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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 4/20/2026.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 1 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 11 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 20 recites an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 1, 11, and 20 recite a method comprising: authenticating, by one or more processors, a first user of a plurality of users configured to access a data exchange platform; retrieving, by the one or more processors, responsive to authenticating the first user, a profile associated with the first user from the data exchange platform, the profile comprising an initial tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user, the initial tier defining an initial access level to data stored in a data structure communicatively coupled to the data exchange platform; receiving, by the one or more processors, via a user interface field rendered on a user device, first data supplied by the first user; storing, by the one or more processors, the first data in a data structure, the first data stored with an association to the initial tier determining, by the one or more processors, a score for the first data, the score determined for the first data according to existing data included in the data structure; determining, by the one or more processors, an updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user, based on the score determined for the first data; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, second data from the data structure to the first user via the user device based on an updated access level defined by the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user, the second data comprising data stored in the data structure with an association to the updated tier and received from a subset of users from the plurality of users, the subset of users assigned to the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice, such as trading. The claims are also commercial interactions, specifically business relations, and managing interactions between (following instructions). Lastly, the claims are capable of being performed in the human mind, such as by pen and paper. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve mitigating risk. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system, processor, exchange platform, processing circuit, processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium, a user device, data structure, and a user interface. The additional elements of a system, processor, exchange platform, processing circuit, processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium, a user device, and data structure, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of user interface are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of Graphical User Interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (system, processor, exchange platform, processing circuit, processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium, a user device, data structure, and a user interface) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s to judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s to judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 2 recites further comprising transmitting, by the one or more processors, the first data from the data structure to the subset of users. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the processors and data structure are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites, further comprising training, by the one or more processors, an artificial intelligence (AI) model to generate scores for data provided as a first input to the AI model, according to a training set included as a second input to the AI model. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein the score assigned to the first data is based on at least one of a quantity of the first data or a data quality metric associated with the first data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein an increase in the score assigned to the first data corresponds to an increase in the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites wherein the increase in the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user corresponds to receiving second data associated with at least one of a higher quantity or a higher data quality metric than a quantity or a data quality metric associated with data received at the initial tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites further comprising computing, by the one or more processors, a duration of time from receiving the first data from the first user to transmitting the second data to the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the processors are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites wherein the score assigned to the first data and the duration of time from receiving the first data from the first user to transmitting the second data to the first user are inversely related, such that the duration increases as the score decreases. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites wherein the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user is below the initial tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 10 recites wherein the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user is one of: a first tier, wherein at the first tier the first user receives a first amount of information related to a data entry; or a second tier, wherein at the second tier the first user receives a second amount of information related to the data entry, the second amount of information related to the data entry being more granular than the first amount of information related to the data entry. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 12 recites the instructions further causing the processing circuit to transmit the first data from the data structure to the subset of users. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the system and the system and the processing circuit is addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 13 recites the instructions further causing the processing circuit to train an artificial intelligence (AI) model to generate scores for data provided as a first input to the AI model, according to a training set included as a second input to the AI model. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the processing circuit is addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 14 recites wherein the score assigned to the first data is based on at least one of a quantity of the first data or a data quality metric associated with the first data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the system is addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 15 recites wherein an increase in the score assigned to the first data corresponds to an increase in the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the system is addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 16 recites wherein the increase in the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user corresponds to receiving second data associated with at least one of a higher quantity or a higher data quality metric than a quantity or a data quality metric associated with data received at the initial tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the system is addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 17 recites the instructions further causing the processing circuit to compute a duration of time from receiving the first data from the first user to transmitting the second data to the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the system and the processing circuit are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 18 recites wherein the score assigned to the first data and the duration of time from receiving the first data from the first user to transmitting the second data to the first user are inversely related, such that the duration increases as the score decreases. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the system is addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 19 recites wherein the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user is below the initial tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the system is addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and the double patenting rejection; set forth in the above Office Action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of Barmes, in view of Ramachadran, discloses a method comprising: authenticating, by one or more processors, a first user of a plurality of users configured to access a data exchange platform; retrieving, by the one or more processors, responsive to authenticating the first user, a profile associated with the first user from the data exchange platform, the profile comprising an initial tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user, the initial tier defining an initial access level to data stored in a data structure communicatively coupled to the data exchange platform; receiving, by the one or more processors, via a user interface field rendered on a user device, first data supplied by the first user; storing, by the one or more processors, the first data in a data structure, the first data stored with an association to the initial tier determining, by the one or more processors, a score for the first data, the score determined for the first data according to existing data included in the data structure; determining, by the one or more processors, an updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user, based on the score determined for the first data; but fails to disclose and transmitting, by the one or more processors, second data from the data structure to the first user via the user device based on an updated access level defined by the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user, the second data comprising data stored in the data structure with an association to the updated tier and received from a subset of users from the plurality of users, the subset of users assigned to the updated tier assigned to the profile associated with the first user.
However, the claims still do not overcome the 101 rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claims are not directed to any abstract ideas. Examiner disagrees. As noted above, these limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice, such as trading. The claims are also commercial interactions, specifically business relations, and managing interactions between (following instructions). Lastly, the claims are capable of being performed in the human mind, such as by pen and paper. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve mitigating risk. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea.
The claims are also not a practical application. Applicant argues that the currently recited claims provide a tiered-based data exchange platform, and the system “improved bandwidth as compared to the data exchange platform that lacks a tiered exchange system.” Examiner disagrees. In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer database elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, the claims were found eligible as they reflected improvements to the functioning of a computer, i.e. a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer database elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In Finjan, the claims to a “behavior-based virus scan” were found to provide greater computer security and were thus directed to a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer database elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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 BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights