DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 9/20/24, wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed U.S. provisional patent application Serial Number 63/540,027 filed on 9/22/23 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged, as well as the benefit to the cited parent applications under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claim 20 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium, and therefore, also falls into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered certain methods of organizing human activity:
identifying a matter to be updated by filtering a plurality of matters, the matter associated with at least one entity matter dataset;
a first entity corresponding with a first entity matter dataset;
the first entity granting a second, third, or more entity a privilege to access a second, third, or more entity matter dataset, the second, third, or more entity matter dataset corresponding with the second, third, or more entity;
receiving an indication of a document having a due date and attributes, the document being sourced by the second, third, or more entity, and designated by a source category;
transforming the document and the attributes of the document according to preferences as indicated by the second, third, or more entity to create a transformed transaction, the transformed transaction comprising the document, source category, and document attributes;
logging the transformed transaction in the first, second, third, or more datasets, the second, third, or more datasets containing documents from the first entity matter dataset transformed according to the preferences of the second, third, or more entity; and
communicating the transformed transaction to parties as indicated by a second, third, or more entity with communicating privileges.
These limitations constitute providing synchronized matter datasets for multiple entities which contain documents or reports that are transformable according to the preferences of an entity (Specification ¶2), which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional element of a data interchange system (preamble of claim 1, which is not positively claimed, but is considered for purposes of compact prosecution) and claim 20 recites the additional elements of at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium and a processor (preamble of claim 20), which are computer components. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Additionally, the communicating limitation may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the steps of the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the communicating limitation) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12, 13, and 15-19 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claims 11 and 14 further recites the additional element of a database, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Distinguished from Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to claims 1-20.
Referring to claim 1:
The most closely applicable prior art of record is Tran (US 20050210009). Tran discloses a system for intellectual property management (Tran abstract). Tran discloses a method of aggregating information in a data interchange system to be accessed by an entity, the data interchange system for use with a calendaring system for matters having due dates, wherein the method comprises: identifying a matter to be updated by filtering a plurality of matters, the matter associated with at least one entity matter dataset; a first entity corresponding with a first entity matter dataset {Tran [0005][0011]-[0015][0090]-[0093][0109]; submitting a search request to locate a published application matching the predetermined number of digits (for example the last six digits) of the application serial number [0011] and Implementations of the system includes searching for issued patents and published applications matching the assignee name [0013] and the system provides automated docketing accessible to all authorized participants, electronic notification of due dates and electronic payment of annuity fees [0015]}; and receiving an indication of a document having a due date and attributes, the document being sourced by the second, third, or more entity, and designated by a source category {Tran [0090][0091]; The date generated for Office Action Due date is calculated by adding three months to the base date . . . The dates are automatically extracted from the file wrapper history index such as the Mail Room Date shown in Col. 1 of FIG. 1A, while the type of document can be determined from the Document Description in Col. 2 of FIG. 1A [0091]}.
Raffoul et al. (US 20210090190) is also closely related prior art. Raffoul discloses a system for data management (abstract). Raffoul discloses the first entity granting a second, third, or more entity a privilege to access a second, third, or more entity matter dataset, the second, third, or more entity matter dataset corresponding with the second, third, or more entity {Raffoul [0066][0067][0072]; an organization has at least one “controlling user” who is able to designate other users who should have the ability to access and/or modify specific documents/assets/data files that the organization stores on the system, for instance by assigning read/write permissions [0066] and the organization's controlling user(s) would grant the appropriate expert user(s) permissions to access and/or modify to the organization's data files [0067]};
The prior art of record neither anticipates not fairly and reasonable teach a method of aggregating information in a data interchange system to be accessed by an entity, the data interchange system for use with a calendaring system for matters having due dates, wherein the method comprises: identifying a matter to be updated by filtering a plurality of matters, the matter associated with at least one entity matter dataset; a first entity corresponding with a first entity matter dataset; the first entity granting a second, third, or more entity a privilege to access a second, third, or more entity matter dataset, the second, third, or more entity matter dataset corresponding with the second, third, or more entity; receiving an indication of a document having a due date and attributes, the document being sourced by the second, third, or more entity, and designated by a source category; transforming the document and the attributes of the document according to preferences as indicated by the second, third, or more entity to create a transformed transaction, the transformed transaction comprising the document, source category, and document attributes; logging the transformed transaction in the first, second, third, or more datasets, the second, third, or more datasets containing documents from the first entity matter dataset transformed according to the preferences of the second, third, or more entity; and communicating the transformed transaction to parties as indicated by a second, third, or more entity with communicating privileges.
Examiner notes that the underlined limitations above, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claims are not found in the prior art.
Claim 20 is also found to include subject matter distinguishable from prior art, for similar reasons to that of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Brown et al. (US 20030130990), a system for enhancing the visibility of documents;
Grainger (US 20020161733), a system for creating electronic prosecution experience for patent applicants; and
Grainger (US 20020111824), a system for defining workflow rules for managing intellectual property.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626