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
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on March 12, 2026, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 10, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites an apparatus for issuing news alerts with respect to an entity. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites an apparatus for issuing news alerts with respect to an entity. The claimed invention relates to methods and systems for issuing news alerts with respect to an entity, and more particularly to methods and systems for efficiently storing and retrieving news articles and associated analytical data/quantities to issue real-time alerts for managing credit risk (see Specification, para [0001]). The claim recites the steps of: analyzing the news article in order to determine whether the news article contains important content; wherein the analyzing of the news article occurs in real-time; when a determination is made that the news article contains important content as a result of the analyzing, determining whether the at least one entity is mentioned in the news article; determining input parameters that relate to the at least one entity; extracting from the input parameters signal data; generating a news article electronic document including the news article and the signal data; extracting from the news article electronic document, a signal quantity for each entity of the at least one entity; generating a time series of signal quantities for the news article; computing a respective baseline value of signal quantities; comparing each respective first signal quantity to the corresponding respective baseline value; determining whether each respective first signal quantity exceed the corresponding respective baseline value; and generating an alert message when at least one first signal quantity exceeds the baseline value by a predetermined threshold value, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk; performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites the limitations: analyzing the news article in order to determine whether the news article contains important content; when a determination is made that the news article contains important content as a result of the analyzing, determining whether the at least one entity is mentioned in the news article; determining input parameters that relate to the at least one entity; extracting from the input parameters signal data; generating a news article electronic document including the news article and the signal data; extracting from the news article electronic document, a signal quantity for each entity of the at least one entity; generating a time series of signal quantities for the news article; computing a respective baseline value of signal quantities; comparing each respective first signal quantity to the corresponding respective baseline value; determining whether each respective first signal quantity exceed the corresponding respective baseline value; and generating an alert message when at least one first signal quantity exceeds the baseline value by a predetermined threshold value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The claim also recites the limitations “computing, via an analytical model” a respective baseline value” and “comparing, via a news alerting model, each respective first signal quantity”, which is directed to mathematical relationships, falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a communication interface, “receive, via the communication interface, a news article that relates to at least one entity”; “store, via a news article persister each of the news article electronic document and the time series in a database, wherein the news article persister includes a micro-service that stores the news article in real-time”; and “wherein the analytical model is updated in real-time.”
The additional elements “a communication interface, “receive, via the communication interface, a news article that relates to at least one entity”; “store, via a news article persister each of the news article electronic document and the time series in a database, wherein the news article persister includes a micro-service that stores the news article in real-time”; and “wherein the analytical model is updated in real-time” are mere data gathering, transmitting and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the communication interface, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, transmitting, and displaying data. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the steps of “receiving a news article that relates to at least one entity; storing each of the news article electronic document and the time series in a database”; transmitting the time series to a news alerting model…; analyzing the news article in order to determine whether the news article contains important content; determining whether the at least one entity is mentioned in the news article; determining input parameters that relate to the at least one entity; extracting from the input parameters signal data; generating a news article electronic document including the news article and the signal data; extracting from the news article electronic document, a signal quantity for each entity of the at least one entity; computing a respective baseline value of signal quantities; comparing each respective first signal quantity to the corresponding respective baseline value; determining whether each respective first signal quantity exceed the corresponding respective baseline value; and generating an alert message when at least one first signal quantity exceeds the baseline value by a predetermined threshold value”, are recited as being performed by the processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality. In the limitations “receiving a news article that relates to at least one entity; storing each of the news article electronic document and the time series in a database”; transmitting the time series to a news alerting model…”, the processor is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering, transmitting, and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations “analyzing the news article in order to determine whether the news article contains important content; determining whether the at least one entity is mentioned in the news article; determining input parameters that relate to the at least one entity; extracting from the input parameters signal data; generating a news article electronic document including the news article and the signal data; extracting from the news article electronic document, a signal quantity for each entity of the at least one entity; generating a time series of signal quantities for the news article; and generating an alert message…”, the processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, a memory, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “a communication interface, “receive, via the communication interface, a news article that relates to at least one entity”; “store, via a news article persister each of the news article electronic document and the time series in a database, wherein the news article persister includes a micro-service that stores the news article in real-time”; and “wherein the analytical model is updated in real-time” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “a communication interface, “receive, via the communication interface, a news article that relates to at least one entity”; “store, via a news article persister each of the news article electronic document and the time series in a database, wherein the news article persister includes a micro-service that stores the news article in real-time”; and “wherein the analytical model is updated in real-time” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor to perform limitations “receiving a news article that relates to at least one entity; storing each of the news article electronic document and the time series in a database”; transmitting the time series to a news alerting model…; analyzing the news article in order to determine whether the news article contains important content; determining whether the at least one entity is mentioned in the news article; determining input parameters that relate to the at least one entity; extracting from the input parameters signal data; generating a news article electronic document including the news article and the signal data; extracting from the news article electronic document, a signal quantity for each entity of the at least one entity; computing a respective baseline value of signal quantities; comparing each respective first signal quantity to the corresponding respective baseline value; determining whether each respective first signal quantity exceed the corresponding respective baseline value; and generating an alert message when at least one first signal quantity exceeds the baseline value by a predetermined threshold value”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 19, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 1 is directed to a method, independent claim 19 is directed to a medium, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent system claim 10.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15-18, 20, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 11-13, and 20, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting generating a plurality of time series records…; generating the respective base line value…; wherein the time series incudes…; wherein the signal data includes…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human Activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 10. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 6 and 15, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the determining of whether the at least one entity is mentioned in the news article, the analyzing the news article to determine whether the news article contains important content, and that fall under the category of Organizing Human Activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 10. Moreover, the claims recite the additional element the determining of the information that relates to a sentiment that relates to the at least one entity is performed by an artificial intelligence (AI) model that appends the signal data to the news article electronic document, provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
The additional element “performed by an artificial intelligence (AI) model that appends the signal data to the news article electronic document” are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the AI model functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “determining of the information that relates to a sentiment that relates to the at least one entity” and do not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “performed by an artificial intelligence (AI) model that appends the signal data to the news article electronic document” also merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “performed by an artificial intelligence (AI) model that appends the signal data to the news article electronic document” limits the identified judicial exceptions “determining of the information that relates to a sentiment that relates to the at least one entity”, this type of limitations merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 7-8 and 16-17, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the analyzing comprises determining whether the news article contains information that is negative with respect to the entity…; wherein the analyzing comprises determining whether the news article contains information that relates to merger and acquisition activity with respect to the entity…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human Activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 10. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 9 and 18, the claims recite the additional elements transmit, via the communication interface to a predetermined destination, the alert message and the signal data that corresponds to the news article such that a user interface associated with the predetermined destination is caused to display the transmitted signal data, and wherein the alert message includes a notification that the news article contains important content, which are mere data gathering, transmitting and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the communication interface/the user interface, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, transmitting, and displaying data. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
5. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “compute, via an analytical model, a respective baseline value of signal quantities for each entity of the at least one entity over a first predetermined time period, wherein the analytical model is updated in real-time, based on updates to the time series of the signal quantities; compare, via a news alerting model, each respective first signal quantity to the corresponding respective baseline value for each respective entity of the at least one entity; determine whether each respective first signal quantity exceeds the corresponding respective baseline value; and generate an alert message when the at least one first signal quantity exceeds the baseline value by a predetermined threshold value” recited in the independent claims 1, 10, and 19.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
I. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
A. In response to the Applicant’s argument that the amended independent claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the amended independent claims recite an apparatus and method for issuing news alerts with respect to an entity. The claimed invention relates to methods and systems for issuing news alerts with respect to an entity, and more particularly to methods and systems for efficiently storing and retrieving news articles and associated analytical data/quantities to issue real-time alerts for managing credit risk (see Specification, para [0001]). The claim recites the steps of: analyzing the news article in order to determine whether the news article contains important content; wherein the analyzing of the news article occurs in real-time; when a determination is made that the news article contains important content as a result of the analyzing, determining whether the at least one entity is mentioned in the news article; determining input parameters that relate to the at least one entity; extracting from the input parameters signal data; generating a news article electronic document including the news article and the signal data; extracting from the news article electronic document, a signal quantity for each entity of the at least one entity; generating a time series of signal quantities for the news article; computing a respective baseline value of signal quantities; comparing each respective first signal quantity to the corresponding respective baseline value; determining whether each respective first signal quantity exceed the corresponding respective baseline value; and generating an alert message when at least one first signal quantity exceeds the baseline value by a predetermined threshold value, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk; performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the amended independent claims recite the limitations: analyzing the news article in order to determine whether the news article contains important content; when a determination is made that the news article contains important content as a result of the analyzing, determining whether the at least one entity is mentioned in the news article; determining input parameters that relate to the at least one entity; extracting from the input parameters signal data; generating a news article electronic document including the news article and the signal data; extracting from the news article electronic document, a signal quantity for each entity of the at least one entity; generating a time series of signal quantities for the news article; computing a respective baseline value of signal quantities; comparing each respective first signal quantity to the corresponding respective baseline value; determining whether each respective first signal quantity exceed the corresponding respective baseline value; and generating an alert message when at least one first signal quantity exceeds the baseline value by a predetermined threshold value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The amended independent claims also recite the limitations “computing, via an analytical model” a respective baseline value” and “comparing, via a news alerting model, each respective first signal quantity”, which is directed to mathematical relationships, falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the amended independent claims recite an abstract idea.
B. In response to the Applicant’s argument that the amended independent claims are integrated into a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
The amended independent claims recite the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a communication interface, “receive, via the communication interface, a news article that relates to at least one entity”; “store, via a news article persister each of the news article electronic document and the time series in a database, wherein the news article persister includes a micro-service that stores the news article in real-time”; and “wherein the analytical model is updated in real-time.”
The additional elements “a communication interface, “receive, via the communication interface, a news article that relates to at least one entity”; “store, via a news article persister each of the news article electronic document and the time series in a database, wherein the news article persister includes a micro-service that stores the news article in real-time”; and “wherein the analytical model is updated in real-time” are mere data gathering, transmitting and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the communication interface, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, transmitting, and displaying data.
The additional element the processor is recited at a high level of generality. In the limitations “receiving a news article that relates to at least one entity; storing each of the news article electronic document and the time series in a database”; transmitting the time series to a news alerting model…”, the processor is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering, transmitting, and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations “analyzing the news article in order to determine whether the news article contains important content; determining whether the at least one entity is mentioned in the news article; determining input parameters that relate to the at least one entity; extracting from the input parameters signal data; generating a news article electronic document including the news article and the signal data; extracting from the news article electronic document, a signal quantity for each entity of the at least one entity; generating a time series of signal quantities for the news article; and generating an alert message…”, the processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, a memory, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the functioning of the computer, the processor, the memory, or other technology. They just merely used as general means for performing the abstract idea. They do not recite a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Accordingly, the amended independent claims are not integrated into a practical application.
C. In response to the Applicant’s argument that the amended independent claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
The additional elements of “a communication interface, “receive, via the communication interface, a news article that relates to at least one entity”; “store, via a news article persister each of the news article electronic document and the time series in a database, wherein the news article persister includes a micro-service that stores the news article in real-time”; and “wherein the analytical model is updated in real-time” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The additional element of the processor to perform the recited method, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the amended claims are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
II. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s Amendment and arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Accordingly, the 102 rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected.
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bhide et al. (US 2020/0250264)) disclose the method of removing a cognitive terminology from a news article at a news portal.
Mabbu (US 2018/0349360) discloses systems and methods for automatically generating a summary of an article involve identifying keywords in a title of the article and then identifying sentences in the body of the article having words matching the identified keywords
Ceylan (US 2013/0158981) discloses methods and systems for linking newsworthy events in a document to published content.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. 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.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 April 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights