DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications filed August 24, 2026. Claims 1 and 5–7 are amended; claim 4 is canceled. Claims 1–3 and 5–18 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 24, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
With respect to the previous rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Under Step 2A Prong One, Applicant asserts that the claims do not recite mental processes because the volume of data cannot be processed by a human. Examiner disagrees. The Step 2A Prong One mental processes grouping includes elements that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Further, as noted in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the “courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.” Here, Examiner maintains that, although the volume of data is large, a human using pen and paper could process the recited activity data because the claimed elements are limited to basic observations and evaluations.
For example, a person is mentally capable of performing the element to “analyze”. The claim indicates that the step to “analyze” requires evaluating each reference event for each unique identifier with respect to each lookback window. Although Examiner agrees that it would take a lengthy period of time to review each reference event, the analysis process requires no more than sequentially considering each reference event for individual identifiers, such that the analysis can be done mentally. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, Applicant first asserts that the archive is a self-modifying structure. Examiner disagrees. The archive does not modify itself. Instead, new data is merely stored in the archive by the processor, and Examiner maintains that storing data in an archive is a generic computing function that does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
To the extent that Applicant asserts that the recited archive embodies a technological improvement in data management, Examiner notes that Applicant has not presented any argument or rationale underpinning in support of the asserted technical improvement. Further, Applicant’s Specification does not disclose any improvements to data management or archive/database/memory technology. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Applicant further asserts that processing at least 1 GB of data is a practical application that improves computer functionality. However, similarly to the above, Applicant has not presented any argument or rationale underpinning in support of the asserted computer improvement, and Applicant’s Specification does not disclose any improvements in computer functionality derived from processing at least 1 GB of data. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated statement of rejection presented below. Accordingly, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive, and the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
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 1–3 and 5–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–3 and 5–18 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “form an archive of activity data comprising actions associated with individual unique identifiers, each action having a number”; “specify reporting cycles, each reporting cycle having a reporting cycle number”; “compute for each reporting cycle activity data to form reporting period data”; “identify transition point numbers for the reporting cycles”; “analyze activity data in each reporting cycle to identify an occurrence of a maximum activity number associated with a unique identifier”; “specify lookback windows as number progressions”; “analyze for each reference event in the activity data for each unique identifier a same prior activity data associated with the unique identifier within each lookback window to produce a repetitive measure of activity data recency and frequency for each reference event”; “for each reporting cycle an array of unique identifiers lookback windows, in which each array element associates a reference event and prior corresponding reference event instances to determine a trend to assign an array element true if valid and false if invalid”; “assign for each reporting cycle unpopulated repeater cohort lists and one additional unpopulated single instance cohort list, each unpopulated repeater cohort list being a repository for aggregating unique identifiers characterized by localized trends of repetitive activity”; “populate the unpopulated repeater cohort lists and the unpopulated single instance cohort list by utilizing array elements to group the unique identifiers characterized by the localized trends of the repetitive activity relative to each reference event to form populated repeater cohort lists and a populated single instance cohort list”; “validate for each reporting cycle that each cohort list is mutually exclusive, such that a union of activity data associated with the unpopulated repeater cohort list and the unpopulated single instance cohort list matches an aggregate source activity data for a reporting cycle”; “use the populated repeater cohort lists and the populated single instance cohort list as organizing keys to enable discriminatory parsing and analyzing of ancillary attributes to form output data”; “append the output data to the archive”; and “repeat operations to form new state data.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for commercial advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Applicant’s Specification, the elements describe a process for analyzing repeating behavior of a consumer. Further, the elements to “specify”, “compute”, “identify”, “analyze”, “specify”, “analyze”, “assign”, “populate”, “validate”, and “use” recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2–3 and 5–18 further describe the process for analyzing repeating behavior of a consumer and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–3 and 5–18 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computer readable storage medium, a processor, an archive “consuming at least 1 GB”, a network, an augmented archive, and functionality to store and receive data. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer components are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–3 and 5–18 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claim from which claims 2–3 and 5–18 depend. As a result, claims 2–3 and 5–18 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computer readable storage medium, a processor, an archive “consuming at least 1 GB”, a network, an augmented archive, and functionality to store and receive data. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer components are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–3 and 5–18 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claim from which claims 2–3 and 5–18 depend. As a result, claims 2–3 and 5–18 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–3 and 5–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights