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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/13/2026 has been entered.
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: maintaining, by one or more processors, a data structure communicatively coupled to a data exchange platform, the data structure storing data entries received from a plurality of users configured to access the data exchange platform, each data entry stored with an association to a respective tier of a plurality of tiers; authenticating, by the one or more processors, a first user of the 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 indicative of a quality of the first data by applying the first data to an artificial intelligence (AI) model trained, 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; retrieving, by the one or more processors, second data from the data structure, the second data corresponding to data entries stored in the data structure with an association to the updated tier and received from a subset of users of the plurality of users, the subset of users having profiles assigned to the updated tier assigned to the profile of the first user; 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. 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. The claims are commercial interactions, specifically business relations, and managing interactions between (following instructions). The claim limitations are also characterized as a mental process, which is capable of being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. 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, data exchange platform, processing circuit, processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium, a user device, data structure, artificial intelligence model, and a user interface. The additional elements of a system, processor, data exchange platform, processing circuit, processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium, a user device, data structure, and artificial intelligence model, 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 (a system, processor, data exchange platform, processing circuit, processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium, a user device, data structure, artificial intelligence model, 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, the 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 the processors and AI model 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 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim 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 the 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 and AI model 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 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 fails to disclose maintaining, by one or more processors, a data structure communicatively coupled to a data exchange platform, the data structure storing data entries received from a plurality of users configured to access the data exchange platform, each data entry stored with an association to a respective tier of a plurality of tiers; authenticating, by the one or more processors, a first user of the 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 indicative of a quality of the first data by applying the first data to an artificial intelligence (AI) model trained, 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; retrieving, by the one or more processors, second data from the data structure, the second data corresponding to data entries stored in the data structure with an association to the updated tier and received from a subset of users of the plurality of users, the subset of users having profiles assigned to the updated tier assigned to the profile of the first user; 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. However, the claims still do not overcome the 101 rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claim limitations are not “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Examiner disagrees. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, with the core of the claim be as follows: Maintaining a data structure of user-submitted data entries with tiers, authenticating a user with a certain access level to data, receiving data from the user through a user interface, storing the data associated with an initial tier, determining a quality score for the submitted data and applying an AI model that is trained on existing data, updating the user’s tier and access level based on the AI trained score, and retrieving and transmitting to the user data associated with updated tiers. These limitations are managing commercial interactions such as managing access and permissions based on the users access level and data access control, which falls within business relations, and managing interactions between people (following instructions). Further, the claims are a mental process. Evaluating the quality of submitted information and assigning access control based on the user’s standing, are activities that can be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. The use of a generic AI model to generate an AI score does not remove the claim from an abstract idea.
Applicant also argues that the currently recited claims incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. The additional elements to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. More specifically, the claims are limited to a business solution to a technical problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
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 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.
Similarly, 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 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.
The currently recited claims also recite an artificial intelligence model, using specific attributes and parameters. However, the claims do not describe any particular improvement in the manner of computer functions. Although the AI model model is used for the purposes of determining data quality, such uses is both generic and conventional. The object of the claims is to determine data quality for tier-based information, and not to produce technology enabling a AI model to operate. The claims call for generic use of such a AI model in the manner such models conventionally operate. Simply reciting a particular technological module or piece of equipment in a claim does not confer eligibility. The MPEP notes this distinction.
The MPEP notes this distinction (For example, in MPEP 2106.05(f)(I), it states: Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743). In the instant application, the currently recited claims use machine learning as generic data processing.
The claims also do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The currently recited claims solve tier-based data access, which is not a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
With respect to the pre-emption concern, “[w]hat matters is whether a claim threatens to subsume the full scope of a fundamental concept, and when those concerns arise, we must look for meaningful limitations that prevent the claim as a whole from covering the concept’s every practical application.” CLSBanklnt’l. v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Lourie, J., concurring). Here, the more limited way of implementing the abstract idea narrows the abstract idea so that it is described at a lower level of abstraction. It does not render the abstract idea to which the claim is directed any less an abstract idea. Preemption is not a separate test. To be clear, the proper focus is not preemption per se, for some measure of preemption is intrinsic in the statutory right granted with every patent to exclude competitors, for a limited time, from practicing the claimed invention. See 35 U.S.C. § 154. Rather, the animating concern is that claims should not be coextensive with a natural law, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; a patent-eligible claim must include one or more substantive limitations that, in the words of the Supreme Court, add “significantly more” to the basic principle, with the result that the claim covers significantly less. See Mayo 132 S. Ct. at 1294. Thus, broad claims do not necessarily raise § 101 preemption concerns, and seemingly narrower claims are not necessarily exempt. Id. See also Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[w]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.”). Also, a lack of prior art in the case does not indicate eligibility either, because the lack of prior art could be due to the abstract idea.
Lastly, Bascom related to translating multiple filters attached to client-side devices to a single filter on the server side device to filter information request based on requestor’s profile. The steps in the current claims are purely business interaction that can be achieved on a face-to-face level or over the telephone or over generic network environment. This is purely a commercial interaction under certain methods of organizing human activity.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights