DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Acknowledgement
The Amendment/Request for reconsideration filed 11/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 19 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are maintained. The amended claim language at least in claim 1 recites, “evaluating the options for adjusting the schedule of values for processing the plurality of records comprises applying a simulation to the options…” does not provide significantly more to the abstract idea or maintaining or managing data records. Particularly, “applying a simulation to the options…” is similar to limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. For example, adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., “a processor”, “memory”, “a records management an processing system”) indicating that a particular function such as creating or maintain electronic records is performed by a computer [see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) (i) and (f) Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 255-226, 110 USPQ2d at 1984].
According to the specification, “[0059] The optimization engine 460 of the records management and processing system 305 can then evaluate options for adjusting the schedule of values 465 for processing the plurality of records 405 based on the collected information related to the one or more services. Evaluating options for adjusting the schedule of values 465 for processing the plurality of records 405 can further comprise selecting a reference point of the generated one or more reference points for adjustment, applying a simulation to the selected on or more reference points for adjustment, and defining a change for at least one of the pre-determined maximum values in the schedule of values based on applying the simulation to the selected on or more reference points for adjustment. The simulation can comprise, for example, a what-if analysis for various changes, either or both of increases and/or decreases, in the reference point predefined maximum values and a comparison of results of the analysis to the terms 470 for one or more service providers. For example, the charge values can be raised to be more in line with the market if there is no contractual maximum.” It is maintained that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “applying a simulation” for the intended use of adjustment connotes a manipulation of parameters within an abstract mathematical model which imitates a type of processing of a set of records. This seems to be similar to selecting a particular data type to be manipulated which can be interpreted as an insignificant solution activity [e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(g) Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]
For theses reasons the 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained below.
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.
In the instant case, claim 1 a method and claim 8 a system for maintaining and/or processing data records.
Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “maintaining or managing data records” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity involving legal interactions including agreements in the form or contracts as well as following rules or instructions, as in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Claim 1 recites, “maintaining,..., a plurality of records in a database, each record of the plurality of records comprising a record of a service provided to a consumer by a service provider of a plurality of service providers and identifying a value for the service provided to the consumer and at least one required action by at least one responsible entity of a plurality of responsible entities ...; identifying, ..., a set of records from the plurality of records for evaluation; filtering, ..., the identified set of records based on one or more services indicated in one or more fields of each record of the set of records, ... and indicating a service provided by the service provider to a consumer; collecting, ..., information related to the one or more services and indicating a value associated with service of the one or more services; evaluating, ..., options for adjusting a schedule of values for processing the plurality of records based on the collected information related to the one or more services, the schedule of values comprising a predetermined maximum value associated with each service of the one or more services; and adjusting, ..., one or more of the predetermined maximum values in the schedule of values based on the evaluating of the options for adjusting the schedule of values”,
which is similar to collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results (MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) 5. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). 4. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as “a processor”, “a memory”, “a records management and processing system” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) the acts of maintaining data records. 5. When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of maintaining data records using computer technology (e.g. a records management and processing system). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Hence, claim 2-7 further implement the abstract idea and do not provides significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claim 8 similar to claim 1 does not provide additional elements (processor, memory, that provide an improvement to a computer or technical area.
Claims 9-14 further implement the abstract idea and do not provides significantly more to the judicial exception
Claim 15 is similar to claim 1 does not provide additional elements (processor, memory, that provide an improvement to a computer or technical area and is not patent eligible.
Claims 16-20 further implement the abstract idea and do not provides significantly more to the judicial exception.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692