DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The Action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment, filed on September 10, 2025.
3. It is acknowledged that as a result of the amendment, Claims 21, 28, and 35 have been amended.
4. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-40 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of the claims. 35 USC § 101: The Examiner discussed the terminology of the claim language specifically the "detecting", "determining" and the "generating", and suggested to further describe how the mentioned functionality in the claim language is performed. "in order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a clam, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations". “The additional elements must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional, activity.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.” The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 21 recites “A system…” therefore the claim is a machine; Claim 28 recites “A computer readable storage…” therefore the claim is a manufacture. Claim 35 recites “A method for…”; the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process for using table notifications to generate automatic feed messages
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 21 recite the limitations "detecting" “determining” generating” “detecting that a record is inserted or updated on a specific task table; determining that notification conditions are met; generating a message;”; These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting a “database system” "server system", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “detecting that a record is inserted or updated on a specific task table; determining that notification conditions are met; generating a message”… and in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper, detecting on a table, amounts to order information that information, in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper observing for specific records and generating a description or message approving or negating the existence of the records.
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, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements "posting the message to a specified group or a feed...”; “storing or updating at least the specific task table” The “posting” and the “storing” “updating” based on the observation of the task table and description, this limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data (MPEP 2106.05(g).
A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities listed above, including “storing or updating at least the specific task table” this limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. The limitations performed by a server generating or posting based on observed data and update them based on comparison, it is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (abstract idea).
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1149 (Fed. Cir.2019) (quoting Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In the context of software patents (which includes machine learning patents), the step-one inquiry determines “whether the claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
As per Claim 22, wherein the table notifications are supported for task tables and task types by default. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, specifically creating table notifications. (See MPEP 2106.05(f); where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome include: i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331. . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
As per Claim 23, creating a child record by at least copying details of a parent record and linking the child record to the parent record. The copying of a parent record and linking as it can be done by the user, with a person observing the data and its connections, which recites a mere mental step or an abstract idea.
As per Claim 24, wherein the feed is a record feed associated with a record, the record feed allowing users to work on tasks and records through an interface. The feed being a record are merely observing number “user-provided feedback”, types which again these limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, without more . . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
As per Claim 25, wherein users can post, reply to, and rate messages in the feed. The user can respond to a post within the feed, which again is data provided by the user, without more . . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
As per Claim 26, wherein the feed is configurable to generate automatic messages when specific records are updated throughout the system. The claims recite only generic computing processes using functional language, and merely recite generic computer elements for their basic functions and thus do not transform the claimed abstract idea into eligible subject matter, without more . . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
As per Claim 27, wherein users can subscribe to receive email notifications when new messages are posted in the feed. Further elaborates on the idea of a person doing one initial description based on the input, and subscribe, it could be performed as a person deciding on what to subscribe to, does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, without more . . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
As per Claims 28-40, being the computer program product and method claims corresponding to the system claims 21-27respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection of the rejections of Claims 21-27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. Claim 21-40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ahuja et al (US 2002/0013711), in view of Zander (US 2009/0254392), hereinafter “Ahuja” and “Zander” respectively.
As per Claim 21, Ahuja discloses:
A system for using table notifications to generate automatic feed messages, the system comprising: a database system implemented using a server system, the database system configurable to cause: detecting that a record is inserted or updated on a specific task table; (Par [0036], “"work" table to an "audit" table within the same database” and see Figures 1 and 6(a)).
determining that notification conditions are met; (Par [0007], “This notification system is limited to searching and retrieving local event information from user-intended messages, e.g., Web pages pushed to a users e-mail address. Further, the local events, though pre-defined and requested, are not triggered by user actions, such as financial transactions.” And par [0036], “The alert message gateways 40 are executables which extract the content from the alert message text database 26 based on the customer's preferred notification channel and forward them to the corresponding gateway.”) generating a message; (Par [0066], “generating appropriate alert messages…”) posting the message to a specified group or to a feed, (Par [0031], “ provide host handoff files to a host handoff files database 16 which include information that feeds into the customer preference database 24…”) the feed having content forming a searchable knowledge source for sharing information within an organization; (Par [0057], “The formatted requests held in the alert message text database 26 are accessed and searched during the running of the execution program (e.g., CITIALERT.TM. software program)” and see Figures 6(a) and 12) and storing or updating at least the specific task table. (Par [0060], “… contains multiple data tables for storing and correctly logging in required data into the requisite datafields” and par [0056] “In addition to adding or updating customer records directly into the Web site, an alternative embodiment enables the CSRs to access particular feeder databases or servers which are not part of the immediate Web site databases/servers and enter data thereto for later addition to the Web site databases/servers”).
Ahuja discloses “work” and “audit” tables at cited Par [0036], “Forwarded messages are moved from a "work" table to an "audit" table within the same database.”, and a notification system, alert messages, corresponding to generating messages.
However, not specifically discloses the “task tables” and the “responsive to detecting” that the record is inserted or updated on the specific task table and determining that the notification conditions are met. (Par [0007], “This notification system ...” And par [0036], “The alert message gateways 40 are executables which extract the content from the alert message text database 26 based on the customer's preferred notification channel and forward them to the corresponding gateway.”)
Zander discloses the “task tables”
Zander discloses the above claimed features as follows: (Figures 29-33, from duty, groups, subscription, etc., tables by assignment, and see Table 1 and Figures 52a-52b “TASK” table).
Neither Ahuja nor Zander disclose the “responsive to detecting”
APPLETON discloses the above mentioned responsiveness to detecting, the record “inserted or updated” as follows: (Par [0032], “an automation system 304; an Insert Delete Update Control system (IDUC)” and par [0067], “Step 3. The post-insert trigger detects that the event has been inserted into the status table. A conditional within the automation system examines the value of the fast track field and requests that the IDUC system fast track the event.” The “status table” in Appleton appears to also be the “Task table” as claimed)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Zander and APPLETON into the method of Ahuja to take advantage of using a specific task table with certain response to detect the functionality. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement a task table in order to provide perform the daunting task of managing the access control of a scalable enterprise is achieved by the providing controls according to operations and propagating events in a network management system (See Zander par [0006] and APPLETON par [0007]).
As per Claim 22, the rejection of Claim 21 is incorporated and further Zander discloses: wherein the table notifications are supported for task tables and task types by default. (Figures 29-33, from duty, groups, subscription, etc., tables by assignment, and see Table 1 and Figures 52a-52b “TASK” table).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Zander and APPLETON into the method of Ahuja to take advantage of using a specific task table with certain response to detect the functionality. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement a task table in order to provide perform the daunting task of managing the access control of a scalable enterprise is achieved by the providing controls according to operations and propagating events in a network management system (See Zander par [0006] and APPLETON par [0007]).
As per Claim 23, the rejection of Claim 21 is incorporated and further Zander discloses: the database system further configurable to cause: creating a child record by at least copying details of a parent record and linking the child record to the parent record. (Par [0374], “… an organization level commander this user should be a minimum of a three. But if there is a parent organization instructing what "child" organizations should do, the staff members of the parent organization would be at level four. At the tactical level they are still part of a larger organization, level four people certainly have level fives above them. A level five may be the top of an organization of 200 or so people with departments under them. A five is the top of an organization that has child units.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Zander and APPLETON into the method of Ahuja to take advantage of using a specific task table with certain response to detect the functionality. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement a task table in order to provide perform the daunting task of managing the access control of a scalable enterprise is achieved by the providing controls according to operations and propagating events in a network management system (See Zander par [0006] and APPLETON par [0007]).
As per Claim 24, the rejection of Claim 21 is incorporated and further Ahuja discloses: wherein the feed is a record feed associated with a record, the record feed allowing users to work on tasks and records through an interface.
(Par [0027], “…the requests for data which are made to or by the customers or CSRs are made through a more user-friendly and recognizable format such as a graphical user interface ("GUI").” And par [0061], “a reply message from the MC prior to purchasing the stock. Although more restricted in the types of alerts that they may receive in certain embodiments, NMCs may still be alerted regarding for example, interest rates and stock prices.” And par [0065], “…prompt text; CSR notification; activation flag; start date; expiration date; current rate; last update date; and automatic feed identifier.”).
As per Claim 25, the rejection of Claim 21 is incorporated and further Ahuja discloses: wherein users can post, reply to, and rate messages in the feed. (Par [0051], “a reply message from the MC prior to purchasing the stock. Although more restricted in the types of alerts that they may receive in certain embodiments, NMCs may still be alerted regarding for example, interest rates and stock prices…” and par [0127], “By subscribing to information, an entity can receive updates whenever a `publisher` posts changes or posts new information.” And par [0130], “actionable data (e.g., feeds), knowledge staging sites, and alerts. The access to each item within these categories is provided (e.g., brokered) by the exemplary embodiments.).
As per Claim 26, the rejection of Claim 21 is incorporated and further Ahuja discloses: wherein the feed is configurable to generate automatic messages when specific records are updated throughout the system. (Par [0065], “Referring to TABLE 5, the exemplary "Rates and Information Prompts from Customer Preferences Database" table includes data fields for: an unique internal identifier for a particular rates and information prompt; a display group identifier; the display order; rates and information types; prompt text; CSR notification; activation flag; start date; expiration date; current rate; last update date; and automatic feed identifier.”).
As per Claim 27, the rejection of Claim 21 is incorporated and further Ahuja discloses: wherein users can subscribe to receive email notifications when new messages are posted in the feed. (Par [0026], “This file represents a data dump from the host database of all information relevant to subscribers on the notification system. These host handoff files may be presented periodically (e.g., once a day) or they can be represented as a live real-time connection between the back office host processor(s) and the notification system.” And par [0061], notification subscription).
As per Claims 28-40, being the computer program product and method claims corresponding to the system claims 21-27 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection of the rejections of Claims 21-27 and further Ahuja discloses: (Par [0033]).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
FEARON; REGEN (US-20100269049-A1) relates to handle administrative task that handles the automated work such as sending emails or features. text messages, creating tasks at preset times.
Gingell; Robert A. (US-20070169049-A1) relates to rule for outputting a notification that a tier is overloaded and automatically invoking a task within BLT.
Sundar; Jagane (US-20090077224-A1) relates to Task manager 312 receives action requests 212 via task interface 311. In general, task interface 311 provides an interface for receiving action requests 212 from SLAI 204 or other internal subsystem. In response, task manager 312 manages asynchronous and long running actions that are invoked by SLAI 204 to satisfy a goal or perform an action requested by a client.
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3158. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am to 6:00 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANGELICA RUIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 December 11, 2025