DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the following communication: Request for Continued Examination filed on 14 September 2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and present for examination. Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 is/are in independent form.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 July 2026 has been entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1, 11, and 20, the claim(s) recite(s) “receiving an action mapping associated with an event, the action mapping comprising a user-configured event routing configuration that determines delivery of the event to a destination,” “determining an action by applying the action mapping to the event, the action representing the destination,” “generating a destination pair representing the action and the event,” and “causing the event to be transmitted to the destination based on the destination pair.”
The limitations directed towards “determining an action based on the action mapping” and “generating a pair representing the action and the event” are interpreted to be the observation or judgment a user may take. Therefore, 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 “hardware processors” and “memory” in claim 11, and “a non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 20, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally evaluating an action mapping to determine an action which represents a destination. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally evaluating and generating a destination pair representing an action and event. 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.
Under step 2A, Prong 2, of the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg., the Examiner determines whether any of the additional elements beyond the abstract idea integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54; MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05. The 2019 Guidance provides exemplary considerations that are indicative of an additional element or combination of elements integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by additional elements. In particular, the claim recites using a processor to perform the steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition to the claim limitations, which were determined to recite concepts identified as abstract ideas, certain elements of claim 1 also constitute insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In particular, the claim recites "receiving an action mapping associated with an event, the action mapping comprising a user-configured event routing configuration that determines delivery of the event to a destination." This limitation reasonably can be characterized as merely constituting the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering:
“An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The Federal Circuit has held that data gathering steps "cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). In this case, the pre-solution activity of receiving an action mapping may be considered a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process such as resolving conflicting attributes. This is highly analogous with the example provided above regarding insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering
Additionally, the claimed feature of “causing the event to be transmitted to the destination based on the pair” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., necessary data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). At step 2A, prong two, considering these limitations individually and the claim as a whole, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements directed to “receiving” and “causing the event to be transmitted” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
At Step 2B, all claim elements, with the exception of the processor and memory, correspond to concepts determined to be abstract ideas for the reasons discussed above in connection with Prong One of the analysis and/or merely constitute extra-solution activity under Prong Two. Applicant's lack of a detailed disclosure of computer hardware or functional requirements and the lack of details describing a computer-specific implementation of the recited functions (such as might have been indicated by inclusion of a detailed flow chart depicting unconventional computer operations and/or routines for performing each of the claimed steps), persuades us that the omitted details are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum, the claims merely recite generic computer components performing generic computing functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. 5 See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (The "use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are 'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the industry.") ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71-73); see also Benson, 409
U.S. at 65 (Noting that a "computer operates then upon both new and previously stored data. The general-purpose computer is designed to perform operations under many different programs."); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that using generic computing components like a microprocessor or user interface does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (indicating components such as an "interface" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (citing Alice and Mayo) accord Berkheimer Memo 3-4.
In this case, the "receiving" and “causing the event to be transmitted” limitations are clearly well-understood, routine, and conventional; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "receiving or transmitting data over a network." The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the receipt and output of data only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (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). The claims provide that the measures may be computed by program code that may be stored in memory. Therefore, the computing is nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional database system and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
As per claims 2 and 12, the limitations are directed towards further defining the feature of an action mapping, which was previously recited in claims 1 and 11 and rejected as being directed to a mental process. The additional limitations in the instant claims, stating that the action mapping defines a structure of a data payload for delivery, merely describes information content and does not add any technical steps of implementation. Defining a data payload structure is an abstract concept that can be performed mentally and does not provide a technological improvement. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per claims 3 and 13, the limitations directed towards “identifying,” “converting,” and “partitioning” are interpreted to be the observation or judgment a user may mentally make. Therefore, 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.
As per claims 4-6 and 14-16, the limitations are directed towards further defining the features of a database, a first data object, and a first data record, which were previously recited in claims 3 and 13 and rejected as being directed to a mental process. The additional limitations in the instant claims merely describe previously recited features and do not add any technical steps of implementation. Defining the features of a database, a first data object, and a first data record is an abstract concept that can be performed mentally and does not provide a technological improvement. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per claims 7 and 17, the limitations directed towards “identifying” and “converting” are interpreted to be the observation or judgment a user may mentally make. Therefore, 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.
As per claims 8 and 18, the limitations directed towards “generating” and “determining” are interpreted to be the observation or judgment a user may mentally make. Therefore, 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.
Additionally, the claimed feature of “transmitting the second plurality of events” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., necessary data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). At step 2A, prong two, considering these limitations individually and the claim as a whole, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements directed to “receiving” and “causing the event to be transmitted” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
At Step 2B, all claim elements, with the exception of the processor and memory, correspond to concepts determined to be abstract ideas for the reasons discussed above in connection with Prong One of the analysis and/or merely constitute extra-solution activity under Prong Two. Applicant's lack of a detailed disclosure of computer hardware or functional requirements and the lack of details describing a computer-specific implementation of the recited functions (such as might have been indicated by inclusion of a detailed flow chart depicting unconventional computer operations and/or routines for performing each of the claimed steps), persuades us that the omitted details are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum, the claims merely recite generic computer components performing generic computing functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. 5 See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (The "use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are 'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the industry.") ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71-73); see also Benson, 409
U.S. at 65 (Noting that a "computer operates then upon both new and previously stored data. The general-purpose computer is designed to perform operations under many different programs."); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that using generic computing components like a microprocessor or user interface does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (indicating components such as an "interface" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (citing Alice and Mayo) accord Berkheimer Memo 3-4.
In this case, the "transmitting” limitations are clearly well-understood, routine, and conventional; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "receiving or transmitting data over a network." The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the receipt and output of data only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (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). Therefore, the transmitting is nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional database system and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
As per claims 9 and 19, the limitations directed towards “generating” are interpreted to be the observation or judgment a user may mentally make. Therefore, 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.
Additionally, the claimed feature of “causing display of the load progress” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., necessary data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). At step 2A, prong two, considering these limitations individually and the claim as a whole, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements directed to “causing” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
At Step 2B, all claim elements, with the exception of the processor and memory, correspond to concepts determined to be abstract ideas for the reasons discussed above in connection with Prong One of the analysis and/or merely constitute extra-solution activity under Prong Two. Applicant's lack of a detailed disclosure of computer hardware or functional requirements and the lack of details describing a computer-specific implementation of the recited functions (such as might have been indicated by inclusion of a detailed flow chart depicting unconventional computer operations and/or routines for performing each of the claimed steps), persuades us that the omitted details are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum, the claims merely recite generic computer components performing generic computing functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. 5 See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (The "use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are 'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the industry.") ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71-73); see also Benson, 409
U.S. at 65 (Noting that a "computer operates then upon both new and previously stored data. The general-purpose computer is designed to perform operations under many different programs."); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that using generic computing components like a microprocessor or user interface does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (indicating components such as an "interface" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (citing Alice and Mayo) accord Berkheimer Memo 3-4.
In this case, the "causing display” limitations are clearly well-understood, routine, and conventional; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "receiving or transmitting data over a network." The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the receipt and output of data only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (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). Therefore, the outputting of a load progress is nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional database system and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
As per claim 10, the limitations are directed towards further defining the features of a load progress, which were previously recited in claims 3 and 13 and rejected as being directed to a mental process. The additional limitations in the instant claims merely describe previously recited features and do not add any technical steps of implementation. Defining the features of a load progress is an abstract concept that can be performed mentally and does not provide a technological improvement. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant asserts arguments related to Reasons for Allowance in the parent application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s reliance on the prosecution of the parent application is not persuasive. The patentability of the claims in the present application must be determined based on the claims presently under examination and the evidence of record in the application. Findings, statements, or conclusions made during prosecution of the parent application do not control the examination of the present claims. Although the prosecution history of the parent application may be considered where relevant, it odes not bind the Examiner to a particular determination in the present application. Accordingly, Applicant’s assertion that a different or allegedly contradictory finding was made in the parent application, without more, does not establish that the presently pending claims are patentable or otherwise overcome the rejection set forth herein.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 101, Applicant asserts the argument that “the claims recite a specific technical solution” to the problem of “reliably and efficiently loading and delivering data extracted from data warehouses to use-configured destinations at high throughput.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the Examiner looks to whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include additional elements that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. When a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception. The Examiner respectfully disagrees in that the claims do not recite any particular technique or mechanism that improves reliability, efficiency, or throughput. Rather the limitations of the claims describe the processing and delivery of an event, but do not recite how such operations are performed in a manner that results in the asserted improvements. Accordingly, the asserted benefits are not reflected in the claim limitations themselves and do not demonstrate that the claims recite a technological improvement sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As to the claim as a whole, we find that there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and therefore does not add significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii), "receiving or transmitting data over a network"). The mere conclusory assertions fail to provide sufficient evidence of an improvement to the prior art.
The Examiner next considers whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. The Examiner determines that the instant claim lacks additional elements that improve a computer or other technology or implement the abstract idea in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Nor does it include an additional element that transforms or reduces a particular article to a different state or thing or applies the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking it to a particular technological environment. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4–5.
Transmitting results of data collection and analysis is an ancillary part of the abstract idea. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354. Claim 1 does not recite features of a user interface as does Example 37 of the 2019 PEG Examples. See Appeal Br. 12. Example 37’s claims organize icons automatically on a GUI. 2019 PEG Examples 2–3. Such features are not claimed here. Core Wireless illustrates why claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claimed user interface displayed a summary window of un-launched applications reached from a menu without launching the applications. Id. at 1362–63. This display of application data improved prior art interfaces that displayed an index and required users to navigate to an application and open it to access data. Id. at 1363. Here, the instant claim recites no similar features. Accordingly, the Examiner determines that the instant claims lack additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and provide an improvement over the prior art.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot. The claims are considered allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/Paul Kim/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2166
/PK/
Prosecution Insights