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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered January 28, 2026 for the patent application 18/747,409.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 11 and 13 - 21 are pending in the application.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 11, 13 – 17 and 19 - 20 are currently amended in the application.
Claim 21 is added in the application.
Claim 12 is cancelled in the application without prejudice or disclaimer.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on April 30, 2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 11 and 13 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 – 11 and 13 - 21 are either directed to a method or system or computer readable medium, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to apparatus claim 9 and computer readable claim 13. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
( A ) receiving, at a first server, a request to add a second entity to an organization data structure, wherein the organization data structure includes an association with a first entity comprising first resources and second resources, wherein the first resources comprise customer objects shareable across entities associated with the organization data structure and the second resources comprise entity-specific customer data that is restricted from sharing with the second entity based on permission settings established by the first entity;
( B ) sending, by the first server to a first device associated with the second entity, a request for authorization to associate the second entity with the organization data structure;
( C ) receiving, by the first server, a response from the first device indicating the authorization to associate the second entity with the organization data structure; and
( D ) associating, by the first server, the second entity with the organization data structure by:
providing, from the first server to the first device associated with the second entity, an organization identifier to be stored in association with the second entity, and
storing, by the first server, a second entity identifier associated with the second entity, wherein upon associating the second entity with the organization data structure, the second entity gains access to the first resources and not the second resources, and wherein the organization data structure stores, in association with the organization identifier, a reference pointer resolvable by the first server to provide access to a second server associated with the second entity to the first resources without creating a duplicate copy at the second server, thereby reducing storage footprint and network transfer volume.
These limitations without the bolded limitations above, cover performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity under their broadest reasonable interpretation.
More specifically, these limitations cover performance of the limitations as a fundamental economic practice.
In summary, if claim 1 limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 9 and 13 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
The use of the server or any of the bolded limitations in claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Similar arguments apply to claims 9 and 13.
Therefore, the above mentioned judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by merely applying generic computer components (bolded elements).
Furthermore, the “receiving” and “sending” steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering/transmitting, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In addition, supported by specification, the computer hardware are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component., see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer is not indicative of a practical application).
Claim 1, limitation ( A ) – ( D ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0022], which discloses “The network environment 100 may include an electronic device 102, an organization server 104, and one or more entity servers such as entity server 106, and entity server 110. The network 108 may communicatively (directly or indirectly) couple one or more of the electronic devices 102, the organization server 104, the entity server 106, and the entity server 110. In one or more embodiments, the network 108 may be an interconnected network of devices that may include, or may be communicatively coupled to, the internet.“.
Also, claim 1, limitation ( A ) - ( D ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0035], which discloses “In some embodiments, according to a second use case, the services provider and either one of the first entity or the second entity may be the same entity, i.e., the first entity server and the organization server are each owned or under the control of the first entity. This may be the case, for example, when the first entity is a large enterprise organization which provides payment services in-house. In such embodiments, the following discussion relates to a second entity which may be a child or sibling of the first entity adjoining to an organization server associated with the first entity for the purpose of accessing the various services provided by the services provider. Thus, to put it simply, in the second use case, there are two entities, and the organization server is under the control or operation of, for example, the first entity for providing services to the first entity.“.
Also, claim 1, limitation ( A ) - ( D ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0017], which discloses “Aspects of the subject technology provide a way for already existing entities within a certain context, such as a context that each is a customer of a software as a service (SaaS) provider or a customer of a payment processor, to be interrelated as being part of a larger organization data structure. For example, a first entity can establish an organization data structure and join themselves to the organization data structure. Then the first entity can initiate an onboarding option to bring in another related entity as a second entity of the organization data structure. Because each of the entities are already within the same context, the entities can be interrelated and integrated in an organization data structure for that context.“.
Also, claim 1, limitation ( A ) - ( D ) and ( E ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0020], which discloses “Aspects of the subject technology provide technological advantages. Through the association of a first entity to a second entity by means of a mutual association with an organization data structure, first entity computer systems can gain access to resources of the second entity, and vice versa, reducing time, energy, and overall networking resources needed to maintain the same resources independently of the other entity. Further, sharing entity data with an organization server provides the ability to leverage, maintain and generate many functions of an entity within a larger context of the organization server. Such functions include, for example, the processing and aggregation of reporting and the processing and review of transactions. Further still, resource sharing between entities is made possible by relationally tying entities to each other through the organization data structure. For example, a customer object in a first entity can be shared with permission by the customer to a second entity, thereby saving time and resources for the customer and the entities. In another example, a modality associated with the customer, such as described above, such as a banking object, payment object, coupon object, discount object, rewards object, credit object, debit object, and the like can be selectively shared and associated with the customer object as linked in another entity, thereby saving a customer and the associated first or second entity time and resources.“. Similar arguments apply to claims 9 and 13.
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.
Therefore, Claims 1, 9 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims 1 , 9 and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (bolded elements above) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. In conclusion, merely "applying" the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1, 9, and 13 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2 – 8, 10 - 11 and 14 - 21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claims 2 – 8, 10 - 11 and 14 - 21 are further define the abstract idea or further define the extra-solution activities that are present in independent claim 1 thus abstract idea correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity as presented above. Claims 2 – 8, 10 - 11 and 14 - 21 clearly further define the abstract idea as stated above and further define extra-solution activities such as presenting data and transmitting/receiving data.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 8, 10 - 11 and 14 - 21 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, these claims merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, claims 2 and 14 states, “providing, by the first server, a billing event reflecting a preferred rate between the first entity and the second entity to both the first entity and the second entity.”. These steps amount to no more than mere data gathering/analysis, which is a form of insignificant extra- solution activity (See M PEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): GIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Similar arguments can be made for claim 14.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 15, these claims merely recite, "providing, by the first server, an identifier of a customer object created at the first entity to the second server associated with the second entity, wherein the second entity stores a set of first access rules for accessing the customer object by the first entity, wherein the second entity stores a second set of access rules for accessing the customer object by the first entity, and wherein the second set of access rules is more restricted than the first.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Similar arguments can be made for claims 10 and 15.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, these claims merely recite, “providing, by the first server, an identifier of a funding authorization associated with the customer object at the first entity to the second entity, wherein the second entity stores the second set of access rules in association with the identifier of the funding authorization.”. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).Similar arguments can be made for claim 16.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, these claims merely provide further detail regarding providing customer update commands. Merely stating, "receiving, by the first server, a request from the second entity to reassign the primary authority to the second entity, wherein the request is provided by the second entity to the first server in response to a customer update command received by the second entity for the customer object; and; based on an authorization by the first entity, reassigning the primary authority to the second entity, wherein after the primary authority is reassigned to the second entity, the second entity processes the customer update command for the customer object.“. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea. Similar arguments can be made for claim 17.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, these claims merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, claims 6 and 18 states “a terminal processor in association with the organization data structure processes both a first event request associated with the first entity and a second event request associated with the second entity.". These steps amount to no more than mere data gathering/analysis, which is a form of insignificant extra¬ solution activity (See M PEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): GIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Similar arguments can be made for claim 18.
Regarding claims 7, 11 and 19, these claims merely recite, “in response to a request for a search for data related to the organization data structure, providing, by the first server, search results including an aggregation of search results from the first entity and the second entity.” These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Similar arguments can be made for claims 11 and 19.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, these claims merely add further description to the process of “in response to a report request for the organization data structure, providing, by the server, a report including report records from both the first entity and the second entity, and metrics derived from both the first entity and the second entity.”, which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Similar arguments can be made for claims 20.
Regarding claim 21, this claim merely add further description to the process of “in response to a request originating from the second server, resolving, by the first server, the reference pointer and providing, by the first server to the second server, access to the first resources without duplicating the first resources at the second server, such that updates to the first resources are automatically available to the second server upon the resolving of the reference pointer.”, which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015))..
As a result, such limitations do not overcome the requirements as described above. Therefore, claims 2 – 8, 10 - 11 and 14 - 21 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1 – 11 and 13 - 21 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 11 and 13 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gabino M. Roche, Jr. (Pat. # US 10,474,640 B1 – herein referred to as Roche) in view of Jonathan B. Brannon et al. (Pub. # US 2022/0141257 A1 – herein referred to as Brannon) and further in view of Omprakaash Thoppai et al. (Pat. # US 11,522,812 B1 – herein referred to as Thoppai).
Re: Claim 1, Roche, Jr. discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a first server, a request to add a second entity to an organization data structure, wherein the organization data structure includes an association with a first entity comprising first resources and second resources, wherein the first resources comprise customer objects shareable across entities associated with the organization data structure and the second resources comprise entity-specific customer data that is restricted from sharing with the second entity based on permission settings established by the first entity (Roche, col. 11, lines 44 – 61 – In block 310, the metadata logic 136 populates a data structure such that the document identifier is mapped onto the first entity identifier, the action identifier, the item identifier, the category identifier, and the type identifier. Note that the data structure can be preexisting at that time or created at that time for use via the metadata logic 136. The metadata logic 136 can populate the data structure via writing into the data structure, whether first-in-first-out (FIFO) or last-in-first-out (LIFO) or others. For example, the document identifier, the first entity identifier, the action identifier, the item identifier, the category identifier, and the type identifier can be written into the data structure such that the document identifier is mapped onto the first entity identifier, the action identifier, the item identifier, the category identifier, and the type identifier. For example, the first entity identifier, the second entity identifier, and the action identifier stored in the data structure can be or include a metadata tag.); (Roche, col. 13, lines 16 – 34 – In block 318, the permission logic 142 shares the copied file with a user based on the second entity identifier via the task identifier. The user can be associated with the second entity identifier (and other identifiers disclosed herein) based on the user operating the browser 120 of the client 106 and thereby hosting a session with the server 110. Note that the session can be a secure session, such as via a HTTPS protocol or others. During the session, the user inputs the second entity identifier (and other identifiers) into a GUI presented via the browser 120. The user can input the second entity identifier (and other identifiers) via an input device of the client 106, such as a mouse, a keyboard, whether physical or virtual, a touchpad, a trackball, a camera, a microphone, or others. For example, the GUI can include a menu, a form, a questionnaire, or others. Note that the GUI with which the user associated with the second entity identifier interfaces can be identical to or different from or be same one as the GUI with which the user associated with the first entity identifier interfaces.);
sending, by the first server to a first device associated with the second entity, a request for authorization to associate the second entity with the organization data structure (Roche, col. 13, lines 35 – 61 – Once the user is associated with the second entity identifier (and other identifiers disclosed herein) and the task identifier corresponds to the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier (and other identifiers disclosed herein), based on the task identifier corresponding to the first identifier and the second identifier, the permission logic 142 can share the copied file based on the document identifier. For example, the permission logic 142 can share the copied file via sending a message with a hyperlink from the user associated with the first entity identifier to the user associated with the second entity identifier such that the user associated with the second entity identifier can access the copied file via activating the hyperlink. The message can be sent and received via the messaging logic 128 and be notified of via the notification logic 144. When the link is activated, the server 110, such as via the storage logic 132, can access the task identifier corresponding to the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier (and other identifiers disclosed herein), identify the document identifier corresponding to the task identifier, retrieve the copied file from a repository based on the document identifier, and avail the copied file with the user associated with the second entity identifier. As such, the copied file can be shared with the browser 120 during the session via a presentation of a hyperlink on the browser 120, where the copied file is at least one of opened or downloaded based on an activation of the hyperlink via the browser 120 during the session.);
receiving, by the first server, a response from the first device indicating the authorization to associate the second entity with the organization data structure (Roche, col. 14, lines 36 – 46 – Consequently, the server 110 shares the copied file with the browser 120 during the session based on the task identifier such that the copied file is retrievable via the browser 120 based on the document identifier stored in the data structure. Note that the copied file can be shared with more than two entity identifiers, such as at least three or more. For example, in context of finance, this can involve an asset manager, a fund administrator, and a custodian, as explained above. Further, note that the server 110 can deduplicate the copied file before sharing the copied file with the browser 120 during the session.).
However, Roche does not expressly disclose:
associating, by the first server, the second entity with the organization data structure by:
providing, from the first server to the first device associated with the second entity, an organization identifier to be stored in association with the second entity, and
storing, by the first server, a second entity identifier associated with the second entity, wherein upon associating the second entity with the organization data structure, the second entity gains access to the first resources and not the second resources,.
In a similar field of endeavor, Brannon discloses:
associating, by the first server, the second entity with the organization data structure by:
providing, from the first server to the first device associated with the second entity, an organization identifier to be stored in association with the second entity (Brannon, [0227] – In some embodiments, the one or more regulations may include a regulation that a location that is not deemed automatically adequate as a data transfer target (e.g., a location to which data is being transferred) may be deemed adequate by entering one or more contracts (e.g., standard clauses) with an entity that is the source of the transferred data. For example, the system may automatically determine that a particular data transfer is adequate by identifying a contract that exists between a first entity and a second entity, where the first entity is transferring data from a first asset to a second asset associated with the second entity. In various embodiments, the one or more data elements that make up a data model (e.g., for the first data asset) may indicate the existence of any contracts that the first entity has executed related to the transfer of data with one or more other entities. In various embodiments, the system is configured to analyze the one or more contracts to determine whether the one or more contracts apply to a particular data transfer of the one or more transfers identified at Step 3640.), and
storing, by the first server, a second entity identifier associated with the second entity, wherein upon associating the second entity with the organization data structure, the second entity gains access to the first resources and not the second resources (Brannon, [0326] – Systems according to various embodiments may also, or alternatively, store, in a computer memory, an ontology that maps respective control actions that are in place in a personal data management system for a first entity (e.g., to facilitate compliance with a privacy standard that may be applicable to a particular jurisdiction and/or business sector) to corresponding control actions that are in place in a personal data management system for a second entity (e.g., to facilitate compliance with the same and/or a different privacy standard). For instance, in some embodiments, the ontology may be used in mapping answers to questions found in a questionnaire on the control actions that is provided to the first entity to answers to questions found in a questionnaire on the control actions that is provided to the second entity. For example, the ontology may map a first answer to a first question found in the questionnaire pro vided to the first entity to a second answer to a second question found in the questionnaire provided to the second entity and used to populate an attribute from a set of attributes indicating the control actions for the second entity. For example, the set of attributes for the second entity may be defined in a data structure constructed for the second entity indicating the control actions.).
Therefore, in light of the teachings of Brannon, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Roche, motivation according to one KSR Exemplary Rationale where a known technique is used to improve similar methods and systems in the same way being as individuals have become more aware of the risks associated with the theft or misuse of their personal data, they have sought additional tools to help them manage which entities process their personal data. There is currently a need for improved tools that would allow individuals to minimize the number of entities that process their personal data-especially entities that the individual doesn't actively do business with. Also, there is an increasing need for systems and methods that facilitate the ability of an organization to comply with personal data handling requirements.
However, Roche in view of Brannon does not expressly disclose:
associating, by the first server, the second entity with the organization data structure by:
wherein the organization data structure stores, in association with the organization identifier, a reference pointer resolvable by the first server to provide access to a second server associated with the second entity to the first resources without creating a duplicate copy at the second server, thereby reducing storage footprint and network transfer volume.
In a similar field of endeavor, Thoppai discloses:
associating, by the first server, the second entity with the organization data structure by:
wherein the organization data structure stores, in association with the organization identifier, a reference pointer resolvable by the first server to provide access to a second server associated with the second entity to the first resources without creating a duplicate copy at the second server, thereby reducing storage footprint and network transfer volume (Thoppai, cols. 40 - 41, lines 40 – 7 – In some embodiments, a partition manager 408 receives data from one or more of the shards or partitions of the ingestion buffer 310. The partition manager 408 can forward one or more data records from the shards/partitions to indexing nodes 404 for processing. In some cases, the amount or size of the data record(s) coming through a partition may exceed the partition's (or ingestion buffer's 310) throughput. For example, 4 MB/s of data records may be sent to an ingestion buffer 310 for a particular partition, but the ingestion buffer 310 may be able to process only 2 MB/s of data per partition. Accordingly, in some embodiments, one or more data records can include a reference to a location in storage where the indexing node 404 can retrieve data. For example, a reference pointer to the data to be processed can be placed in the ingestion buffer 310 rather than putting the data to be processed itself into the ingestion buffer 310. The reference pointer can reference a chunk of data or a file that is larger than the throughput of the ingestion buffer 310 for that partition. In this way, the data intake and query system 108 can increase the throughput of individual partitions of the ingestion buffer 310. In some embodiments, the partition manager 408 can obtain the reference pointer from the ingestion buffer 310 and retrieve data from the referenced storage for processing. In certain embodiments, the partition manager 408 forwards the data record with the reference pointer to the indexing node 404 and the indexing node 404 retrieves the data from the referenced storage location. In some cases, the referenced storage to which reference pointers in the ingestion buffer 310 point can correspond to the common storage 216 or other shared storage or local storage. In some implementations, the chunks of data to which the reference pointers refer may be directed to common storage 216 from intake system 210, e.g., streaming data processor 308 or ingestion buffer 310.).
Therefore, in light of the teachings of Thoppai, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Roche in view of Brannon, motivation according to one KSR Exemplary Rationale where a known technique is used to improve similar methods and systems in the same way by storing minimally processed machine data and performing analysis operations at search time can provide greater flexibility because it enables an analyst to search all of the 55 machine data, instead of searching only a pre-specified set of data items. This may, for example, enable an analyst to investigate different aspects of the machine data that previously were unavailable for analysis.
Re: Claim 2, Roche in view of Brannon discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing, by the first server, a billing event reflecting a preferred rate between the first entity and the second entity to both the first entity and the second entity (Brannon, [0315] – In various embodiments, the system may receive at least some data from the data subject in order to complete the data subject access request. In other embodiments, the system is configured to scan one or more e-mails from the subject company to obtain one or more particular pieces of information for use in filling out the data subject access request (e.g., by identifying a shipping address in a particular e-mail, billing address, first name, last name, and/or phone number of the data subject from a previous order that the data subject placed with the subject company, etc.). In particular embodiments, the system may automatically identify all of the information needed to populate the data subject access request by identifying the information from within one or more individual electronic correspondence associated with the data subject (e.g., one or more texts or emails from the entity to the data subject).). The rationale for support of motivation, obviousness and reason to combine see claim 1 above.
Re: Claim 3, Roche discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing, by the first server, an identifier of a customer object created at the first entity to the second server associated with the second entity, wherein the second entity stores a set of first access rules for accessing the customer object by the first entity, wherein the second entity stores a second set of access rules for accessing the customer object by the first entity, and wherein the second set of access rules is more restricted than the first (Roche, cols. 15 - 16, lines 57 – 16 – In block 506, the permission logic 142 accesses a data structure, as explained above. The data structure stores a document identifier, a metadata tag, and a mapping between the document identifier and the metadata tag, as explained above. The document identifier can be mapped to the metadata tag in a one-to-many correspondence, as explained above. The metadata tag includes information corresponding to at least one of the identifiers. For example, such information can be stored in an alphanumeric format, a pictorial format, an audio format, barcode format, or any other symbolic or non-symbolic representation. The data structure is already associated with a task identifier, as explained above. For example, such association can occur via the task identifier being stored within the data structure and mapped onto the document identifier in a one-to-many correspondence. For example, such association can occur via the task identifier being an object stored external to the data structure and linked or related to the data structure. As such, the data structure is accessed based on the task identifier, i.e., based on the identifiers received via the GUI corresponding a plurality of identifiers pre-grouped with the task identifier.).
Re: Claim 4, Roche discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising:
providing, by the first server, an identifier of a funding authorization associated with the customer object at the first entity to the second entity, wherein the second entity stores a second set of access rules in association with the identifier of the funding authorization (Roche, col. 8, lines 17 – 25 – The action identifier 204 corresponds to an action that is associated with the entity identifier 202. The action identifier 204 can be dependent on or hard coded to depend on the entity identifier 202 as input. For example, in context of finance, the action identifier 204 can be a new fund launch or NFL or others. Therefore, if the entity identifier 202 includes an LEI, then the action identifier 204 can include a string NFL, where the entity identifier 202 corresponds to the action identifier 204 in a one-to-many correspondence.).
Re: Claim 5, Roche discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the first entity retains a primary authority over the customer object, wherein the primary authority at least partially restricts update access to the customer object by the second entity, wherein the method further comprising:
receiving, by the first server, a request from the second entity to reassign the primary authority to the second entity, wherein the request is provided by the second entity to the first server in response to a customer update command received by the second entity for the customer object (Roche, col. 18, lines 18 – 33 – In block 608, the interface logic 126 communicates with the metadata logic 136 and the progress logic 138 such that the GUI 600B updates the tabular menu 610 with respect to the item identifiers based on the category identifiers and the type identifiers. For example, as the files get uploaded via the GUI 600C, the checkbox based grid 616 gets updated based on the set of rules corresponding to the task identifier. Therefore, the pie bar 620 is updated accordingly. As such, the server 110 can monitor a status of a degree of completion of a document set based on the set of rules and present the tabular menu 610 to the browser 118 or the browser 120 after sharing of the copied file with the browser 120 during the session, where the tabular menu 610 is configured to depict the status of the degree of completion of the document set with respect to the item identifier and the category identifier based on the set of rules.); (Roche, col. 17, lines 59 – 62 – Note that the GUI 600B, 600C depicts a pie bar 620 which is dynamically updated in real-time based on the checkbox based grid 616 being completed. Note that the pie bar 620 is associated with the task identifier.); and
based on an authorization by the first entity, reassigning the primary authority to the second entity (Roche, col. 8, lines 17 – 25 – The action identifier 204 corresponds to an action that is associated with the entity identifier 202. The action identifier 204 can be dependent on or hard coded to depend on the entity identifier 202 as input. For example, in context of finance, the action identifier 204 can be a new fund launch or NFL or others. Therefore, if the entity identifier 202 includes an LEI, then the action identifier 204 can include a string NFL, where the entity identifier 202 corresponds to the action identifier 204 in a one-to-many correspondence.);
wherein after the primary authority is reassigned to the second entity, the second entity processes the customer update command for the customer object (Roche, col. 17, lines 59 – 62 – Note that the GUI 600B, 600C depicts a pie bar 620 which is dynamically updated in real-time based on the checkbox based grid 616 being completed. Note that the pie bar 620 is associated with the task identifier.).
Re: Claim 6, Roche discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
a terminal processor in association with the organization data structure processes both a first event request associated with the first entity and a second event request associated with the second entity (Roche, col. 12, lines 46 – 64 – In block 314, the interface logic 126 enables the GUI presented via the browser 118 to input a second entity identifier. With reference to FIG. 2, the second entity identifier corresponds to the entity identifier 202. Note that the second entity identifier can be identical to or different from the first identifier. For example, the second entity identifier can be identical to the first entity identifier, such as when sharing within a common user group, or different from the first entity identifier, such as when sharing between different user groups. For example, the second entity identifier can be associated with the client 106. Accordingly, since the menu presents the set of input elements that are ready for user data entry, as explained above, the second entity identifier can be input via an input device of the client 104, such as a mouse, a keyboard, whether physical or virtual, a touchpad, a trackball, a camera, a microphone, or others. Note that, as explained above, the browser 118 can be associated with the first entity identifier (file sender) or a third entity identifier (matchmaker between two entity identifiers).).
Re: Claim 7, Roche discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to a request for a search for data related to the organization data structure, providing, by the first server, search results including an aggregation of search results from the first entity and the second entity (Roche, col. 6, lines 11 – 37 – The database 146 is hosted off the server 110. In some embodiments, the server 110 hosts the database 146, whether internal to the application 122 or external to the application 122, such as via the OS 116. The database 146 is configured for various database operations, such as creating records, modifying records, retrieving records, searching records, identifying records, deleting records, sorting records, or others, in whole or in part. For example, some of various database input (!)/output (0) operations include reading, writing, editing, deleting, updating, searching, selecting, merging, sorting, erasing, formatting, or others. The database 146 stores data, whether in a raw state, a formatted state, an organized stated, or any other accessible state, and allows access to such data, whether directly and/or indirectly. The database 146 can be a single database or a plurality of databases, whether hosted on a single machine or a plurality of machines, whether in a single data center or distributed among a plurality of data centers. The database 146 can comprise at least one of a relational database, a non-relational database, a post-relational database, an in memory database, a hybrid database, an Extensible Markup Language (XML) database, a parallel database, a distributed database, a graph database, a mobile database, an operation database, a probabilistic database, a real-time database, a spatial database, a temporal database, an object-oriented database, an unstructured data database, a terminology oriented database, or others.).
Re: Claim 8, Roche discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to a report request for the organization data structure, providing, by the first server, a report including report records from both the first entity and the second entity, and metrics derived from both the first entity and the second entity (Roche, col. 6, lines 9 – 28 – The database 146 is hosted off the server 110. In some embodiments, the server 110 hosts the database 146, whether internal to the application 122 or external to the application 122, such as via the OS 116. The database 146 is configured for various database operations, such as creating records, modifying records, retrieving records, searching records, identifying records, deleting records, sorting records, or others, in whole or in part. For example, some of various database input (!)/output (0) operations include reading, writing, editing, deleting, updating, searching, selecting, merging, sorting, erasing, formatting, or others. The database 146 stores data, whether in a raw state, a formatted state, an organized stated, or any other accessible state, and allows access to such data, whether directly and/or indirectly. The database 146 can be a single database or a plurality of databases, whether hosted on a single machine or a plurality of machines, whether in a single data center or distributed among a plurality of data centers.).
Re: Claim 9, Claim 9 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 1.
Re: Claim 10, Claim 10 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 3.
Re: Claim 11, Claim 11 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 7. Therefore, claim 11 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 7.
Re: Claim 12, Claim 12 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 8. Therefore, claim 12 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 8.
Re: Claim 13, Claim 13 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 1 and apparatus claim 9. Therefore, claim 13 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 1 and 9.
Re: Claim 14, Claim 14 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 2. Therefore, claim 14 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 2.
Re: Claim 15, Claim 15 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 3 and apparatus claim 10. Therefore, claim 15 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 3 and 10.
Re: Claim 16, Claim 16 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 4. Therefore, claim 16 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 4.
Re: Claim 17, Claim 17 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 5. Therefore, claim 17 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 5.
Re: Claim 18, Claim 18 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 6. Therefore, claim 18 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 6.
Re: Claim 19, Claim 19 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 7 and apparatus claim 11. Therefore, claim 19 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 7 and 11.
Re: Claim 20, Claim 20 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 8 and apparatus claim 12. Therefore, claim 20 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 8 and 12.
Re: Claim 21, Roche in view of Brannon / Thoppai discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to a request originating from the second server, resolving, by the first server, the reference pointer and providing, by the first server to the second server, access to the first resources without duplicating the first resources at the second server, such that updates to the first resources are automatically available to the second server upon the resolving of the reference pointer (Thoppai, cols. 40 - 41, lines 40 – 7 – In some embodiments, a partition manager 408 receives data from one or more of the shards or partitions of the ingestion buffer 310. The partition manager 408 can forward one or more data records from the shards/partitions to indexing nodes 404 for processing. In some cases, the amount or size of the data record(s) coming through a partition may exceed the partition's (or ingestion buffer's 310) throughput. For example, 4 MB/s of data records may be sent to an ingestion buffer 310 for a particular partition, but the ingestion buffer 310 may be able to process only 2 MB/s of data per partition. Accordingly, in some embodiments, one or more data records can include a reference to a location in storage where the indexing node 404 can retrieve data. For example, a reference pointer to the data to be processed can be placed in the ingestion buffer 310 rather than putting the data to be processed itself into the ingestion buffer 310. The reference pointer can reference a chunk of data or a file that is larger than the throughput of the ingestion buffer 310 for that partition. In this way, the data intake and query system 108 can increase the throughput of individual partitions of the ingestion buffer 310. In some embodiments, the partition manager 408 can obtain the reference pointer from the ingestion buffer 310 and retrieve data from the referenced storage for processing. In certain embodiments, the partition manager 408 forwards the data record with the reference pointer to the indexing node 404 and the indexing node 404 retrieves the data from the referenced storage location. In some cases, the referenced storage to which reference pointers in the ingestion buffer 310 point can correspond to the common storage 216 or other shared storage or local storage. In some implementations, the chunks of data to which the reference pointers refer may be directed to common storage 216 from intake system 210, e.g., streaming data processor 308 or ingestion buffer 310.). The rationale for support of motivation, obviousness and reason to combine see claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Examiner would like to point out that the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. described seven rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
“Obvious to try” –choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations; however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The “mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness.” see Dann v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976).
Applicant's arguments filed with an Amendment on January 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument:
“Under Alice Step 2A, Prong Two, Claims 1, 9, and 13 Integrate the Purported
Abstract Idea into a Practical Application.“, (see page 10 of the Remarks).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims does not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform both the determining and generating steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of facilitating the request for quote creates the implied spread) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant Argument:
“In several of the Examples of patent eligible claims provided by the Office, technological aspects of distributed data processing are implicated that establish the technological environment for which an improvement is provided as discussed above. For example, in Example 42, a method for transmission of notifications is provided when medical records are updated in a networked environment.“, (see page 13 of the Remarks).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Example 42, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of storing and updating patient information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing medical records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant Argument:
“Under Alice Step 2B, the Additional Elements Recited in Claims 1, 9, and 13
Contribute to an Inventive Concept.“, (see page 14 of the Remarks).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the claims included individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the “computer itself,” "another technology,” the "technical field,” or significantly more than what is “well-understood, routine, or conventional” in the related arts. The USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance lists included tables and appendices examples of what has been considered by the Courts to be generic computer functioning and not “significantly more” than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of endeavor. These examples, a non-exhaustive illustrative list, constitute the basis for the findings below. In step two as per Alice, consideration of the elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered combination” is set forth to determine whether the additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H. HOLLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3461. The examiner can normally be reached on MON. - FRI 10 AM - 8 PM.
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, MATTHEW S. GART can be reached on 571-272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/John H. Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights