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
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 3/4/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 21-26, 28-36, 38-42 are pending in the application.
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 21-26, 28-36, 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 21 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 21 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: retrieving, using device identifier information for at least one of the first device or the second device, device media asset consumption history associated with the user; determining, based on the device media asset consumption history ,a first advertisement that the user consumed, wherein the first advertisement is one of a group of similar advertisements; retrieving first metadata associated with the advertisement; querying for supplemental information related to the first advertisement, wherein the supplemental information comprises supplemental information related to at least one advertisement of the group of similar advertisements; based on determining that no supplemental information is available for the advertisement: retrieving second metadata associated with a second advertisement of the group of similar advertisements; comparing the first metadata associated with the first advertisement to the second metadata associated with the second advertisement; based on the comparing, determining a similarity value corresponding to how similar the first advertisement is to the second advertisement; based on determining that the similarity value exceeds a similarity threshold, retrieving, supplemental information associated with the second advertisement; and generating for display the supplemental information associated with the second advertisement; comprising information related to advertisements consumed by the user; modifying, without additional user interaction, the data structure to include an association between the first advertisement and the second advertisement. Claim 21 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: comparing the first metadata associated with the first advertisement to the second metadata associated with the second advertisement / based on the comparing, determining a similarity value corresponding to how similar the first advertisement is to the second advertisement / based on determining that the similarity value exceeds a similarity threshold, retrieving supplemental information associated with the second advertisement. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements- see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 21 includes the additional elements of a first device/second device/supplemental information database /processing circuitry/database/ media asset consumption database comprising a data structure, which represent generic computing elements. The additional element of data gathering (based on analyzing a user’s interactions with a first device, determining that a user has started using the first device, wherein the first device is one of a plurality of devices associated with the user; detecting a second device near the first device, wherein the second device is one of the plurality of devices associated with the user, wherein the second device is detected based on analog or digital signals originating from the second device) represents insignificant extra-solution activity – i.e. data gathering. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements of data gathering represent insignificant extra-solution activity – i.e. data gathering. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 21 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 31 is directed to a system for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 21, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. The claim recites the same abstract idea as Claim 21. Claim 31 performs the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claim 31 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 21.
Remaining dependent claims 21-26, 28-30, 32-36, 38-39, 40, 42 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further recite the additional element of storing data in a database, a database; the database represents a generic computing element, and storing data in a database represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 21-26, 28-36, 38-42. Shah (20150235275) teaches cross-device profile data management and targeting, including copying user profile data of a related device to be associated with a user identifier of other related device that is not associated with the copied user profile data prior to copying process, where the copied profile data includes gender and age user profile data. An updated aggregated profile device graph is provided in a database that is accessible by a processor to be programmed to perform targeted advertising or marketer engagement over a computer network based on specified user profile constraints being met by combined user profiles from devices ; however, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant's Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea.
The Office Action asserts that claims are directed to the abstract idea of a "commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice" and "a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper." Office Action at 2-4. Applicant respectfully disagrees and traverses this rejection.
As an initial matter, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office Action's characterization of Applicant's claims as directed to a "commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice." The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (the "2019 PEG") identifies "commercial or legal interactions" as including subject matter relating to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations." 2019 PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52 (Jan. 7, 2019) (available at https://www.federalregister. gov/documents/2019/01/07/2018-28282/2019-revised-patent- subject-matter-eligibility-guidance). Similarly, the 2019 PEG identifies "fundamental economic principles or practices" as subject matter "relating to the economy and commerce," with examples including "hedging, insurance, and mitigation risk." Id. The October 2019 update further clarifies that the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping "is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated subgroupings ... and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated subgroupings except in rare circumstances." USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at 4-5 (available at
https://www.uspto.fgov/sites/default/files/documents/pegoct2019_appl.pdf).
Applicant's claims do not recite advertising, marketing, sales activities, contractual obligations, or any other transactional step. The claims are not directed to the act of placing, purchasing, bidding on, or displaying an advertisement. Rather, Applicant's claims recite the technical infrastructure for, among other things, (1) detecting a nearby device based on analog or digital signals, (2) querying a structured database for media asset consumption history, (3) comparing metadata across the linked data structures and applying a similarity threshold, and (4) automatically modifying a data structure to record an association. These are technical operations, not commercial activities.
Moreover, the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit has found claims directed to a "fundamental economic practice" as involving a practice with demonstrable historical lineage predating computers. For example, in Bilski, the Supreme Court found hedging to be abstract because it was "a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and taught in any introductory finance class." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010). In Alice Corp., the Court applied the same reasoning to intermediated settlement. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 219-20 (2014). In buySAFE, the Federal Circuit found claims directed to a transaction performance guaranty to be abstract because the practice was "beyond question of ancient lineage," citing a 1927 paper on the history of suretyship. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Willis D. Morgan, The History and Economics of Suretyship, 12 Cornell L.Q. 153 (1927)). In each case, the Court points to years of pre-computer commercial practice. No such historical analog exists for the technical operations recited in Applicant's claims.
The Federal Circuit explicitly drew this distinction in Enfish holding that "we are not faced with a situation where general purpose computer components are added post-hoc to a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation. Rather, the claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. Accordingly, we find the claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea." Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Applicant's claims likewise recite specific technical operations: signal-based coordinate comparison, structured database querying, multi-field metadata comparison with similarity thresholds, and autonomous data structure modification. Such limitations are specific implementations of a technical solution to a technical problem in the computing arts, not the computerization of a pre-existing economic practice.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action's characterization of the claims as directed to a "commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice" is inappropriate. None of the claim limitations map to any recognized commercial interaction or fundamental economic practice under the 2019 PEG. The Office Action does not identify which specific claim limitations allegedly constitute the commercial interaction, and Applicant respectfully submits that none do so. Therefore, the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, and Applicant respectfully submits that the § 101 rejection should be withdrawn at least on this basis.
Turning to the Office Action's characterization of mental process grouping, the Office cautions Examiners that "the mental process grouping is not without limits. Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind." Memorandum from Charles Kim, Deputy Comm'r for Patent Examination Policy, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, to Patent Examining Corps, re: Examining Claims for Subject Matter Eligibility in View of the Supreme Court's Decisions and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Aug. 4, 2025) (available athttps://www.uspto.fgov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-101-20250804.pdf) (the "Kim Memo"). The Kim Memo continues, "a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)." Kim Memo at 2. Applicant's claims recite limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind, for example, Applicant's limitations related to signal-based device detection, database querying with structured data, multi- field metadata comparison across linked data structures, and autonomous data structure modification.
a. Signal-Based Device Detection
Applicant claims, in relevant part, "wherein the second device is detected based on analog or digital signals originating from the second device," as recited in claim 21 and similarly recited in claim 31 with varying scope. Applicant further claims, "wherein the detecting the second device comprises comparing coordinates associated with the first device derived from the analog or digital signals with coordinates associated with the plurality of devices associated with the user to determine which of the plurality of devices is closest to the first device," as recited in claim 25 and similarly recited in claim 35 with varying scope. The human mind cannot practically perform such limitations. For example, the human mind cannot detect analog or digital signals, nor can it derive coordinates from those signals to determine which device is closest to the first device.
b. Database Querying with Structured Data
Applicant claims, in relevant part, "retrieving, from a media asset consumption database and using device identifier information for at least one of the first device or the second device, device media asset consumption history associated with the user, the media asset consumption database comprising a data structure comprising information related to advertisements consumed by the user; determining, based on the device media asset consumption history, an advertisement that the user consumed, wherein the first advertisement is one of a group of similar advertisements," as recited in claim 21 and similarly recited in claim 31 with varying scope. Applicant further claims, "storing, in a device media asset consumption history database, identifiers of one or more advertisements consumed by the user, respective times that each advertisement was consumed, and an indication of a respective device at which each advertisement was consumed; wherein searching the device media asset consumption history for an advertisement that the user consumed is performed by querying the device media asset consumption history database," as recited in claim 25 and similarly recited in claim 35 with varying scope. In other words, Applicant's claims recite that the device media asset consumption history includes specific data fields (advertisement identifiers, times, device indications) and that searching such history is performed by querying the media asset consumption database. Applicant's Specification illustrates such techniques in practice by, for example, using "a database query language script, such as Structured Query Language ('SQL')" to search a database that is "a table, array, or any other suitable data structure." Specification at 92, 96, 100.
The human mind cannot practically perform such limitations. For example, the human mind cannot execute SQL queries against a structured database.
c. Multi-Field Metadata Comparison Across Linked Data Structures
Applicant claims, in relevant part, "retrieving, using processing circuitry, first metadata associated with the first advertisement...based on determining that no supplemental information is available for the advertisement in the supplemental information database: retrieving, from the supplemental information database, second metadata associated with a second advertisement of the group of similar advertisements; comparing the first metadata associated with the advertisement to the second metadata associated with the second advertisement," as recited in claim 21 and similarly recited in claim 31 with varying scope. Applicant further claims "retrieving, from the supplemental information database, third metadata associated with a third advertisement of the group of similar advertisements; based on comparing the first metadata of the first advertisement to the third metadata associated with the third advertisement, determining, using processing circuitry, a second similarity value corresponding to how similar the advertisement is to the third advertisement," as recited in claim 24 and similarly recited in claim 34 with varying scope. Applicant further claims "wherein the first metadata associated with the first advertisement and the second metadata associated with the second advertisement each comprise a corresponding parameter; and wherein comparing the first metadata associated with the first advertisement to the second metadata associated with the second advertisement comprises comparing the
corresponding parameters from each of the first metadata associated with the first advertisement and the second metadata associated with the second advertisement," as recited in claim 26 and similarly recited in claim 36 with varying scope.
Applicant's specification illustrates "an advertising database (either locally in storage or at a remote server) that includes a plurality of data structures that each includes a plurality of identifiers of advertisements that are similar, as well as metadata that is common to the similar advertisements. The data structures may be linked via an index data structure (e.g., via pointers). The media guidance application may compare the metadata associated with the advertisement with metadata associated with each group of similar advertisements stored in the advertising database to determine which group of similar advertisements the advertisement belongs to." Specification at 127. Such metadata includes "actor, product type, company name, or any other suitable metadata that is used to characterize a group of similar advertisements." Specification at 42, 128. In other words, Applicant's claims are directed to retrieving and comparing metadata across groups of similar advertisements to determine certain supplemental information.
Applicant respectfully submits that the human mind cannot practically perform such limitations. For example, the human mind cannot undertake a multi-field comparison across linked data structures. Applicant submits that such limitations can only be a computer operation and not a mental process.
d. Automatic Data Structure Modification and Supplemental Information
Transmission
Applicant claims, in relevant part, "modifying, without additional user interaction, the data structure to include an association between the first advertisement and the second advertisement," as recited in claim 21 and similarly recited in claim 31 with varying scope. Applicant further claims, "transmitting the supplemental information associated with the second advertisement to at least one of the first device or the second device without receiving input of a website URL or a search request from either the first device or the second device," as recited in claim 41 and similarly recited in claim 42 with varying scope. Applicant respectfully submits that such automated, persistent modifying of a data structure that explicitly occurs without human interaction and transmission of supplemental information without receiving input cannot be performed in the human mind.
Considered as a whole, Applicant's claims recite specific, ordered combinations of operations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind, thus passing § 101 muster. The Examiner's own finding that no prior art teaches the claimed subject matter confirms that Applicant's claims recite a non-conventional, non-routine ordered combination of steps. See generally Office Action (presenting no rejections based on prior art). Moreover, the Kim Memo instructs Examiners that "close calls" should be resolved in favor of patent eligibility and that "unpatentability must be established by a preponderance of the evidence," i.e., "more likely than not." Kim Memo at 5. Accordingly, even if the instant case presents a "close call," the question of patentability should be resolved in favor of patent eligibility.
II. Applicant's Claims Integrate a Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
Even if, assuming arguendo, the Office Action identifies an abstract idea in Applicant's claims, the claims remain patent eligible because they integrate any such exception into a practical application that provides a technical solution to a technical problem. As relevant here, Applicant's Specification describes technical problems that existed in prior approaches. For example, Applicant's Specification details that "displaying an overlay with supplemental information may interfere with a media asset that a user is watching, which may be particularly problematic in a multiple user environment where some users are uninterested in the advertisement." Specification at 3. Such deficiencies are problematic because "users may decide that an advertisement is interesting and wish to learn more about the product(s) that were advertised. Using conventional systems, the user may need to manually search for content associated with the advertisement he or she has just consumed (e.g., in a web browser)." Id.
The subject matter recited in Applicant's claims solves such technical problems through technical architecture. Applicant's claims recite systems and methods that detect which device is nearest to the user's current device using wireless signals. Applicant's claims further query a structured database for the user's advertisement consumption history using specific data fields. When no supplemental information exists for the consumed advertisement within the database, Applicant's claims recite a fallback mechanism that compares metadata across a group of similar advertisements, apply a similarity threshold, and retrieves supplemental information for a sufficiently similar advertisement. The data structure is automatically modified (i.e., without user interaction) to persistently record the association between the consumed and similar advertisements, enabling future retrieval. Applicant's claims also generate for display the supplemental information on the appropriate device.
Applicant's ordered combination of steps provides a specific technological improvement of the technical process of delivering advertisement-related supplemental information across multiple devices. Applicant's persistent data structure modification is particularly significant because it improves the system's functionality over time, i.e., once the association is stored, subsequent requests involving the same advertisement do not require re-evaluation or re- computation. Like the claims in DDR Holdings, LLC, "these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Such features are improvements to the computing system itself, not just a business improvement. Applicant's system is itself enriched as a result of the claimed processes. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are patent eligible under Section 101 and Applicant thus requests the Examiner to withdraw this rejection.
III. Applicant's Claims Are Consistent with Claims Identified in the USPTO
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines.
The patent eligibility of Applicant's claims is further confirmed by their similarities with other claims that have been found patent eligible, according to USPTO subject matter eligibility guidelines. Specifically, Applicant's claims are similar to those found in Examples 37, 40, 42, and 47, each of which are addressed in turn, below. See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, Examples 37-42 (Jan. 7, 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/101_examples_37to42_20190107.pdf); U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, Appendix 1: Examples 43-46 (Oct. 17, 2019) (available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pegoct2019_update.pdf).
a. Example 37, Claim 2 (Relocation of Icons on a GUI)
The Office found that Claim 2 did not recite an abstract idea "because the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, does not cover performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer comments. For example, the 'determining step' now requires action by a processor that cannot be practically applied in the mind...at least because it requires a processor accessing computer memory indicative of application usage." Similarly, Applicant's claims require processing circuitry to receive wireless signals, derive coordinates, compare coordinates across a plurality of devices, query structured databases using computer operations, and access advertisement data structures - none of which can be practically performed in the human mind.
b. Example 40, Claim 1 (Adaptive Monitoring of Network Traffic Data)
The Office found that claim 1 is patent eligible because it integrated the conditional collection of additional data when a threshold was exceeded into a practical application because it "avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance." Applicant's claims recite similar threshold-driven conditional steps. For example, Applicant's claims are directed to embodiments when no supplemental information exists, Applicant's claimed method conditionally triggers a fallback mechanism that includes a similarity threshold, retrieves supplemental information only if the threshold is met, and automatically modifies the data structure. Like Claim 1, Applicant claims threshold-based conditional processes. For example, Applicant's automated delivery of supplemental information that would otherwise be unavailable and Applicant's automatic data structure modification.
c. Example 42, Claim 1 (Medical Records Notifications)
The Office found that Claim 1 was patent eligible because the combination of storing information, providing remote access, converting data formats, automatically generating messages, and real-time transmission was a "specific improvement over prior art systems." Similarly, Applicant's claims recite a combination of concrete technical operations. For example, Applicant's claimed multi-device signal-based detection, structured database querying, metadata comparison across linked data structures, conditional fallback with automatic data structure modification, and cross-device display generation provide a specific improvement over conventional systems (overlay-based disruption or manual search).
d. Example 47, Claim 3 (Anomaly Detection)
The Office found Claim 3 patent eligible because using the output of abstract-idea steps (ANN-based anomaly detection) to drive specific automated downstream actions (dropping packets, blocking traffic) integrated the exception into a practical application by improving network security. Applicant's claims likewise use the output of the similarity comparison to drive specific automated downstream actions. For example, Applicant's claims recite conditionally retrieving supplemental information, automatically modifying a database data structure to record the advertisement association, and generating supplemental information for display on a different device. Such downstream actions effect a concrete, persistent change in the system while producing a practical result for the user.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner to withdraw the rejections based on 101 in the instant case.
When performing the 35 USC 101 analysis, the Examiner has followed the current MPEP guidance, as well as considered the recent Memo/Reminder Guidance. The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. The subject claim considered by the DDR Court pertained to a visitor of a host's website clicking on an advertisement for a third-party product displayed on the host's website, whereby the visitor is no longer being transported to the third party's website. In DDR, instead of losing visitors to the third-party's website, the host website can send its visitors to a web page on an outsource provider's server that incorporates "look and feel" elements from the host website, and provides visitors with the opportunity to purchase products from the third-party merchant without actually entering that merchant's website. Id. at 1257-58. Here, in contrast to the claims of DDR Holdings, the present claims are not necessarily rooted in computer technology to solve Internet-centric problems. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. Unlike DDR Holdings, Applicant’s device is not claimed as solving or otherwise addressing an Internet-centric problem, but rather is directed to an abstract idea as discussed supra. The instant claimed invention and Enfish have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Enfish, the Courts found that no abstract idea was present, that the claims were directed to a self-referential table for a computer database, and that the claims were directed to an improvement of an existing technology. The Courts further emphasized that the specification taught specific technical benefits over conventional databases. Contrary to Enfish, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC 101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The instant claimed invention and USPTO Example 37, Claim 2, have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Example 37, Claim 2, it was deemed that the claim does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the MPEP/2019 PEG. Contrary to Example 37, Claim 2, the pending instant claims do recite an abstract idea , as noted above. The instant claimed invention and USPTO Example 40, Claim 1, have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Example 40, Claim 1, it was deemed that the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data. Specifically, the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. Contrary to Example 40, Claim 1, the pending instant claims are not directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data; the pending instant claims do not provide a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. The instant claimed invention and USPTO Example 42, Claim 1, have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Example 42, Claim 1, it was deemed that the claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Contrary to Example 42, Claim 1, the pending instant claims as a whole do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application; the pending instant additional elements do not recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.
The instant claimed invention and USPTO Example 47, Claim 3, have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Example 47, Claim 3, it was deemed that the additional elements integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application because the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field – i.e. the technical field of network intrusion detection. Contrary to Example 47, Claim 3, the pending instant claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application; the pending instant claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field ; the pending instant claims, when implemented, do not improve the technical field of network intrusion detection. The pending claims, when implemented, do not improve the functioning of the device itself or other technology/technical field; they do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. There is no technical evidence / technical support, including the paras referenced by the Applicant, that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
4/6/2026
Prosecution Insights