with each of a plurality of customers [Claim 1 only];
store a plurality of entity identities of a plurality of entities in a database;
distribute messages received over time, wherein each message comprises a transaction record containing entity identity data and is related to an event;
extract entity identity indicators;
generate based on data extracted from the transaction record and using a secure hash algorithm, an entity identity token that is not human-readable and that contains at least some of the entity identity data;
identify a set of potentially related entity identities including one or more of the entity identity indicators and one or more entity identity tokens including one or more pairs of entity identities;
augment each pair of the one or more pairs of the entity identities with edge metadata and node metadata related to one or more pairs of the entity identities, the edge metadata and the node metadata each defining a period of validity;
generate, using a distributed graph-processing framework, an entity identity graph of the set of the potentially related entity identities as nodes and having edges corresponding to the edge metadata and the node metadata, the entity identity graph including at least one entity identity indicators that are not tokenized and at least one entity identity token;
apply a set of linkage rules selected from a plurality of sets of linkage rules to the entity identity graph to automatically discard the related entity identities from the entity identity graph that do not meet node criteria or edge criteria defined by the set of linkage rules; and
generate use case specific data information for each related entity customer identity meeting the node criteria or the edge criteria based on the entity identity graph after application of the set of linkage rules, the use case specific data for machine consumption by downstream systems.
A database may simply be a collection of data. “Automatically” may simply mean “in direct response to.”
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can gather information related to the transactions of customers, create (generate) transaction records, convert various types of information, generate use case information, store information in databases, process a hash algorithm, etc. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to monitoring a user’s behavior across multiple channels, which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of managing personal behavior and/or relationships between people (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
The operations of applying a set of linkage rules selected from a plurality of sets of linkage rules to the entity identity graph to automatically discard the related entity identities from the entity identity graph that do not meet node criteria or edge criteria defined by the set of linkage rules and generating use case specific data information for each related entity customer identity meeting the node criteria or the edge criteria based on the entity identity graph after application of the set of linkage rules, the use case specific data for machine consumption by downstream systems present examples of filtering content. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) cites the following as an example of managing personal behavior, i.e., organizing human activity: “filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis).” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) cites the following as an example of a mental process: “An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356.”
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
a communications interface to communicate with entity computing devices, a plurality of computing systems associated with an online system and an on-site terminal;
a database to store a plurality of entity identities of a plurality of entities associated with the online system and the on-site terminal;
a memory having instructions stored thereon; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the database, the communications interface and the memory, the processor to execute the instructions to perform the recited operations.
Claim 1 further recites that the processor executes instructions to:
distribute, using a publish/subscribe message platform, messages received over time from the entity computing devices, the plurality of computing systems associated with the online system and the on-site terminal via a plurality of channels, wherein each message comprises a computer-readable transaction record containing entity identity data and is related to an event at one of the entity computing devices, the plurality of computing systems associated with the online system or the on-site terminal;
extract, from each computer-readable transaction record, entity identity indicators;
generate, for each computer-readable transaction record, based on data extracted from the computer-readable transaction record an entity identity token.
Claim 5 recites a computer-implemented method comprising the recited steps. Claim 5 further recites storing, within a database, a plurality of entity identities of a plurality of entities associated with an online ordering system and an on-site terminal.
Claim 5 further recites:
distributing, using a publish/subscribe message platform, messages received over time from the entity computing devices, a plurality of computing systems associated with the online system and the on-site terminal via a plurality of channels, wherein each message comprises a computer-readable transaction record containing entity identity data and is related to an event at one of the entity computing devices, the plurality of computing systems associated with the online system or the on-site terminal;
extracting, from each computer-readable transaction record, entity identity indicators;
generating, for each computer-readable transaction record, based on data extracted from the computer-readable transaction record an entity identity token.
Claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor cause a device to perform the recited operations.
Claim 9 further recites storing, within a database, a plurality of entity identities of a plurality of entities associated with an online system and an on-site terminal.
Claim 9 further recites that the processor executes instructions to:
distribute, using a publish/subscribe message platform, messages received over time from the entity computing devices, the plurality of computing systems associated with the online system and the on-site terminal via a plurality of channels, wherein each message comprises a computer-readable transaction record containing entity identity data and is related to an event at one of the entity computing devices, the plurality of computing systems associated with the online system or the on-site terminal;
extract, from each computer-readable transaction record, entity identity indicators;
generate, for each computer-readable transaction record, based on data extracted from the computer-readable transaction record an entity identity token.
The fact that transactions are associated with an online system and an on-site terminal is an example of a general link to a field of use.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 26-31, 58-60).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas 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(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claims 2, 6, 10] wherein the data extracted from the transaction record comprises payment information and performing the following:
normalize the payment information; and
apply the secure hash algorithm to the payment information to generate the entity identity token.
[Claims 3, 7, 11] wherein the set of linkage rules retrieved is based on a use case of the system.
[Claims 4, 8, 12] store, in the database, the set of linkage rules including one or more use case criteria, the one or more use case criteria including a predefined attribute criterion for entity identities.
[Claim 13] wherein the plurality of entity identities link criteria comprise predefined links between different entity identities.
[Claims 14, 15, 16] wherein the node metadata of each pair of the one or more pairs of entity identities indicates an entity identity type, wherein each entity identity type is associated with attributes that differ from attributes of other entity identity types, the attributes of the entity identity types differ in form, the period of validity, reliability, and security.
[Claims 17, 18, 19] store, in the database, the set of linkage rules including one or more use case criteria, the one or more use case criteria including comprises a predefined entity identity link criterion for entity identities.
[Claim 20] display a dynamic visual representation of the generated use case specific data, the dynamic visual representation including a bar having a plurality of items from online events and in-store events of the generated use case specific data;
receive selection of a selected item of the plurality of items; and
upon receipt of the selection, initiate an action with respect to the selected item.
The dependent claims further present details of the abstract ideas identified in regard to the independent claims.
A database may simply be a collection of data. “Automatically” may simply mean “in direct response to.”
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can gather information related to the transactions of customers, create (generate) transaction records, convert various types of information, generate use case information, store information in databases, process a hash algorithm, etc. A human user can also extract and normalize payment information as well as apply a hash algorithm (claims 2, 6, 10). A human user can create a graph, receive linkage rules, and apply the linkage rules to the graphs (claims 3, 7, 11). A human user can create a database of linkage rules (claims 4, 8, 12). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to monitoring a user’s behavior across multiple channels, which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of managing personal behavior and/or relationships between people (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
The operations of applying a set of linkage rules selected from a plurality of sets of linkage rules to the entity identity graph to automatically discard the related entity identities from the entity identity graph that do not meet node criteria or edge criteria defined by the set of linkage rules and generating use case specific data information for each related entity customer identity meeting the node criteria or the edge criteria based on the entity identity graph after application of the set of linkage rules, the use case specific data for machine consumption by downstream systems present examples of filtering content. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) cites the following as an example of managing personal behavior, i.e., organizing human activity: “filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis).” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) cites the following as an example of a mental process: “An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356.”
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims include the additional elements of their independent claims.
Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
a communications interface to communicate with entity computing devices, a plurality of computing systems associated with an online system and an on-site terminal;
a database to store a plurality of entity identities of a plurality of entities associated with the online system and the on-site terminal;
a memory having instructions stored thereon; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the database, the communications interface and the memory, the processor to execute the instructions to perform the recited operations.
Claim 1 further recites that the processor executes instructions to:
distribute, using a publish/subscribe message platform, messages received over time from the entity computing devices, the plurality of computing systems associated with the online system and the on-site terminal via a plurality of channels, wherein each message comprises a computer-readable transaction record containing entity identity data and is related to an event at one of the entity computing devices, the plurality of computing systems associated with the online system or the on-site terminal;
extract, from each computer-readable transaction record, entity identity indicators;
generate, for each computer-readable transaction record, based on data extracted from the computer-readable transaction record an entity identity token.
Claim 5 recites a computer-implemented method comprising the recited steps. Claim 5 further recites storing, within a database, a plurality of entity identities of a plurality of entities associated with an online ordering system and an on-site terminal.
Claim 5 further recites:
distributing, using a publish/subscribe message platform, messages received over time from the entity computing devices, a plurality of computing systems associated with the online system and the on-site terminal via a plurality of channels, wherein each message comprises a computer-readable transaction record containing entity identity data and is related to an event at one of the entity computing devices, the plurality of computing systems associated with the online system or the on-site terminal;
extracting, from each computer-readable transaction record, entity identity indicators;
generating, for each computer-readable transaction record, based on data extracted from the computer-readable transaction record an entity identity token.
Claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor cause a device to perform the recited operations.
Claim 9 further recites storing, within a database, a plurality of entity identities of a plurality of entities associated with an online system and an on-site terminal.
Claim 9 further recites that the processor executes instructions to:
distribute, using a publish/subscribe message platform, messages received over time from the entity computing devices, the plurality of computing systems associated with the online system and the on-site terminal via a plurality of channels, wherein each message comprises a computer-readable transaction record containing entity identity data and is related to an event at one of the entity computing devices, the plurality of computing systems associated with the online system or the on-site terminal;
extract, from each computer-readable transaction record, entity identity indicators;
generate, for each computer-readable transaction record, based on data extracted from the computer-readable transaction record an entity identity token.
Claims 2, 6, and 10 further define the data extracted from the computer-readable transaction.
Claims 4, 8, and 12 further define data stored in the database.
Claims 17-19 further define data stored in the database.
Claim 20 recites wherein said system is configured to:
display, on a user interface, a dynamic visual representation of the generated use case specific data, the dynamic visual representation including a bar having a plurality of items from online events and in-store events of the generated use case specific data;
receive, via the user interface, selection of a selected item of the plurality of items from the bar; and
upon receipt of the selection, automatically initiate an automated action with respect to the selected item.
The fact that transactions are associated with an online ordering system and an in-store terminal is an example of a general link to a field of use. The ability to make an online purchase (e.g., as recited in claim 20) is also an example of a general link to technology and to a field of use.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 26-31, 58-60).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas 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(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A
Prosecution Insights