DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 13 April 2026.
Claims 1 – 19 and 21 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 13 April 2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the Other Documents are not found in US patent documents, and they are not provided copy of these documents by the Applicant. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 13 April 2026, Applicant amended claims 1 – 8 and 11 – 18. Claim 20 is cancelled. Claim 21 is new.
Amendments to claims 11 – 8 and 11 – 18 are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Therefore, the 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1 – 19 and 21 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that claims are a practical application as they have computational efficiency improvements. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Enfish is understood to teach technological improvement, but the Applicant’s instant claims do not represent a technological improvement themselves. Going from a time stamped assessment objects to a system that does not create unused time stamped data objects is not a technology improvement. The examples from the specification are appreciated, but they are not what the claim describes. There is no claim to less computation, and regardless, Applicant’s description of performing fewer computations is not an improvement to the computer itself. Applicant goes on to argue that there are “deep parallels to those advantages found eligible in Enfish,” but Examiner’s position is that the defining data segments and objects as time progresses is not a technology improvement as claimed. The reduction in processing required is not as a result of improved technology, but rather, the choice to store data in this way. Claims do describe abstract ideas using generic computer technology, and there is no evidence that there is an improvement in computer capabilities in the instant claims. These type of systems are usable without computers, so they cannot be solely found in technology implementations.
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 – 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The independent claims recite receiving, from each user of a set, a plurality of plan definitions, each plan definition identifying a respective product or service associated with a respective user and defining corresponding plan information; generating, responsive to receiving a plan definition of a product or service of a particular user, a plurality of different time-independent assessment data objects for the plan definition, wherein each assessment data object comprises attributes including at least a trigger condition, unit of measurement, and cost per unit of measurement; generating, responsive to the generation of the plurality of different time-independent assessment data objects, a respective assessment data segment associated with each of the plurality of assessment data objects, wherein each assessment data segment defines an interval of time over which the associated assessment data object will be applied, wherein each assessment data segment maintains a respective assessed-through data and a processed-through date, wherein the assessed-through date represents how far into the future assessments for the corresponding assessment data object are defined, and wherein the processed-through date represents how many assessment periods have already generated assessment events for the corresponding assessment data object; generating, by the assessment engine of the client data management system, assessment events according to assessment data segments and one or more trigger conditions of the plurality of assessment data objects of the plan definition and, after generating each assessment event for an assessment data segment, updating the processed-through date of the assessment data segment; before the processed-through date reaches the assessed-through date of an assessment data segment for a particular original assessment data object of the plan definition, receiving a change to the original assessment data object; in response to receiving the change to the original assessment data object, generating a modified version of the original assessment data object for the plan and adding a new assessment data segment for the modified assessment data object, wherein the new assessment data segment covers a time period subsequent to assessment events generated from the original assessment data segment of the original assessment data object; generating, by the assessment engine of the client data management system, additional assessment events according to the new assessment data segment and one or more trigger conditions of the modified assessment data object; and periodically aggregating, by the assessment engine of the client data management system, the assessment events into a single aggregate assessment and reporting to the client a current single aggregate assessment. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method, the system, and the computer storage media are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of commercial interactions such as assessments for service or product usage, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that falls within the mental processes grouping, as claims describe functions of generating plan definitions, generating assessment events, and aggregating assessment events for reporting. These are all steps that can be performed mentally. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are receiving, from each user of a set, a plurality of plan definitions, each plan definition identifying a respective product or service associated with a respective user and defining corresponding plan information; generating, responsive to receiving a plan definition of a product or service of a particular user, a plurality of different time-independent assessment data objects for the plan definition, wherein each assessment data object comprises attributes including at least a trigger condition, unit of measurement, and cost per unit of measurement; generating, responsive to the generation of the plurality of different time-independent assessment data objects, a respective assessment data segment associated with each of the plurality of assessment data objects, wherein each assessment data segment defines an interval of time over which the associated assessment data object will be applied, wherein each assessment data segment maintains a respective assessed-through data and a processed-through date, wherein the assessed-through date represents how far into the future assessments for the corresponding assessment data object are defined, and wherein the processed-through date represents how many assessment periods have already generated assessment events for the corresponding assessment data object; generating, by the assessment engine of the client data management system, assessment events according to assessment data segments and one or more trigger conditions of the plurality of assessment data objects of the plan definition and, after generating each assessment event for an assessment data segment, updating the processed-through date of the assessment data segment; before the processed-through date reaches the assessed-through date of an assessment data segment for a particular original assessment data object of the plan definition, receiving a change to the original assessment data object; in response to receiving the change to the original assessment data object, generating a modified version of the original assessment data object for the plan and adding a new assessment data segment for the modified assessment data object, wherein the new assessment data segment covers a time period subsequent to assessment events generated from the original assessment data segment of the original assessment data object; generating, by the assessment engine of the client data management system, additional assessment events according to the new assessment data segment and one or more trigger conditions of the modified assessment data object; and periodically aggregating, by the assessment engine of the client data management system, the assessment events into a single aggregate assessment and reporting to the client a current single aggregate assessment.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements in the claims are directed to a computer network, client data management system comprising a distributed system of a plurality of computers, user interface that is communicatively coupled to and configured to operate in the client data management system, client data manager, processor readable storage medium, computer processor, and non-transitory computer storage media, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: a computer network, client data management system comprising a distributed system of a plurality of computers, user interface that is communicatively coupled to and configured to operate in the client data management system, client data manager, processor readable storage medium, computer processor, and non-transitory computer storage media. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of further defining data objects for types of assessments, by way of example, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claims add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 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, 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights