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 .
Please vacate the Notice of Allowance mailed 08/20/2025 in light of the attached office action. Then, reset statutory period to response from the mailing date of this office action.
The Notice of Allowance mailed 08/20/2025 is withdrawn because the claims are failing under the 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner apologies for causing any inconvenience.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are pending for examination.
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 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 4 and 12:
Step 1:
The claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
• "determining an event date window based on a first value of the first plurality
of values corresponding to an event date, wherein the event date window is a
range of dates surrounding the event date" as drafted this recites a mental
process as a form of evaluation or judgement. One can mentally determine a
window of time/dates based on identifying a range of dates surrounding an event
date. Consistent with the specification as in [0040] this can be nothing more than a
two week period before and after the date, which one can mentally evaluate or
judge.
• "determining a similarity likelihood based on a comparison of the first
plurality of values and the second plurality of values using a matching
algorithm, wherein the matching algorithm modifies weights for matches
detected between the respective data types of the first plurality of values and
the second plurality of values based on comparing the event date window of
the first account to a second event date corresponding to the second account"
as drafted this recites a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. One
can mentally compare and evaluate/judge the similarity of values from given events
with weighting based on event dates and window. Consistent with the specification
in [0050] "weighting" is nothing more than an increased/decreased importance
given to an item, such as more importance being given when a date falls within the
event window.
• "wherein the matching algorithm comprises an n-gram parser, and wherein
determining the similarity likelihood based on the comparison of the first
plurality of values and the second plurality of values using the matching
algorithm comprises: determining a first string of n-grams based on the first
plurality of values and a second string of n-grams based on the second
plurality of values; "parsing the first string and the second string using the ngram
parser" as drafted this recites a mental process as a form of evaluation or
judgement. One can mentally determine first and second strings of n-grams within
values/data. Consistent with the specification in [0067] an n-gram is merely a
contiguous sequence of items, which would include words, letters, or syllables. One
can mentally determine and parse strings into words/n-grams in this fashion.
• "determining a number of n-grams that match in the first string and the
second string" as drafted this recites a mental process as a form of evaluation or
judgement. One can mentally evaluate a number of n-grams that match in a string,
by merely counting.
• "dividing the number of n-grams by a total number of n-grams in the first
string and the second string to determine a point value" as drafted this recites a
mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement and/or a math calculation. One
can mentally divide a first value by a second value. Additionally, dividing numbers
is a math calculation.
• "determining the similarity likelihood based on the point value" as drafted this
recites a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement or opinion. One can
9
mentally judge/evaluate the similarity based on the determined value, this also
reflects an opinion as the mental judgement of what 'similar' based on the point
value.
• "generating … a match recommendation based on the similarity likelihood" as
drafted this recites a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. One can
mentally evaluate or judge that a specific event or set of data is a match based on a
determined similarity likelihood. That is, one can mentally discern that the two
events are likely a match based on the judged similarity.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
• That the method is ostensibly computer-implemented with a generic "user interface"
and "online" accounts, which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer
components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP
2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
• "obtaining (1) a first plurality of values for a first account, wherein the first
plurality of values corresponds to respective data types and (2) receiving a
second plurality of values for a second account, wherein the second plurality of
values corresponds to the respective data types" recites insignificant extrasolution
activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as
'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide
integration into a practical application.
• That the recommendation is generated "for display, on a user interface" recites
insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. Mere
presentation or output of a mental process generated recommendation does
meaningfully limit the abstract idea nor provide integration into a practical
application.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides
integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
• The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and
does not provide significantly more.
• With respect to the "obtaining" identified as insignificant extra-solution activity
above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional
as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or
transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788
F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over
a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d
1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a
network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not
provide significantly more.
• With respect to the "for display, on a user interface" identified as insignificant
extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood,
10
routine, and conventional in displaying information as evidenced by the court cases
in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP
Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and "i. … transmitting data
over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an
intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350,
1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends
information over a network)"
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
- Claims 2-3 are depending to claim 1 and recite similar limitations, which is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
- Claims 6-11 are depending to claim 4 and recite similar limitations, which is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
- Claims 14-20 are depending to claim 12 and recite similar limitations, which is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loan T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 270-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday from 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Thursday-Friday from 10:00 am - 2:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4103. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
12/20//2025
/LOAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2165