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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 21-36 are pending.
This action is in response to Election filed on June 25, 2026, without traverse.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
This application is a continuation of U.S. Utility Patent Application No. 18/324,869, filed on May 26, 2023, titled "Data Aggregation and Process Automation Systems and Methods," which is a continuation of U.S. Utility Patent Application No. 16/998,819, filed on August 20, 2020, and issued as Patent No. 11,663,204 on May 30, 2023, titled "Data Aggregation and Process Automation Systems and Methods," which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/890,359, filed on August 22, 2019, titled "Data Aggregation and Process Automation Systems and Methods," the entirety of the disclosures of which are hereby incorporated by this reference.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b) Paper No(s)/Mail Date: Receipt Date 02/11/2025.
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 1-2, 4, 7 and 21-28 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. Claim 8 recites a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper. Specifically, claim 8 recites the following limitations that can be practically performed in the mind.
As per claim 1-2, 4, 7 and 21-28:
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim as a whole does not integrate into a practical application because there is nothing about who would use the end result and in what way.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As per MPEP 2106,04(a)(2) III “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)”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Thus, applicants are advised to amend the claim so solve the 101 rejection set forth in the claim. A computer-implemented method is recommended for claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 21-28.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art made of Deng (US 20260039717 A1) teaches method for receive from a first integration point a first data object having a first format, the first data object including an inquiry for an authorization, identify based on the inquiry, a condition for evaluation and a second integration point associated with a second format. Deng (US 20260039717 A1) but fails to teach the following claimed features in combination with overall claimed limitations when interpreted in light of the specification.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art taken as a whole does not disclose nor teach determine the inquiry satisfies the condition for evaluation, in response to determining that the inquiry satisfies the condition for evaluation, generate based on the first data object, a second data object having the second format and including the inquiry, provide the second data object to the second integration point, receive from the second integration point, a third data object having the second format, the third data object including a determination of the authorization based on the inquiry, generate, based on the determination of the authorization, a response data object having the first format and provide the response data object to the first integration point and as specifically called for the claimed combinations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 29-36 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the claimed features as mentioned above in combination with other claimed features are not recited or suggested by the prior art of records. The above features in conjunction with all other limitations of the dependent and independent claims 29-36 are hereby allowed.
Claims 29-36 are allowed
Conclusion
The prior arty made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
BURGE J R (2017US-638132 et al) Collaboration Management System For Managing Collaboration Of Content, Has Collaboration Engine To Format Second Collaboration Object And Integrate Formatted Second Collaboration Object Into Activity Stream
Considered for teaching for system (100) has a collaboration engine (105) to receive the activity stream data for a first user and a second user interacting with the activity stream data. An activity stream format from activity stream data is identified. A first collaboration object is obtained. The first collaboration object is formatted according to activity stream format. The formatted first collaboration object is integrated into activity stream. The second collaboration object is formatted. The formatted second collaboration object is integrated into the activity stream according to the second integration point.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC M WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-4043. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 5:00.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ISAAC M WOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights