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 .
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §101
2. 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 – 15 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.
The claims are analyzed for subject matter eligibility using a two-part subject matter eligibility analysis (MPEP 2016).
Independent claim 1 recites “method of processing data …” and as such falls within one of the statutory categories of patentability.
Step 2a Prong 1
Independent claim 1 is however rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim
recites, “generating feedback data based on the plurality of record associations; and generating a third set of records by editing records of the first set of records using a fourth subset of the one or more directives.” These limitations may be properly identified as reciting the abstract idea of a “mental processes.” Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) falls within the grouping of abstract ideas, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674. Thus a step of observing and analyzing associations between records and forming an opinion that serves as feedback is a step that can be mentally accomplished. Secondly, updating records using a set of records by editing them using directives can be mentally accomplished and as such falls within the mental grouping of an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because firstly, the additional recitations of, “receiving one or more directives; retrieving a first set of records from the first data using a first subset of the one or more directives; generating a second set of records based on the one or more directives using a second subset of the one or more directives; generating, based on a third subset of the one or more directives, a plurality of record associations, the plurality of record associations including one or more of: first relationships between records of the first set of records, second relationships between records of the second set of records, and third relationships between records of the first set of records and the second set of records; storing the plurality of record associations in a structured format” are mere data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality. The courts have held that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Step 2B
The additional elements of, “receiving one or more directives; retrieving a first set of records from the first data using a first subset of the one or more directives; generating a second set of records based on the one or more directives using a second subset of the one or more directives; generating, based on a third subset of the one or more directives, a plurality of record associations, the plurality of record associations including one or more of: first relationships between records of the first set of records, second relationships between records of the second set of records, and third relationships between records of the first set of records and the second set of records; storing the plurality of record associations in a structured format” are insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have held simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) do not qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Reference is made to Renkes et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20120191696 ) which teaches in paragraph ][0011] “the first and second associations are in a third record representing the first association of a value represented by the second record with the first value identifier, and the second association of the second value identifier with the data representing the change, where the third record may be a value identifier translation record in a translation table supplementary to a delta dictionary corresponding to the delta index” and in paragraph [0017] “For example, a record containing a new update to two records may be received, where the two records include a record that is a previous update to another record and the other record. A row of the record that contains the previous update may be marked as invalid, and a new row including the new update record may be inserted. The record for the new update may be selected for inclusion in a result set while the other two records are not.”
These claim limitations, when considered individually and in combination and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “editing one or more record associations of the plurality of record associations including the first relationships, the second relationships, the third relationships and fourth relationships between records of the first set of records, the second set of records, and the third set of records.” Observing records and making changes to them based on specified relationships is an evaluation that can be mentally performed.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application. As discussed above in Renkes et al., paragraph [0011] and [0017], respectively, defined relationships between records and attendant changes to records is well known.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “annotating a subset of the first data associated with the second set of records and the third set of records.” Marking up records can be accomplished with a paper and pen.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application. Reference is noted in Renkes et al., paragraph [0059], “the nodes can be labeled with single bits such that a path through the tree is represented as a bit vector, where each bit specifies which branch to take at each successive step along the path to a leaf node. If a tree has depth eight, so that eight steps are required to get from the root node to a leaf, then each leaf node has a unique 8-bit (1 byte) address, and the tree as a whole has a total of 256 (2.sup.8) potential leaf nodes.” Thus labeling of data as an exercise is routine and conventional.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “annotating a subset of the first data associated with one or more of the first relationships, the second relationships, the third relationships, and the fourth relationships.” Marking up records based on associated relationships can be accomplished with a paper and pen.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application. Reference is noted in Renkes et al., paragraph [0059], “the nodes can be labeled with single bits such that a path through the tree is represented as a bit vector, where each bit specifies which branch to take at each successive step along the path to a leaf node. If a tree has depth eight, so that eight steps are required to get from the root node to a leaf, then each leaf node has a unique 8-bit (1 byte) address, and the tree as a whole has a total of 256 (2.sup.8) potential leaf nodes.” Thus labeling of data as an exercise is routine and conventional.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “editing one or more record associations of the plurality of record associations including the first relationships, the second relationships, the third relationships and fourth relationships between records of the first set of records, the second set of records, and the third set of records; and annotating a subset of the first data associated with the second set of records and the third set of record.” Observing records and making changes to them based on specified relationships is an evaluation that can be mentally performed using a paper and pen.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application. As discussed above in Renkes et al., paragraph [0011] and [0017], respectively, defined relationships between records and attendant changes to records is well known.” Thus editing of data as an exercise is routine and conventional.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “editing one or more record associations of the plurality of record associations including the first relationships, the second relationships, the third relationships and fourth relationships between records of the first set of records, the second set of records, and the third set of records; and annotating a subset of the first data associated with one or more of the first relationships, the second relationships, the third relationships, and the fourth relationships.” Observing records and making changes to them based on specified relationships is an evaluation that can be mentally performed using a paper and pen.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application. As discussed above in Renkes et al., paragraph [0011] and [0017], respectively, defined relationships between records and attendant changes to records is well known.” Thus editing of data as an exercise is routine and conventional.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “annotating a subset of the first data associated with the second set of records and the third set of records; and annotating a subset of the first data associated with one or more of the first relationships, the second relationships, the third relationships, and the fourth relationships.” Marking up records can be accomplished with a paper and pen.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application. Reference is noted in Renkes et al., paragraph [0059], “the nodes can be labeled with single bits such that a path through the tree is represented as a bit vector, where each bit specifies which branch to take at each successive step along the path to a leaf node. If a tree has depth eight, so that eight steps are required to get from the root node to a leaf, then each leaf node has a unique 8-bit (1 byte) address, and the tree as a whole has a total of 256 (2.sup.8) potential leaf nodes.” Thus labeling of data as an exercise is routine and conventional.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 recites “method of processing data …” and as such falls within one of the statutory categories of patentability.
Step 2a Prong 1
Independent claim 1 is however rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim
recites, “generating feedback data based on the plurality of record associations; and editing one or more record associations of the plurality of record associations including the first relationships, the second relationships, the third relationships and fourth relationships between records of the first set of records, the second set of records, and the third set of records.” These limitations may be properly identified as reciting the abstract idea of a “mental processes.” Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) falls within the grouping of abstract ideas, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674. Thus a step of observing and analyzing associations between records and forming an opinion that serves as feedback is a step that can be mentally accomplished. Secondly, updating records using a set of records by editing them using directives can be mentally accomplished and as such falls within the mental grouping of an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because firstly, the additional recitations of, “receiving, at a processor, first data comprising a plurality of values; receiving one or more directives; retrieving a first set of records from the first data using a first subset of the one or more directives; generating a second set of records based on the one or more directives using a second subset of the one or more directives; generating, based on a third subset of the one or more directives, a plurality of record associations, the plurality of record associations including one or more of: first relationships between records of the first set of records, second relationships between records of the second set of records, and third relationships between records of the first set of records and the second set of records; storing the plurality of record associations in a structured format” are mere data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality. The courts have held that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Step 2B
The additional elements of, “receiving, at a processor, first data comprising a plurality of values; receiving one or more directives; retrieving a first set of records from the first data using a first subset of the one or more directives; generating a second set of records based on the one or more directives using a second subset of the one or more directives; generating, based on a third subset of the one or more directives, a plurality of record associations, the plurality of record associations including one or more of: first relationships between records of the first set of records, second relationships between records of the second set of records, and third relationships between records of the first set of records and the second set of records; storing the plurality of record associations in a structured format” are insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have held simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) do not qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Reference is made to Renkes et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20120191696 ) which teaches in paragraph ][0011] “the first and second associations are in a third record representing the first association of a value represented by the second record with the first value identifier, and the second association of the second value identifier with the data representing the change, where the third record may be a value identifier translation record in a translation table supplementary to a delta dictionary corresponding to the delta index” and in paragraph [0017] “For example, a record containing a new update to two records may be received, where the two records include a record that is a previous update to another record and the other record. A row of the record that contains the previous update may be marked as invalid, and a new row including the new update record may be inserted. The record for the new update may be selected for inclusion in a result set while the other two records are not.”
These claim limitations, when considered individually and in combination and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 8 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “annotating a subset of the first data associated with the second set of records and the third set of records.” Marking up records can be accomplished with a paper and pen.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application. Reference is noted in Renkes et al., paragraph [0059], “the nodes can be labeled with single bits such that a path through the tree is represented as a bit vector, where each bit specifies which branch to take at each successive step along the path to a leaf node. If a tree has depth eight, so that eight steps are required to get from the root node to a leaf, then each leaf node has a unique 8-bit (1 byte) address, and the tree as a whole has a total of 256 (2.sup.8) potential leaf nodes.” Thus labeling of data as an exercise is routine and conventional.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 8 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “annotating a subset of the first data associated with one or more of the first relationships, the second relationships, the third relationships, and the fourth relationships.” Marking up records based on associated relationships can be accomplished with a paper and pen.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application. Reference is noted in Renkes et al., paragraph [0059], “the nodes can be labeled with single bits such that a path through the tree is represented as a bit vector, where each bit specifies which branch to take at each successive step along the path to a leaf node. If a tree has depth eight, so that eight steps are required to get from the root node to a leaf, then each leaf node has a unique 8-bit (1 byte) address, and the tree as a whole has a total of 256 (2.sup.8) potential leaf nodes.” Thus labeling of data as an exercise is routine and conventional.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “annotating a subset of the first data associated with the second set of records and the third set of records; and annotating a subset of the first data associated with one or more of the first relationships, the second relationships, the third relationships, and the fourth relationships.” Marking up records based on associated relationships can be accomplished with a paper and pen.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application. Reference is noted in Renkes et al., paragraph [0059], “the nodes can be labeled with single bits such that a path through the tree is represented as a bit vector, where each bit specifies which branch to take at each successive step along the path to a leaf node. If a tree has depth eight, so that eight steps are required to get from the root node to a leaf, then each leaf node has a unique 8-bit (1 byte) address, and the tree as a whole has a total of 256 (2.sup.8) potential leaf nodes.” Thus labeling of data as an exercise is routine and conventional.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 12 recites “method of processing data …” and as such falls within one of the statutory categories of patentability.
Step 2a Prong 1
Independent claim 1 is however rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim
recites, “generating feedback data based on the plurality of record associations; and annotating a subset of the first data associated with the second set of records and the third set of records.” These limitations may be properly identified as reciting the abstract idea of a “mental processes.” Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) falls within the grouping of abstract ideas, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674. Thus a step of observing and analyzing associations between records and forming an opinion that serves as feedback is a step that can be mentally accomplished. Secondly, updating records using a set of records by editing them can be mentally accomplished and as such falls within the mental grouping of an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because firstly, the additional recitations of, “receiving, at a processor, first data comprising a plurality of values; receiving one or more directives; retrieving a first set of records from the first data using a first subset of the one or more directives; generating a second set of records based on the one or more directives using a second subset of the one or more directives; generating, based on a third subset of the one or more directives, a plurality of record associations, the plurality of record associations including one or more of: first relationships between records of the first set of records, second relationships between records of the second set of records, and third relationships between records of the first set of records and the second set of records; storing the plurality of record associations in a structured format” are mere data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality. The courts have held that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Step 2B
The additional elements of, “receiving, at a processor, first data comprising a plurality of values; receiving one or more directives; retrieving a first set of records from the first data using a first subset of the one or more directives; generating a second set of records based on the one or more directives using a second subset of the one or more directives; generating, based on a third subset of the one or more directives, a plurality of record associations, the plurality of record associations including one or more of: first relationships between records of the first set of records, second relationships between records of the second set of records, and third relationships between records of the first set of records and the second set of records; storing the plurality of record associations in a structured format” are insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have held simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) do not qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Reference is made to Renkes et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20120191696 ) which teaches in paragraph ][0011] “the first and second associations are in a third record representing the first association of a value represented by the second record with the first value identifier, and the second association of the second value identifier with the data representing the change, where the third record may be a value identifier translation record in a translation table supplementary to a delta dictionary corresponding to the delta index” and in paragraph [0017] “For example, a record containing a new update to two records may be received, where the two records include a record that is a previous update to another record and the other record. A row of the record that contains the previous update may be marked as invalid, and a new row including the new update record may be inserted. The record for the new update may be selected for inclusion in a result set while the other two records are not.”
These claim limitations, when considered individually and in combination and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “annotating a subset of the first data associated with one or more of the first relationships, the second relationships, the third relationships, and fourth relationships between records of the first set of records, the second set of records, and a third set of records.” Marking up records based on associated relationships can be accomplished with a paper and pen.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements are mere instruction to apply an exception previously known in the industry which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 101 USPQ2d 1969 (2012) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) (the additional elements were "well known" and, thus, did not amount to a patentable application. Reference is noted in Renkes et al., paragraph [0059], “the nodes can be labeled with single bits such that a path through the tree is represented as a bit vector, where each bit specifies which branch to take at each successive step along the path to a leaf node. If a tree has depth eight, so that eight steps are required to get from the root node to a leaf, then each leaf node has a unique 8-bit (1 byte) address, and the tree as a whole has a total of 256 (2.sup.8) potential leaf nodes.” Thus labeling of data as an exercise is routine and conventional.
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 14 recites “method of processing data …” and as such falls within one of the statutory categories of patentability.
Step 2a Prong 1
Independent claim 1 is however rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim
recites, “generating feedback data based on the plurality o