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 .
Claims 3, 11, & 21 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-20, & 22-23 are pending.
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, 4-10, 12-20, & 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because generically recited computer elements such as a server, an electronic device, a processor, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a memory do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because receiving, maintaining, identifying, sending, receiving, assigning, and displaying are well understood, routine, conventional computer functions.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: An electronic data analysis method including at least one server, the electronic data analysis method comprising steps of: receiving, from an electronic device associated with a user to an electronic data analysis system, a search query including one or more search query terms; maintaining an electronic search term database in association with the electronic data analysis system, the electronic search term database comprising a plurality of search terms; identifying, using the electronic data analysis system, one or more relevant search terms from the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database based on the one or more search query terms, wherein the identifying comprises: determining whether the search query has been previously received; when the search query has been previously received, identifying one or more search terms identified as relevant when the search query was previously received as the one or more relevant search terms; and when the search query has not been previously received, comparing the one or more search query terms to the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database to identify the one or more relevant search terms; sending, using the electronic data analysis system, a search request related to the one or more relevant search terms to a plurality of data sources external to the electronic data analysis system; receiving, using the electronic data analysis system, data associated with the one or more relevant search terms from the plurality of data sources; assigning, using the electronic data analysis system, the data received from the plurality of data sources into a plurality of data visualisation categories; and displaying, using the electronic data analysis system, the plurality of data visualisation categories on the electronic device.
The limitation of receiving, from an electronic device associated with a user to an electronic data analysis system, a search query including one or more search query terms as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic device” and “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually receive an inquiry that has a term.
The limitation of maintaining an electronic search term database in association with the electronic data analysis system, the electronic search term database comprising a plurality of search terms as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic database” and “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “maintaining” encompasses the user to mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually maintain or possess search terms.
The limitation of identifying, using the electronic data analysis system, one or more relevant search terms from the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database based on the one or more search query terms as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system” and “an electronic database”, nothing in the claim element precludes that step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “identifying” encompasses the user to mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually identify search terms.
The limitation of determining whether the search query has been previously received as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “determining” encompasses the user mentally to identify a previous search.
The limitation of when the search query has been previously received, identifying one or more search terms identified as relevant when the search query was previously received as the one or more relevant search terms as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “identifying” encompasses the user mentally to observe and analyze relevant search terms.
The limitation of when the search query has not been previously received, comparing the one or more search query terms to the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database to identify the one or more relevant search terms as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “comparing” encompasses the user mentally to observe and analyze relevant search terms.
The limitation of sending, using the electronic data analysis system, a search request related to the one or more relevant search terms to a plurality of data sources external to the electronic data analysis system as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “sending” encompasses the user to mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to send an inquiry to an external source.
The limitation of receiving, using the electronic data analysis system, data associated with the one or more relevant search terms from the plurality of data sources as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user to mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to receive data from a data source.
The limitation of assigning, using the electronic data analysis system, the data received from the plurality of data sources into a plurality of data visualisation categories as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “assigning” encompasses the user to mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to associate data with a visible category.
The limitation of displaying, using the electronic data analysis system, the plurality of data visualisation categories on the electronic device as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system” and “an electronic device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “displaying” encompasses the user to mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to show data categories.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform receiving a search query, maintaining a database, identifying search terms, sending a search request, receiving data, assigning the data, and displaying the data steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform receiving, maintaining, identifying, sending, receiving, assigning, and displaying steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). 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 recites: The electronic data analysis method of claim 1 wherein one or more search query terms comprise keywords, names, locations, numbers, company identification information, stock symbols, currency codes, or a combination thereof and the electronic data analysis system is provided with one or more electronic search interfaces into which the user enters the search query.
The limitation of the electronic data analysis system is provided with one or more electronic search interfaces into which the user enters the search query as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system” and “an electronic interface”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “providing” encompasses the user to mentally provide a location to input a query.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “providing one or more electronic search interfaces…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of providing a location is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
The limitation of wherein the one or more search query terms comprise keywords, names, locations, numbers, company identification information, stock symbols, currency codes, or a combination thereof as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user to mentally decide to possess a search term.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “receiving…the one or more search query terms…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of receiving is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). 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 recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 1 wherein the electronic data analysis system comprises one or more machine learning modules configured to identify the one or more search query terms within the search query.
The limitation of identifying the one or more search query terms within the search query as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “identifying” encompasses the user to mentally see and point out search terms.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “identifying the one or more search query terms…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering, data analysis, and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of identifying is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). 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 recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 4 wherein the one or more machine learning modules utilise natural language processing techniques in order to at least one of identify or process the one or more search query terms obtained from the search query.
The limitation of utilizing natural language processing techniques in order to at least one of identify or process the one or more search query terms obtained from the search query as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “utilizing” encompasses the user to mentally choose a technique for understanding human language to identify a search term.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “utilizing natural language processing techniques…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering, data analysis, and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of utilizing techniques is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is direct to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 4 wherein the one or more machine learning modules are configured to identify the one or more relevant search terms based on one or more factors.
The limitation of identifying the one or more relevant search terms based on one or more factors as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “identifying” encompasses the user to analyze search terms.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “identify the one or more search terms…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering, data analysis, and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of identifying is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is direct to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 6 wherein the one or more factors include similarity to the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database, previous search queries received from the user, previous search queries received from other users having one or more similarities to the user, or a combination thereof.
The limitation of one or more factors include similarity to the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database, previous search queries received from the user, previous search queries received from other users having one or more similarities to the user, or a combination thereof as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “identifying” encompasses the user to analyze search terms.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “identify the one or more search terms…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering, data analysis, and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of identifying is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 1 wherein the plurality of data sources comprises one or more servers or databases belonging to one or more media outlets, government departments and agencies, corporate entities, financial institutions or stock exchanges.
The limitation of the plurality of data sources comprises one or more servers or databases belonging to one or more media outlets, government departments and agencies, corporate entities, financial institutions or stock exchanges as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more servers”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “sending and identifying data sources” encompasses the user to mentally identify the origin of a data source and send the data based on a mental analysis.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “the plurality of data sources comprises one or more servers or databases…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering, data analysis, and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of sending and identifying data are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). 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 recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 1 wherein the electronic data analysis system comprises one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) configured to facilitate electronic communication between the electronic data analysis system and the plurality of data sources.
The limitation of wherein the electronic data analysis system comprises one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) configured to facilitate electronic communication between the electronic data analysis system and the plurality of data sources as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system” and “application programming interfaces”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “facilitating” encompasses the user to mentally provide a means for communication between two sources.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “facilitating electronic communication…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of facilitating is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). 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 recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 1 wherein the data received from the plurality of data sources is stored in the electronic search term database and is assigned into the plurality of data visualization categories based on at least one of a format of the data or a purpose for which the data is to be used.
The limitation of wherein the data received from the plurality of data sources is stored in the electronic search term database as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic database”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “storing” encompasses the user to mentally decide to store data in a dedicated data storage.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “the data received from the plurality of data sources is stored…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of storing is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
The limitation of wherein the data received from the plurality of data sources is assigned into the plurality of data visualisation categories based on at least one of a format of the data or a purpose for which the data is to be used as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “assigning” encompasses the user to mentally assign or allocate data to a particular category.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “assigning into the plurality of data visualization categories…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering, data analysis, and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of assigning is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 1 wherein the electronic data analysis system analyses the data received from the plurality of data sources prior to displaying the plurality of data visualisation categories.
The limitation of wherein the electronic data analysis system analyses the data received from the plurality of data sources prior to displaying the plurality of data visualisation categories as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “analyzing” encompasses the user to mentally access data and then place in a determined category.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “analyzing the data received…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering, data analysis, and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of analyzing is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). 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 recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 12 wherein the electronic data analysis system is configured to at least one of identify or extract relevant data obtained from each of the plurality of data sources for analysis.
The limitation of wherein the electronic data analysis system is configured to at least one of identify or extract relevant data obtained from each of the plurality of data sources for analysis as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “identifying or extracting” encompasses the user to mentally select or remove data for analysis.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “identifying or extracting relevant data…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering, data analysis, and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of identifying or extracting is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 12 wherein the electronic data analysis system is configured to analyse the data received from each of the plurality of data sources to generate one or more reports relating to the one or more search query terms.
The limitation of wherein the electronic data analysis system is configured to analyse the data received from each of the plurality of data sources to generate one or more reports relating to the one or more search query terms as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “analyzing” encompasses the user to mentally access data received.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “analyzing the data received…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering, data analysis, and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of analyzing is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 14 wherein the one or more reports include information relating to trends relating to the one or more search query terms identified from the data received from each of the plurality of data sources.
The limitation of wherein the one or more reports include information relating to trends relating to the one or more search query terms identified from the data received from each of the plurality of data sources as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “including” encompasses the user to gather information pertaining to identified data from a data source.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “including information related to trends…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering, data analysis, and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of including and gathering are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 15 wherein the trends include an estimate or extrapolation of future trends associated with the one or more search query terms.
The limitation of wherein the trends include an estimate or extrapolation of future trends associated with the one or more search query terms as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “including” encompasses the user to gather and provide trending data associated with a search term.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “including an estimate…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering, data analysis, and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of including or gathering is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 1 wherein the electronic data analysis system comprises one or more display interfaces on which the plurality of data visualisation categories are displayed.
The limitation of wherein the electronic data analysis system comprises one or more display interfaces on which the plurality of data visualisation categories are displayed as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “displaying” encompasses the user to with pen and paper illustrate data categories.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “display interfaces…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of displaying is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 1 wherein the electronic data analysis system is configured to provide the user with one or more additional reports generated based on a second search query received from another user of the electronic data analysis system.
The limitation of wherein the electronic data analysis system is configured to provide the user with one or more additional reports generated based on a second search query received from another user of the electronic data analysis system as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind by for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “providing” encompasses the user to mentally and with the aid of pen and paper to share reports based on a search query.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “provide the user with one or more additional reports…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering, data analysis, and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of providing is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 17 wherein the one or more display interfaces are viewed by the user on a display associated with the electronic device, and the electronic device comprises a computer, mobile telephone, computing tablet, or smart watch.
The limitation of wherein the one or more display interfaces are viewed by the user on a display associated with the electronic device as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “viewing” encompasses the user to show data on an element such as paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “viewing by the user…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering, data analysis, and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of viewing is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
The limitation of wherein the electronic device comprises a computer, mobile telephone, computing tablet or smart watch as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic device”, “a computer”, “a mobile telephone”, “a computing tablet”, and “a smart watch”, nothing precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user to accept a device.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “receiving an electronic device…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering, data analysis, and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of receiving or gathering is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: The electronic data analysis method according to claim 17 wherein a display interface is provided for each of the plurality of data visualisation categories.
The limitation of wherein a display interface is provided for each of the plurality of data visualisation categories as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “providing” encompasses the user to provide an element such as paper for showing data categories.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it fails within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element which is “a display interface is provided for each…”. This limitation amounts to data gathering, data analysis, and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of providing is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(D)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: An electronic data analysis system including at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions thereon, that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic data analysis system to: receive, from an electronic device associated with a user to an electronic data analysis system, a search query including one or more search query terms; identify one or more relevant search terms from the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database based on the one or more search query terms, wherein the identifying comprises: determining whether the search query has been previously received; when the search query has been previously received, identifying one or more search terms identified as relevant when the search query was previously received as the one or more relevant search terms; and when the search query has not been previously received, comparing the one or more search query terms to the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database to identify the one or more relevant search terms; send a search request related to the one or more relevant search terms to a plurality of data sources external to the electronic data analysis system; receive data associated with the one or more relevant search terms from the plurality of data sources; assign the data received from the plurality of data sources into a plurality of data visualisation categories; and display the plurality of data visualisation categories on the electronic device.
The limitation of receiving, from an electronic device associated with a user, a search query including one or more search query terms as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic device” and “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually receive an inquiry that has a term.
The limitation of identifying one or more relevant search terms from the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database based on the one or more search query terms as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system” and “an electronic database”, nothing in the claim element precludes that step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “identifying” encompasses the user to mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually identify search terms.
The limitation of determining whether the search query has been previously received as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “determining” encompasses the user mentally to identify a previous search.
The limitation of when the search query has been previously received, identifying one or more search terms identified as relevant when the search query was previously received as the one or more relevant search terms as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “identifying” encompasses the user mentally to observe and analyze relevant search terms.
The limitation of when the search query has not been previously received, comparing the one or more search query terms to the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database to identify the one or more relevant search terms as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “comparing” encompasses the user mentally to observe and analyze relevant search terms.
The limitation of sending a search request related to the one or more relevant search terms to a plurality of data sources external to the electronic data analysis system as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “sending” encompasses the user to mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to send an inquiry to an external source.
The limitation of receiving data associated with the one or more relevant search terms from the plurality of data sources as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user to mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to receive data from a data source.
The limitation of assigning the data received from the plurality of data sources into a plurality of data visualisation categories as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “assigning” encompasses the user to mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to associate data with a visible category.
The limitation of displaying the plurality of data visualisation categories on the electronic device as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic system” and “an electronic device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “displaying” encompasses the user to mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to show data categories.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform receiving a search query, identifying search terms, sending a search request, receiving data, assigning the data, and displaying the data steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform receiving, , identifying, sending, receiving, assigning, and displaying steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A communication environment including a third-party transaction server comprising a processor and a memory, for importing and sorting data to an electronic data analysis system according to a method comprising: receiving, by the third-party transaction server, a search query including one or more search query terms from an electronic device associated with a user; identifying, by the third-party transaction server, one or more relevant search terms from the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database based on the one or more search query terms, wherein the identifying comprises: determining whether the search query has been previously received; when the search query has been previously received, identifying one or more search terms identified as relevant when the search query was previously received as the one or more relevant search terms; and when the search query has not been previously received, comparing the one or more search query terms to the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database to identify the one or more relevant search terms; sending, by the third-party transaction server, a search request related to the one or more relevant search terms to a plurality of data sources external to the electronic data analysis system; receiving, by the third-party transaction server, data associated with the one or more relevant search terms from the plurality of data sources; sorting, by the third-party transaction server, the data received from the plurality of data sources into a plurality of data visualisation categories.
The limitation of receiving, by the third-party transaction server, a search query including one or more search query terms from an electronic device associated with a user as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a server”, “an electronic device” and “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually receive an inquiry that has a term.
The limitation of identifying, by the third-party transaction server, one or more relevant search terms from the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database based on the one or more search query terms as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a server”, “an electronic system” and “an electronic database”, nothing in the claim element precludes that step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “identifying” encompasses the user to mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually identify search terms.
The limitation of determining whether the search query has been previously received as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “determining” encompasses the user mentally to identify a previous search.
The limitation of when the search query has been previously received, identifying one or more search terms identified as relevant when the search query was previously received as the one or more relevant search terms as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “identifying” encompasses the user mentally to observe and analyze relevant search terms.
The limitation of when the search query has not been previously received, comparing the one or more search query terms to the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database to identify the one or more relevant search terms as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “comparing” encompasses the user mentally to observe and analyze relevant search terms.
The limitation of sending, by the third-party transaction server, a search request related to the one or more relevant search terms to a plurality of data sources external to the electronic data analysis system as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a server”, “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “sending” encompasses the user to mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to send an inquiry to an external source.
The limitation of receiving, by the third-party transaction server, the data from the plurality of data sources as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a server”, “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user to mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to receive data from a data source.
The limitation of sorting, by the third-party transaction server, the data into a plurality of data sources as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a server”, “an electronic system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “sorting” encompasses the user to mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to associate data with a visible category.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform receiving a search query, identifying search terms, sending a search request, receiving data, and sorting the data steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform receiving, identifying, sending, receiving, and sorting steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 12-20, & 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Gautam et al. (US Patent No. 10,657,125 B1).
In respect to Claim 1, Gautam teaches:
an electronic data analysis method including at least one server, the electronic data analysis method comprising steps of: receiving, from an electronic device associated with a user to an electronic data analysis system, a search query including one or more search query terms; (Gautam [FIG. 2B, column 10, lines 7-18])
maintaining an electronic search term database in association with the electronic data analysis system, the search term database comprising a plurality of search terms; (Gautam [FIG. 2A, column 7: lines 23-46, column 8: lines 24-41)
identifying, using the electronic data analysis system, one or more relevant search terms from the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database based on the one or more search query terms; (Gautam [column 7: lines 23-46, column 8: lines 24-41, FIG. 2A])
wherein the identifying comprises: determining whether the search query has been previously received; when the search query has been previously received, identifying one or more search terms identified as relevant when the search query was previously received as the one or more relevant search terms; and when the search query has not been previously received, comparing the one or more search query terms to the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database to identify the one or more relevant search terms (Gautam teaches [Abstract] extraction of keywords from a query and determining keywords based on previously stored search indices. Gautam further teaches [column 16, lines 36-46] failure to identify a matching search query or a previously received query.)
sending, using the electronic data analysis system, a search request related to the one or more relevant search terms to a plurality of data sources external to the electronic data analysis system; (Gautam [column 6: lines 5-20, column 8: lines 54-65, FIG. 1])
receiving, using the electronic data analysis system, data associated with the one or more relevant search terms from the plurality of data sources; assigning, using the electronic data analysis system, the data received from the plurality of data sources into a plurality of data visualisation categories; and displaying, using the electronic data analysis system, the plurality of data visualisation categories on the electronic device (Gautam [column 9: lines 4-57, column 16: lines 23-58, column 17: lines 3-16, 47-57, FIG. 6])
As per Claim 2, Gautam teaches:
wherein the one or more search query terms comprise keywords, names, locations, numbers, company identification information, stock symbols, currency codes, or a combination thereof and the electronic data analysis system is provided with one or more electronic search interfaces into which the user enters the search query (Gautam [Abstract])
As per Claim 4, Gautam teaches:
wherein the electronic data analysis system comprises one or more machine learning modules configured to identify the one or more search query terms within the search query (Gautam [column 3: lines 12-39])
As per Claim 5, Gautam teaches:
wherein the one or more machine learning modules utilise natural language processing techniques in order to at least one of identify or process the one or more search query terms obtained from the search query (Gautam [column 3: lines 12-39])
As per Claim 6, Gautam teaches:
wherein the one or more machine learning modules are configured to identify the one or more relevant search terms based on one or more factors (Gautam [column 11: lines 10-67, column 12, lines 1-30])
As per Claim 7, Gautam teaches:
wherein the one or more factors include similarity to the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database, previous search queries received from the user, previous search queries received from other users having one or more similarities to the user, or a combination thereof (Gautam [column 11: lines 10-67, column 12, lines 1-30])
As per Claim 8, Gautam teaches:
wherein the plurality of data sources comprises one or more servers or databases belonging to one or more media outlets, government departments and agencies, corporate entities, financial institutions or stock exchanges (Gautam [column 1: lines 58-67, column 2: lines 1-6])
As per Claim 9, Gautam teaches:
wherein the electronic data analysis system comprises one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) configured to facilitate electronic communication between the electronic data analysis system and the plurality of data sources (Gautam [column 6: lines 5-20, column 8: lines 54-65, FIG. 1])
As per Claim 10, Gautam teaches:
wherein the data received from the plurality of data sources is stored in the electronic search term database (Gautam [FIG. 1, FIG. 2A]) and is assigned into the plurality of data visualisation categories based on at least one of a format of the data or a purpose for which the data is to be used (Gautam [FIG. 1, FIG. 2A, FIG. 2D, FIG. 10])
As per Claim 12, Gautam teaches:
wherein the electronic data analysis system analyses the data received from the plurality of data sources prior to displaying the plurality of data visualisation categories (Gautam [FIG. 1, FIG. 2A, FIG. 2D, FIG. 10])
As per Claim 13, Gautam teaches:
wherein the electronic data analysis system is configured to at least one of identify or extract relevant data obtained from each of the plurality of data sources for analysis (Gautam [FIG. 1, FIG. 2A, FIG. 2D, FIG. 10])
As per Claim 14, Gautam teaches:
wherein the electronic data analysis system is configured to analyse the data received from each of the plurality of data sources to generate one or more reports relating to the one or more search query terms (Gautam [FIG. 1, FIG. 2A, FIG. 2D, FIG. 10])
As per Claim 15, Gautam teaches:
wherein the one or more reports include information relating to trends relating to the one or more search query terms identified from the data received from each of the plurality of data sources (Gautam [FIG. 1, FIG. 2A, FIG. 2D, FIG. 10])
As per Claim 16, Gautam teaches:
wherein the trends include an estimate or extrapolation of future trends associated with the one or more search query terms (Gautam [column 14: lines 56-67, column 17: lines 23-28])
As per Claim 17, Gautam teaches:
wherein the electronic data analysis system comprises one or more display interfaces on which the plurality of data visualisation categories are displayed (Gautam [column 6: lines 5-20, column 8: lines 54-65, FIG. 1])
As per Claim 18, Gautam teaches:
wherein the electronic data analysis system is configured to provide the user with one or more additional reports generated based on a second search query received from another user of the electronic data analysis system (Gautam [FIG. 9, FIG. 10])
As per Claim 19, Gautam teaches:
wherein the one or more display interfaces are viewed by the user on a display associated with the electronic device, (Gautam [FIG. 9, FIG. 10]) and the electronic device comprises a computer, mobile telephone, computing tablet or smart watch (Gautam [FIG. 1, column 5: lines 25-41])
As per Claim 20, Gautam teaches:
wherein a display interface is provided for each of the plurality of data visualisation categories (Gautam [FIG. 9, FIG. 10])
As per Claim 22, Gautam teaches:
an electronic data analysis system including at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions thereon, that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic data analysis system to: receive, from an electronic device associated with a user, a search query including one or more search query terms; (Gautam [FIG. 2B, column 10, lines 7-18])
identify one or more relevant search terms from a plurality of search terms in an electronic search term database based on the one or more search query terms; (Gautam [column 7: lines 23-46, column 8: lines 24-41, FIG. 2A])
wherein the identifying comprises: determining whether the search query has been previously received; when the search query has been previously received, identifying one or more search terms identified as relevant when the search query was previously received as the one or more relevant search terms; and when the search query has not been previously received, comparing the one or more search query terms to the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database to identify the one or more relevant search terms (Gautam teaches [Abstract] extraction of keywords from a query and determining keywords based on previously stored search indices. Gautam further teaches [column 16, lines 36-46] failure to identify a matching search query or a previously received query.)
send a search request related to the one or more relevant search terms to a plurality of data sources external to the electronic data analysis system; (Gautam [column 6: lines 5-20, column 8: lines 54-65, FIG. 1])
receive data associated with the one or more relevant search terms from the plurality of data sources; assign the data received retrieved from the plurality of data sources into a plurality of data visualisation categories; and display the plurality of data visualisation categories on the electronic device (Gautam [column 9: lines 4-57, column 16: lines 23-58, column 17: lines 3-16, 47-57, FIG. 6])
As per Claim 23, Gautam teaches:
a communication environment including a third-party transaction server comprising a processor and a memory, for importing and | sorting data to an electronic data analysis system according to a method comprising: receiving, by the third-party transaction server, a search query including one or more search query terms from an electronic device associated with a user; (Gautam [FIG. 2B, column 10, lines 7-18])
identifying, by the third-party transaction server, one or more relevant search terms from a plurality of search terms in an electronic search term database associated with the electronic data analysis system based on the one or more search query terms; (Gautam [column 7: lines 23-46, column 8: lines 24-41, FIG. 2A])
wherein the identifying comprises: determining whether the search query has been previously received; when the search query has been previously received, identifying one or more search terms identified as relevant when the search query was previously received as the one or more relevant search terms; and when the search query has not been previously received, comparing the one or more search query terms to the plurality of search terms in the electronic search term database to identify the one or more relevant search terms (Gautam teaches [Abstract] extraction of keywords from a query and determining keywords based on previously stored search indices. Gautam further teaches [column 16, lines 36-46] failure to identify a matching search query or a previously received query.)
sending, by the third-party transaction server, a search request related to the one or more relevant search terms to a plurality of data sources external to the electronic data analysis system; (Gautam [column 6: lines 5-20, column 8: lines 54-65, FIG. 1])
receiving, by the third-party transaction server, the data from the plurality of data sources; and sorting, by the third-party transaction server, the data into a plurality of data visualisation categories (Gautam [column 9: lines 4-57, column 16: lines 23-58, column 17: lines 3-16, 47-57, FIG. 6])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/JOSHUA BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 January 5, 2026