DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment on 08/06/2025. Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-16, and 18-22 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 02/11/2025.
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 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, 3-8, 10, 12-16, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 1-18 relate to process claims; claim 19 is manufacture claim; and, claim 20 is machine/apparatus claim. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Exemplary claim 20 (and claims 1 and 19) are found to recite the following abstract idea:
a processor (see additional element analysis in Step 2A Prong 2; Step 2B); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor (see additional element analysis in Step 2A Prong 2; Step 2B) to:
transmit a plurality of messages to a reporting hub, each message associated with a respective event of a plurality of events (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B) fundamental economic practice/principle; see also additional element analysis Step 2A Prong 2 Step 2B);
determine, for each message, whether an acknowledgement of the respective message is received from a global repository (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
determining, by the processor for at least one message of the plurality of messages, that no response message corresponding to the at least one message has been received within a predetermined reporting period (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
storing, by the processor in a data store, status information associated with each of the plurality of messages, the status information indicating whether the acknowledgment, a non-acknowledgment, a failure message, or no response has been received for the respective message (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) An example of a claim reciting managing personal behavior is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device.);
identifying, by the processor, a first subset of the plurality of events, the first subset comprising events of the plurality of events corresponding to messages for which: (i) the acknowledgment is not received, or (ii) no response message is received within the predetermined reporting period (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) and (III));
generating, by the processor, a report comprising the first subset of the plurality of events (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) and (III) pen and paper),
recursively evaluating, by the processor at each of a plurality of time intervals, the status information in the data store based on additional messages received during the respective time interval from at least one of the reporting hub or the global repository, the additional messages corresponding to at least one of the plurality of messages (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) and (III); for the recursively evaluating, see Step 2B below);
at each of the plurality of time intervals, updating, by the processor based on the status information in the data store, the report by (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) and (III); for the updating aspect, see Step 2B below):
removing events from the first subset in response to receiving the acknowledgment during the respective time interval (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) and (III)); and
retaining events in the first subset for which, during the respective time interval, no acknowledgment is received and at least one of the non-acknowledgment, the failure message, or no response has been received (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) and (III));
determining, by the processor based on the status information in the data store, for each of the plurality of time intervals within the predetermined reporting period, that a first event of the plurality of events is retained in the first subset during the respective time interval (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) and (III));
generate a report comprising a first subset of the plurality of events, the first subset comprising events for which the acknowledgment of the corresponding message is not received (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
generate, based on a predetermined reporting period, an unresolved event notification for a first event of the first subset of the plurality of events (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing IV I v. Capital One); and
transmit, to a reporting system, the unresolved event notification within the predetermined reporting period (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also additional element analysis Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B).
When these limitations are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds that claim 20 (and 1, 19) recites abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Claim 20 (and 1, 19) is not found to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 20 recites the additional elements of a processor and a memory storing instructions that when executed cause the processor to implement the abstract idea. For the processor and memory, see MPEP 2106.05(f) “apply it” rationale. Claim 20 also recites a reporting hub that receives data, a global repository that sends/receives data, a reporting system that receives data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f) “apply it” rationale for these limitations. When viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds claim 20 (and 1, 19) is directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B – Claim 20 (and 1, 19) is not found to include significantly more. The additional element analysis of Step 2A Prong 2 is equally applied to Step 2B. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(d). If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 20 recites limitations relating to receiving and transmitting data over a network, where this is found to be WURC: 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
Claim 20 recites limitations relating to storing data and updating data, where this is found to be WURC activity: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Claim 20 recites limitations relating to “recursively evalat[ing]” data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, these additional limitations are not found to include significantly more, and, thereby are directed to abstract idea.
Dependent Claims –Claim 3 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claim 4 recites more abstract idea, and WURC activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claim 5 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Claim 6 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claim 7 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claim 8 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B). Claim 10 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claim 12 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B). Claim 13 recites more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claims 14-16, 18 recite more abstract idea, in apply it manner. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claims 21-22 recite more abstract idea, performed in apply it manner, and further using WURC activity such as the updating, as mentioned above.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-16, 18-22 are Distinguished Over Prior Art
The examiner has thoroughly search the prior art and has been unable to find each single limitation of the claims. Accordingly, the examiner finds that the claims are distinguished over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible because of the recursively evaluating step. The examiner respectfully disagrees, referring to WURC activity at MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);
The examiner has reviewed the other arguments from Applicant. The examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments. A lot of them relate back to the recursively evaluating, but this is not sufficient to overcome the 101 rejection. The examiner refers to the 101 rejection above to further clarify the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights