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 Claims
This Nonfinal Office Action is in response to the Application filed on 10/14/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and considered below.
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 1 and 7-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4 and 8, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,475,985 (the ‘985 patent).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is broader than claim 1 of the ‘985 patent, which teaches everything claimed. Similarly, claims 7-9 of the instant application map to claims 3, 4, and 8 of the '985 patent as illustrated in the chart below.
Patent 11,475,985
Instant Application 18/914,803
Claim 1
Claim 1
A system for invoking account opportunities for support accounts, the system comprising: a data processing system comprising memory and one or more processors to:
A system comprising: a data processing system comprising memory and one or more processors to:
receive, from one or more administrator devices external to the data processing system by a first communication interface coupled with the one or more administrator devices, a plurality of opportunity events each indicating a modification to a corresponding transaction at a financial account system external to the data processing system and generated in response to a change to a participant service associated with a participant object
identify a plurality of events that indicate a modification to a corresponding transaction at a financial account system external to the data processing system and generated in response to a change to a service configured for a participant;
select, in response to receipt of the plurality of opportunity events, the participant object including a support service identifier associated with a support service at a corresponding one of the administrator devices, and a participant service identifier associated with the participant service;
filter the plurality of opportunity events based at least on a first opportunity metric indicating a compatibility between the participant object and one or more of the opportunity events to
filter the plurality of events based on a metric that indicates compatibility between the participant and one or more events of the plurality of events;
construct a plurality of opportunity objects;
construct, for the participant, a plurality of objects for the filtered plurality of events based on the metric that indicates compatibility;
rank the plurality of opportunity objects based at least on a determination that the opportunity object satisfies a second opportunity metric associated with the participant object and corresponding to a frequency of selection of the opportunity object via a user interface of a computing device linked with the participant object;
rank the plurality of objects based on a frequency of selection of one or more of the plurality of objects via a user interface of a computing device linked with the participant;
transmit, to the computing device, the ranked plurality of opportunity objects;
transmit, to the computing device, the ranked plurality of opportunity objects;
receive, from the user interface of the computing device presenting the ranked plurality of opportunity objects, a selection of one or more of the ranked plurality of opportunity objects;
receive, from the user interface of the computing device presenting the ranked plurality of opportunity objects, a selection of an object of the ranked plurality of opportunity objects;
generate, responsive to the selection of the one or more of the ranked opportunity objects, a link between the participant object and the support service; and
generate, responsive to the selection of the object, a link between the participant and the service; and
instruct, by a second communication interface coupled with the financial account system, the financial account system to change a state of the support service linked to the participant object.
provide an instruction to the financial account system to cause the financial account system to change a state of the service linked to the object.
Claim 3
Claim 7
The system of claim 1, wherein the data processing system is further operable to: filter, by the processor, the opportunity objects based at least partially on a determination that one or more of the opportunity objects satisfy a timestamp threshold associated with the participant object
The system of claim 1, wherein the data processing system is further configured to: filter the plurality of objects based at least partially on a determination that one or more of the plurality of objects satisfy a timestamp threshold associated with the participant
Claim 4
Claim 8
The system of claim 3, wherein the received selection is received at a selection time satisfying the timestamp threshold
The system of claim 7, wherein the received selection is received at a selection time satisfying the timestamp threshold.
Claim 8
Claim 9
The system of claim 1, wherein the opportunity event comprises a state change of the participant object.
The system of claim 1, wherein an event of the plurality of events comprises a state change of the participant object.
Thus, the claims are rejected for not being patently distinct from corresponding claims of the ‘985 patent. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “a data processing system comprising memory and one or more processors to: identify a plurality of events that indicate a modification to a corresponding transaction at a financial account system external to the data processing system and generated in response to a change to a service configured for a participant.” (Emphasis added). It is unclear whether it is the financial account system itself that is external to the data processing system or the plurality of events, or whether the identification of events take place externally (e.g., a third party is doing the identifying).
The “financial account system” is per the current Specification at Para. [0016] “At least one aspect of this technical solution is directed to a system where the data processing system is further operable to obtain, by the processor, the participant service at a remote financial account system.” For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as the financial account system being a computing system external to the claimed data processing system and the events can be “events indicating modifications to candidate electronic transactions,” (Specification at Para. [0005]) and “Opportunity events can represent changes in state, for example, of a service or product relevant to a participant.” (Specification at Para. [0040]).
Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1 and 11 and are also rejected.
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 practical application and without significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following, wherein the abstract limitations are not emboldened:
A system, comprising: a data processing system comprising memory and one or more processors to: identify a plurality of events that indicate a modification to a corresponding transaction at a financial account system external to the data processing system and generated in response to a change to a service configured for a participant; filter the plurality of events based on a metric that indicates compatibility between the participant and one or more events of the plurality of events; construct, for the participant, a plurality of objects for the filtered plurality of events based on the metric that indicates compatibility; rank the plurality of objects based on a frequency of selection of one or more of the plurality of objects via a user interface of a computing device linked with the participant; transmit, to the computing device, the ranked plurality of opportunity objects; receive, from the user interface of the computing device presenting the ranked plurality of opportunity objects, a selection of an object of the ranked plurality of opportunity objects; generate, responsive to the selection of the object, a link between the participant and the service; and provide an instruction to the financial account system to cause the financial account system to change a state of the service linked to the object.
Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations. The claimed invention is broadly directed to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing the information, and determining different results based on the analyses using a data processing system.
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 1-10) and process (claims 11-20), which recite steps of identifying and filtering a plurality of events, constructing a plurality of objects based on the events, ranking the plurality of objects, generating a link between a participant and a service configured for a participant. These steps of identifying and filtering a plurality of events, constructing a plurality of objects based on the events, ranking the plurality of objects, generating a link between a participant and a service configured for a participant and causing a financial account system to change a state of a service linked to an object, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity including following rules or instructions. Specifically, the claims are directed to matching a participant with a support service. Additionally, the limitations of the independent claims could be considered an abstract idea including mental processes, whereby the steps of the claimed invention could be performed in the mind by manually recording and ranking transactional events. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of a data processing system comprising memory and one or more processors amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)); or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims. Claim 2 includes an administrator device external to a data processing system and different from the financial account system; these computer systems are invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea and is merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claims 3-6, 9-10, 13-16 and 19-20 further define support services, plurality of objects and other metrics including participant interaction which are recited at a high level of generality and that further limit the abstract idea. Claims 5 and 15 further define a participant compatibility metric and a participant interaction metric and further limits the abstract idea. While claims 7-8 and 17-18 further defining the use of timestamps and limiting the abstract idea. These dependent claims are merely further defining the data-gathering capabilities of the system that may be used in methods of organizing human activity to match a participant to a support service.
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. For at least the reasons as stated above, the claims are not patent eligible in view of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of U.S. 2019/0114334 A1 to Gunther, hereinafter “Gunther,” in view of U.S. 2020/0143273 A1 to Bettencourt-Silva et al., hereinafter “Bettencourt,” in view of U.S. 2012/0173562 A1 to Zhu et al., hereinafter “Zhu,” in view of U.S. 2010/0064357 A1 to Baird et al., hereinafter “Baird” and further in view of U.S. 5,724,567 to Rose et al., hereinafter “Rose.”
Regarding independent claim 1, Gunther discloses to A system, comprising: a data processing system comprising memory and one or more processors (See Gunther at least at Paras. [0018]-[0020]) to: identify a plurality of events that indicate a modification to a corresponding transaction at a financial account system external to the data processing system (See id. at least at Abstract; Paras. [0188], [0191], [0273], Fig. 1A (exchange market server is external); Fig. 17C (financial accounts external to the system), Fig. 47). From the current Specification: “The data processing system can determine conditions, triggers or similar states or changes in state of support services or offerings to search for opportunities relevant to individual participants.” Specification at Para. [0037]; Also see Figs. 1A, 1B and 2 from the current Application.) and generated in response to a change to a service configured for a participant (See id. at least at Paras. [0132] (user investment preferences), [0191], [0231]-[0232] (customized process for user to generate a structured investment product) [0238]-[0240] (“[C]haracteristics of such component change over time, and algorithm on the system operating the inventive structured product design and trading platform automatically picks a substitute component which is expected to perform closer to the investment criteria input by the retail customer”), [0243] (User selects investment products from personalized services. “[T]o remove certain investment products and derivatives from the personalized catalog and queue of the user investment session. This is done by having the client enter his investment preferences on his user device.”), [0267]-[0269]. From the current Specification: “Opportunity objects can encapsulate various characteristics of opportunities relevant to a participant, and can facilitate execution of various transaction with external healthcare support services, platforms, or accounts, for example […] Opportunities can also be related to financial or monetary accounts assigned to the participant. For example, an opportunity can allow a participant to maximize or modify a recurring or one-time contribution to a financial account.” (Specification at Para. [0040])). Gunther further discloses to filter the plurality of events based on a metric that indicates compatibility between the participant and one or more events of the plurality of events (See id. at least at Abstract; Paras. [0132] (user investment preferences), [0191], [0231]-[0232] (customized process for user to generate a structured investment product) [0238]-[0240], [0243] (user selects investment products (i.e., events are filtered based on user selection – compatibility and filter), [0267]-[0269]). The current specification at Para. [0005] defines “events indicating modifications to candidate electronic transactions,” and at Para. [0040] “Opportunity events can represent changes in state, for example, of a service or product relevant to a participant.” The Specification at Para. [0151] states to “generate a compatibility metric blocking opportunities that do not correspond to any account associated with the provider.” This is like the user selected investment products of Gunther meeting legal requirements (compatible) and other rules including that “the product exchange system 146 and the exchange market server 130 enroll to the platform user a new of its kind to date upon-user-request proposed tranche as alluded above translated into a specific structured product or derivative on the decentralized distributed network on the market investment environment.” See Gunther at Para. [0269]). Gunther further discloses to construct, for the participant, a plurality of objects for the filtered plurality of events based on the metric that indicates compatibility (See id. at least at Abstract; Paras. [0112] (“[E]ach question in the series of questions may be selected based on the user's answer to the previous question, and each answer reduces a potential list of applicable investment products. Also, the product generation system 144 may utilize current pricing data, which enables the product generation system 144 to filter out potential investment products that cannot be priced given the investment objectives, risks and/or other considerations.”), [0188] (selections and preferences as compatibility from /for objects and events), [0191], [0231]-[0232] (“[T]he investment instruments being designed by users are constructed from a combination of one or more selected investment products based on the information received from the user and based on the real-time conditions of the investment market.”); Figs. 16-18).
Gunther may not specifically describe but Bettencourt teaches to transmit, to the computing device, the ranked plurality of opportunity objects (See Bettencourt at least at Paras. [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0080]-[0085], [0099]; Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5); receive, from the user interface of the computing device presenting the ranked plurality of opportunity objects, a selection of an object of the ranked plurality of opportunity objects (See id. at least at Paras. [0015] (“One or more event opportunities may be identified according to one or more event criteria for a selected group of entities identified according to one or more entity selection criteria. The one or more event opportunities may be suggested according to a level of convenience for attending the one or more event opportunities of the selected group of entities.”), ]0017]-[0018] (“[V]arious mechanisms of the illustrated embodiments identify and suggests a ranked list of event opportunities to a group of entities to spend time together. The group of entities may be identified based on a set of criteria […] The suggested event opportunities may be identified based on a set of criteria”), [0053], [0062] (“All of the event opportunities may be ranked and suggested to the group of entities based on convenience criteria.”), [0065]-[0068] (matching and ranking component); Figs. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Gunther to incorporate the teachings of Bettencourt and provide transmitting and receiving particular ranked selections. Bettencourt is directed to intelligent recommendation of event opportunities. (See Bettencourt at Abstract). Incorporating the intelligent recommendation of event opportunities as in Bettencourt with the financial transactions and dynamic documents as in Gunther would thereby improve the applicability, efficacy, and accuracy of the claimed system and method for generating a real-time trigger-based digital feed.
Gunther as modified by Bettencourt may not specifically describe but Zhu teaches to rank the plurality of objects based on a frequency of selection of one or more of the plurality of objects via a user interface of a computing device linked with the participant (See Zhu at least at Para. [0006] (“[A] record indicating that the search keyword search results were clicked by the user, the number of clicks (i.e., frequency of selection), and click ranks”), [0103] (“[T]he click factor attribute value of the search keyword in the search keyword set corresponding to each category of industry is the number of clicks for search results” Ordering based on number of clicks (clicks are made through a user interface of a computer device, i.e., frequency of selection for plurality of objects)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Gunther and Bettencourt to incorporate the teachings of Zhu and provide ranking of document objects via frequency of clicks through a user interface. Zhu is directed to recommendation of search keywords based on indication of user intention. (See Zhu at Abstract). Incorporating the selection ranking as in Zhu with the intelligent recommendation of event opportunities as in Bettencourt and the financial transactions and dynamic documents as in Gunther would thereby improve the applicability, efficacy, and accuracy of the claimed system and method for generating a real-time trigger-based digital feed.
Gunther as modified by Bettencourt and Zhu may not specifically describe but Baird teaches to provide an instruction to the financial account system to cause the financial account system to change a state of the service linked to the object (See Baird at least at Paras. [0053]-[0054] (“[E]vents may be used to represent changes of state within the human workflows included in the mashup and various outputs generated by automated processes included in the mashup. For example, an event may indicate a change in state of a service (such as the start or completion of a service) or a change in state of an entity managed by a service […] The same or another set of rules may specify that events emitted by certain services (e.g. an accounting service) related to certain types of entities (e.g. an invoice) that have changed state.”)). The current Specification states at Para. [0037]: “triggers or similar states or changes in state of support services or offerings to search for opportunities relevant to individual participants.” And “[o]pportunity events can represent changes in state, for example, of a service or product relevant to a participant. Opportunity objects can encapsulate various characteristics of opportunities relevant to a participant, and can facilitate execution of various transaction with external healthcare support services, platforms, or accounts, for example […] Opportunities can also be related to financial or monetary accounts assigned to the participant. For example, an opportunity can allow a participant to maximize or modify a recurring or one-time contribution to a financial account.” (Specification at Para. [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Gunther, Bettencourt and Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Baird and provide changes of state after a user change in service or other transactional requests. Baird is directed to a business processing system including distributed events and automate particular processes/transactions. (See Baird at Abstract). Incorporating the processing of distributed events as in Baird with the selection ranking as in Zhu, the intelligent recommendation of event opportunities as in Bettencourt and the financial transactions and dynamic documents as in Gunther would thereby improve the applicability, efficacy, and accuracy of the claimed system and method for generating a real-time trigger-based digital feed.
Gunther as modified by Bettencourt, Zhu and Baird may not specifically describe but Rose teaches to generate, responsive to the selection of the object, a link between the participant and the service (See Rose at least at Col. 4, ln. 63 – Col. 5, ln. 43; Col. 6, ln. 4-17 (“the ranking can be based […] upon indications provided by other users who have retrieved the message”); Col .8, ln. 24-44 (“[N]odes in the network represent users, documents, and terms or concepts,” and “Links are established between some of the nodes, such as between documents and the most salient terms in them, or between users and terms in documents they liked.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Gunther, Bettencourt, Zhu and Baird to incorporate the teachings of Rose and provide a link in response to user selections. Rose is directed to a system for directing relevance-ranked data objects to users. (See Rose at Abstract). Incorporating the relevance-ranked data objects and selection techniques as in Rose with the processing of distributed events as in Baird, the selection ranking of Zhu, the intelligent recommendation of event opportunities as in Bettencourt and the financial transactions and dynamic documents as in Gunther would thereby improve the applicability, efficacy, and accuracy of the claimed system and method for generating a real-time trigger-based digital feed.
Regarding claim 2, Gunther as modified by Bettencourt, Zhu, Baird and Rose teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Gunther further discloses wherein the data processing system is further configured to: receive the plurality of events from one or more administrator devices external to the data processing system and different from the financial account system (See Gunther at least at Abstract; Paras. [0188], [0191], [0273], Fig. 1A (exchange market server is external); Fig. 17C (financial accounts external to the system), Fig. 47).
Regarding claim 4, Gunther as modified by Bettencourt, Zhu, Baird and Rose teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Gunther further discloses wherein the data processing system is further configured to: rank the plurality of objects based at least on a determination that the object satisfies a second metric associated with the participant (See id. at least at Abstract; Paras. [0188], [0191], [0243] (investment preferences is a first metric), [0247] (the investment criteria are a second metric), [0273], Fig. 1A, 1B).
Regarding claim 5, Gunther as modified by Bettencourt, Zhu, Baird and Rose teaches the limitations of claim 4 and Gunther further discloses wherein: the metric comprises a participant compatibility metric associated with the service and a support service (See Gunther at least at Para. [0243]), and the second metric comprises a participant interaction metric associated with the participant and at least one of the plurality of objects (See id. at least at Para. [0247]).
Regarding claim 6, Gunther as modified by Bettencourt, Zhu, Baird and Rose teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Bettencourt further teaches wherein the data processing system is further configured to: configure a machine learning engine of the data processing system based at least partially on the received selection of the object via modification of the metric (See Bettencourt at least at Paras. [0017]-[0025], [0065]-[0066] (“the event opportunities system 475 may include a set of entities selection component 404 (e.g., “group-of-friends selection”), event opportunities selection component 406 (e.g., event opportunities selection), a matching and ranking component 408, and a machine learning component.”); Figs. 3, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Gunther, Baird, Zhu and Rose to incorporate the teachings of Bettencourt and provide machine learning for various participant events, services and interactions. Bettencourt is directed to intelligent recommendation schemes and various selection criteria. (See Bettencourt at Abstract). Incorporating the machine learning techniques for event opportunities as in Bettencourt with the relevance-ranked data objects and selection techniques as in Rose, the processing of distributed events as in Baird, the selection ranking of Zhu and the financial transactions and dynamic documents as in Gunther would thereby improve the applicability, efficacy, and accuracy of the claimed system and method for generating a real-time trigger-based digital feed.
Regarding claim 7, Gunther as modified by Bettencourt, Zhu, Baird and Rose teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Gunther further discloses wherein the data processing system is further configured to: filter the plurality of objects based at least partially on a determination that one or more of the plurality of objects satisfy a timestamp threshold associated with the participant (See id. at least at Paras. [0064]-[0066] (real-time market information has timestamp thresholds for each indication and real-time update), [0200]; Claim 4).
Regarding claim 8, Gunther as modified by Bettencourt, Zhu, Baird and Rose teaches the limitations of claim 7 and Gunther further discloses wherein the received selection is received at a selection time satisfying the timestamp threshold (See id.).
Regarding claim 9, Gunther as modified by Bettencourt, Zhu, Baird and Rose teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Baird further teaches wherein an event of the plurality of events comprises a state change of the participant object (See Baird at Paras. [0053]-[0054]) (“a participant object including a support service identifier associated with a support service.” Specification at Para. [0005])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Gunther, Bettencourt, Zhu and Rose to incorporate the teachings of Baird and provide a state change of a user definition/object. Baird is directed to a business processing system including distributed events and automate particular processes/transactions. (See Baird at Abstract). Incorporating the processing of distributed events as in Baird with the relevance-ranked data objects and selection techniques as in Rose, the selection ranking of Zhu, the intelligent recommendation of event opportunities as in Bettencourt and the financial transactions and dynamic documents as in Gunther would thereby improve the applicability, efficacy, and accuracy of the claimed system and method for generating a real-time trigger-based digital feed.
Regarding claim 10, Gunther as modified by Bettencourt, Zhu, Baird and Rose teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Gunther further discloses wherein the data processing system is further configured to: use the metric to filter the plurality of events to remove at least one event from the plurality of events that are incompatible with the participant (See Gunther at least at Abstract; Paras. [0191], [0231]-[0232] (customized process for user to generate a structured investment product) [0238]-[0240], [0243] (user selects investment products (i.e., events are filtered based on user selection and legal restrictions/rules – filter by incompatibility), [0247], [0267]-[0269]).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14-20, the claims recite substantially the same limitations as claims 1-2 and 4-10, respectively. Thus, claims 11-12 and 14-20 are rejected under the same grounds of objection and for the same reasoning as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-10, above.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunther in view of Bettencourt, in view of Zhu, in view of Baird, in view of Rose and further in view of U.S. 2014/0278500 A1 to Lara, hereinafter “Lara.”
Regarding claim 3, Gunther as modified by Bettencourt, Zhu, Baird and Rose teaches the limitations of claim 1. The references may not specifically describe but Lara teaches wherein the service comprises a support service, and the data processing system is further configured to: select, in response to receipt of the plurality of events, the object including a support service identifier associated with the support service at a corresponding administrator device, and a participant service identifier associated with the service configured for the participant (See Lara at least at Abstract; Paras. [0017] (“The system comprises a control device configured to receive a first communication selected from the group consisting of an electronic hospital census and an outpatient authorization report […] “the control device operated by an entity that is a different entity than the hospital.”), [0045]-[0047] (“a patient may participate in a transition care method 100/200 (FIGS. 1 to 2B, respectively) and/or a care assist program 300 (FIGS. 3A to 3B) by registering with the entity that operates a method consistent with the present disclosure, or an entity that controls a system consistent with the present disclosure.” “[T]he transition care method 100/200 may comprise an inpatient process 100 and/or a discharge process 200.”); [0161]; Figs. 1-2). From the current Specification: “As one example, the DPS can obtain a participant object in response to obtaining an opportunity object associated with a health support service linked to a particular participant object.” See Specification at Para. [0150]. This is similar to the control device that is a separate entity from a user or participant and transition care method selected for a patient. “selecting, in response to receipt of the plurality of opportunity events, a participant object including a support service identifier associated with a support service, and a participant service identifier associated with a participant service.” See Specification at Para. [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Gunther, Bettencourt, Zhu, Baird and Rose to incorporate the teachings of Lara and provide various support services and administrator devices. Lara is directed to a method for assisting patients in a healthcare network for various services. (See Lara at Abstract). Incorporating the patient assistance with various computing devices as in Lara with the relevance-ranked data objects and selection techniques as in Rose, the electronic transaction services as in Baird, the selection ranking of Zhu, the intelligent recommendation of event opportunities as in Bettencourt and the financial transactions and dynamic documents as in Gunther would thereby improve the applicability, efficacy, and accuracy of the claimed system and method for generating a real-time trigger-based digital feed.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Thus, claim 13 is rejected under the same grounds of objection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 3, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. 2018/0158090 A1 to Glyn; U.S. 2005/0234742 A1 to Hodgdon; U.S. 2013/0060623 A1 to Walker; U.S. 2014/0200909 A1 to Felix; U.S. 2014/0257834 A1 to Johnson; U.S. 6,370,526 A1 to Agrawal et al.; U.S. 2020/0104935 A1 to Schmitt.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-4871. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 08:30-18:30 EST.
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, MARC Q. JIMENEZ can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/MICHAEL I EZEWOKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681