DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claim
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed on 10 of November 2025.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Argument/Remarks
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that the first target query function is defined by a concrete, non-generic computer operation, such as the electronic spreadsheet function VLOOKUP. This is not a mental process. A human mind cannot perform a VLOOKUP function against a dynamic database or list. This specific implementation is a concrete computer algorithm used to programmatically achieve the objective of duplicate filtering ( de-duplication). The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the specification may help illuminate the true focus of a claim, when analyzing patent eligibility, reliance on the specification must always yield to the claim language in identifying that focus." Id. at 766; see also Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1363 ("Our focus is on the claims, as informed by the specification."). At bottom, we must "articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful." Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, the invention remains an abstract idea and do not satisfy the Alice Test. The examiner notes that a dynamic list or database is not claimed and is also not present in the specification, and the VLOOKUP function is also not claimed. Nevertheless, a human can perform steps mentally or with the aid of pen and paper that compares data in a similar manner that a VLOOKUP does. In fact, VLOOKUP is an off-the-shelf and commercially available function within spreadsheet software and not a specialized software component as argued by the applicant.
The applicant asserts that this implementation aligns perfectly with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the automation of a previously manual process (using specific, non-generic rules to automate lip synchronization) was found patent-eligible. Here, Applicant uses a specific, nongeneric algorithm (VLOOKUP or equivalent) to automate the complex process of dynamic record filtering. This goes well beyond the generic "acquire-recognize-store" data manipulation cited by the Examiner in Content Extraction. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that an algorithm (generic or non-generic) is not expressly disclosed in the claims or taught by the specification. However, as discussed above the VLOOKUP is a software function and a mathematical concept which remains an abstract idea.
Applicant asserts that the invention solves the technical problem of how to provide reliable, automated confirmation of message consumption in a modem, interactive digital environment, a challenge unaddressed by traditional SMS or static notification systems. The solution is not merely executing an abstract idea on a computer; it involves a technical transformation of how the system handles communication. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims at issue in Packet were found to be eligible because they were not directed to the judicial exception. This is not the case in the instant application as the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s rationale for this assertion is merely based on the fact that since Packet includes monitoring packets exchanged over a computer network, then adding a limitation that recites data to be processed and parsed to match a sub-data will make the claims of the instant application eligible. This would only work if eligibility analysis is determined in a vacuum and is merely reliant on claim language absent any consideration of the invention as a whole as described in the original specification as filed. In Packet, the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by asserting that known network monitors were unable to identify disjointed connection flows to each other, and the focus of the claims is a specific improvement in computer technology: a more granular, nuanced, and useful classification of network traffic. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception. Packet provided a technological solution to an issue rooted in computer technology. Applicant’s claims do not recite the same fact pattern, in fact the claims lack citation of computer components such as server, cloud computing, network, etc. and does not show how it processes and categorizes the parsed data. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Applicant asserts that these elements go well beyond generic data gathering or display. Rather, they implement a specialized information flow between subsystems (the prompt generation module, the client, and the feedback recipient system), using logic specific to dynamic state tracking within collaborative digital environments. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the specification may help illuminate the true focus of a claim, when analyzing patent eligibility, reliance on the specification must always yield to the claim language in identifying that focus." Id. at 766; see also Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1363 ("Our focus is on the claims, as informed by the specification."). At bottom, we must "articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful." Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, the invention remains an observation (i.e. a mental process) of determining the recommendation information corresponding to the user identifier based on skills and a mathematical calculation (i.e. a mathematical concept) of determining a scored value via a scoring model merely applied by generic computer components disclosed at a high level of generality and do not satisfy the Alice Test.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 10 recites “one or more processors; and a storage apparatus configured to store one or more programs; wherein when executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs cause the one or more processors to perform: acquiring a plurality of pieces of updated to-be-processed data in an original information list, wherein each piece of the to-be-processed data refers to work order data generated based on work order information and each piece of the to-be-processed data comprises a plurality of pieces of to-be-processed sub-data, and each piece of the to-be-processed sub-data is stored correspondingly according to a list header corresponding to each piece of the to-be-processed sub-data; acquiring pieces of to-be-matched sub-data whose list header is a work order number and determining based on a first query function, that a work order stock list does not comprise target to-be-matched sub-data of the to-be-matched sub-data, wherein each piece of the to-be-matched sub-data refers to a work order number corresponding to a work order task recorded in the work order stock list, and the work order stock list refers to a list used for recording work order numbers for which work order prompt information has already been sent, so as to avoid repeatedly sending prompt information for the same work order; determining a target execution user corresponding to each piece of the target to-be-matched sub-data and splicing target to-be-processed data corresponding to each piece of the target to-be-matched sub-data into an information generation list; and generating, based on an information list header in the information generation list, target prompt information corresponding to each piece of the target to-be-processed data and sending the target prompt information to a client corresponding to the target execution user; determining the client corresponding to the target execution user based on a preset correspondence between work order execution users and clients; and acquiring a reading state of the piece of target prompt information by the client corresponding to the target execution user and sending a piece of feedback information to a target system according to the reading state, wherein the acquiring a reading state of the piece of target prompt information by the client corresponding to the target execution user comprises: monitoring, through a preset listening function in a target system, a reading status in a target interaction group; wherein, when the target execution user sends a reply message with respect to the target prompt information, such as "Copy that", or when it is detected that the target execution user has entered the target interaction group and browsed the target prompt information, the reading state of the target prompt information is set to "Read"”. Claim 1 discloses similar limitations as Claim 10 as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1 and 10 are directed to “Mental Processes” such as “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” such as “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, Claims 1 and 10 recite additional elements, yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1 and 10 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1 and 10 do 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 an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements disclosed above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶94-95“As shown in FIG. 4, the electronic device 40 may take a form of a general-purpose computer device. Components of the electronic device 40 may include, but is not limited to, one or more processors or processing units 401, a system memory 402, and a bus 403 connecting different system components (including the system memory 402 and the one or more processing units 401).”.
As a result, claims 1 and 9-10 do not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 2-6 and 8 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571)272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 11/25/2025