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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 09, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse in the reply filed on February 09, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that inventions I-III (Groups I-III) are overlapping in scope and would not be overly burdensome on the Examiner to conduct a search directed to the non-elected claims.
This s not found persuasive because inventions I-III each has separate utility such as determining whether the score satisfies a first threshold, a second threshold, and a third threshold and generating a score based on the rating (invention I), determining whether the score satisfies a first threshold, a second threshold, or a third threshold and dynamically generating a score based on the rating (invention II), and determining whether the score satisfies a first threshold, a second threshold, or a third threshold and generating a score based on the rating and a second rating respectively associated with each of one or more additional users (invention III). The inventions as claimed are distinct because invention I requires determining whether the score satisfies a first threshold, a second threshold, and a third threshold and initiating corresponding actions, invention II requires determining whether the score satisfies a first threshold, a second threshold, or a third threshold and initiating corresponding actions, invention III requires determining whether the score satisfies a first threshold, a second threshold, or a third threshold and initiating corresponding actions. Also, each invention has its own unique dependent claims that are patentably distinct from each other and would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to obvious variants. Thus, restriction for examination purposes is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because (a) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, employing different search queries); (b) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; (c) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Therefore, the examiner decides to maintain the Restriction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
This is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on February 09, 2026 for Application No. 18/903,924 filed on October 01, 2024, title: “Systems And Methods For Data Monitoring”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were restricted. By the 02/09/2024 Response, claims 11-16 has been elected for examination and claims 1-10 and 17-20 have been withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 11-16 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Priority
This application was filed on 10/01/2024 and is a CON of US Application No. 17/959,567 filed on 10/04/2022 (Patented No. 12,136,123). For the purpose of examination, the date of 10/04/2022 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/01/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. A copy of the PTO-1449 form with the examiner’s initials is enclosed to this Office Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of US Patent No. 12,136,123. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined claims are broader than the reference claims in the patent and anticipated by the reference claims. The examined claims recite substantially the same limitations as the reference claims in the patent with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The application and the patent are directed to the same invention of systems and method for data monitoring. The application and the patent have the same inventors and are commonly owned.
Therefore, this double patenting rejection is deemed necessary.
Application No. 18/903,924
Patent No. 12,136,123
Claim 11, A system, comprising:
Claim 1, A system, comprising:
one or more processors; and a memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the system to:
one or more processors; and a memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the system to:
receive data associated with creditworthiness of a user;
receive data associated with creditworthiness of a user;
responsive to receiving the data associated with creditworthiness of the user, determine a rating corresponding to the user based on the received data;
determine a rating corresponding to the user based on the received data;
dynamically generate a score based on the rating;
dynamically generate a score by aggregating the rating and a second rating respectively associated with each of one or more additional users;
dynamically display the score via a graphical user interface (GUI);
generate a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to dynamically display the score;
determine whether the score satisfies a first threshold, a second threshold, or a third threshold;
determine whether the score satisfies a first threshold;
responsive to determining the score satisfies the first threshold, cause a user device to display, via the GUI, the score in a first format;
responsive to determining the score satisfies the first threshold, cause a user device to display, via the GUI, the score in a first format;
responsive to determining the score does not satisfy the first threshold:
determine whether the score satisfies a second threshold;
responsive to determining the score satisfies the second threshold:
responsive to determining the score satisfies the second threshold:
modify the GUI to generate a first modified GUI by re-formatting the score into a second format; and
modify the GUI to generate a first modified GUI by re-formatting the score into a second format; and
cause the user device to display the first modified GUI;
cause the user device to display the first modified GUI; and
responsive to determining the score does not satisfy the second threshold:
determine whether the score satisfies a third threshold;
responsive to determining the score satisfies the third threshold:
responsive to determining the score satisfies the third threshold:
modify the GUI to generate a second modified GUI by re-formatting the score into a third format; and
modify the GUI to generate a second modified GUI by re-formatting the score into a third format; and
cause the user device to display the second modified GUI; and
cause the user device to display the second modified GUI; and
responsive to determining the score does not satisfy the first, second, or third threshold:
responsive to determining the score does not satisfy the third threshold:
modify the GUI to generate a third modified GUI by re-formatting the score into a fourth format; and
modify the GUI to generate a third modified GUI by re-formatting the score into a fourth format; and
cause the user device to display the third modified GUI.
cause the user device to display the third modified GUI.
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 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 11-16 recite a system comprising processors and memories with stored instructions. Therefore, the claims recite a machine which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 11, A system, comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the system to:
receive data associated with creditworthiness of a user;
responsive to receiving the data associated with creditworthiness of the user, determine a rating corresponding to the user based on the received data;
dynamically generate a score based on the rating;
dynamically display the score via a graphical user interface (GUI);
determine whether the score satisfies a first threshold, a second threshold, or a third threshold;
responsive to determining the score satisfies the first threshold, cause a user device to display, via the GUI, the score in a first format;
responsive to determining the score satisfies the second threshold:
modify the GUI to generate a first modified GUI by re-formatting the score into a second format; and
cause the user device to display the first modified GUI;
responsive to determining the score satisfies the third threshold:
modify the GUI to generate a second modified GUI by re-formatting the score into a third format; and
cause the user device to display the second modified GUI; and
responsive to determining the score does not satisfy the first, second, or third threshold:
modify the GUI to generate a third modified GUI by re-formatting the score into a fourth format; and
cause the user device to display the third modified GUI.
The claim limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., a system comprising processors, memories with stored instructions, GUI and modified GUI). More specifically, the claim recites a method of data monitoring by determining a rating of the received user data, generating a score based on the rating, displaying the score via a GUI, determining whether the score satisfies a first, second, or a third threshold, responsive to determining the score satisfies the first threshold - causing a user device to display the score in a first format, in response to determining the score satisfies the second threshold - modifying the GUI to generate a first modified GUI by re-formatting the score into a second format, and causing the user device to display the first modified GUI, responsive to determining the score satisfies the third threshold – modifying the GUI to generate a second modified by re-formatting the score into a third format, and causing the user device to display the second modified GUI, and responsive to determining the score does not satisfy the first, second, or third threshold – modifying the GUI to generate a third modified GUI by re-formatting the score into a fourth format, and causing the user device to display the third modified GUI.
In summary, the claim recites a process corresponds to a method of organizing human activity for data monitoring using a streamlined review process to determine whether an entity’s rating or score satisfies the threshold requirements (an iteration method or a repetition process to determine if the generated score satisfies the first/second/third thresholds, modify the GUI to generate the first/second/third modified GUI by re-formatting the score into the subsequent format, and cause the user device to display the modified GUI). The claim recites the abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity because it relates to commercial or legal interactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.2.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method for monitoring a user’s data, then, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application 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.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system comprising processors, memories with stored instructions, GUI and modified GUI. The additional computer elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions such as receiving the data, determining a rating corresponding to the received data, generating a score, and determining if the generated score satisfies the first/second/third thresholds, modifying the GUI to generate the first/second/third modified GUI by re-formatting the score into the subsequent format, and causing the user device to display the modified GUI – this is a streamlined review process “an iteration method or a repetition process”) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim recites a method using a streamlined review process to determine whether an entity’s rating or score satisfies the threshold requirements. This is substantiated by Applicant’s Specification in paragraphs 18-40, 67-77 and Figures 1 and 4 (see US Publication No. 2025/0022055). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claim is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
The independent claim does not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, 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 receiving, determining, generating, displaying, determining, displaying, determining, modifying, generating, displaying, determining, modifying, generating, displaying, determining, modifying, generating, displaying functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The generic computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry similar to those referenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)II. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the independent claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-16 depend on claim 11, and therefore include all the limitations of claim 11. Thus, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea of a system for data monitoring.
Claims 12-14 recite additional elements “wherein determining the rating is conducted based on one or more rules.”, “wherein determining the rating is conducted via a rules-based platform.”, and “wherein determining the rating is conducted by a machine learning model (MLM).” (The elements are additional details for the math model (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 15 recites additional elements “wherein dynamically generating the score is conducted by aggregating the rating and a second rating respectively associated with each of one or more additional users.” (The elements are additional details for generating the score (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 16 recites additional elements “wherein determining the rating comprises determining a level of creditworthiness associated with the user.” (The elements are additional details for determining the rating (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. There is no inventive concept found in the claims. The claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on a method implemented on a computer system for data monitoring using a streamlined review process to determine whether an entity’s rating or score satisfies the threshold requirements. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, network, system memory, or user interface, nor do they provide a method of processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. The claims do not add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Extensive prior art searches had been performed during the examination of the parent case. An updated prior art search could not identify any art, individually or in combination with others, that teaches each and every element of the claims at this time.
Conclusion
Claims 11-16 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695