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 .
1. Claims 21-40 are active in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/04/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
3. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because,
Step 1: Claim 21 recites a method therefore the claim is a process. Claim 28 recites a system therefore the claim is a machine. Claim 35 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium therefore the claim is a computer program product.
Step 2:
Step 2A: Prong One: yes, invention directed to judicial exception of abstract idea.
In claims 21, 28 and 35, limitations reciting the abstract idea are as follows: “querying…”. is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper, either through observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and applied in a computing environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding that claims drawn to collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected set, and storing the recognized data were patent ineligible, noting that “humans have always performed these functions”).
The limitations are a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components or generic tools. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitation recites an abstract mental process because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, the it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A prong two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements “receiving…” and “providing…”, the limitations are a mere generic function which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)) that does not confer patent eligibility. See, e.g., Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that “selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012), aff'g 771 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1065 (E.D. Mo. 2011) (explaining that “[s]toring, retrieving, and providing data... are inconsequential data gathering and insignificant post solution activity”).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than abstract idea. Aside from the abstract idea, the additional elements are conventional and well known.
Additionally, dependent claims incorporate the features of the corresponding independent claims, however, the dependent claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner's Note
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicants in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including non-preferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
4. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Panuganty (US 2021/0248136).
Regarding claims 21, 28 and 35, Panuganty discloses a method, a system comprising a memory device and a processing device and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Figure 81), comprising:
receiving, by a host application and from a client application, a search query comprising an identifier of a context attribute and a search value of a respective context element ([0101], “A query, for instance, is based on user input of a query in a natural language (NL) form, e.g., an NL query. Generally, an NL query may include multiple terms and/or phrases that make up a complex query, such as a sentence in a human-readable language. Accordingly, to enable a query result to be generated, the NL query is parsed into multiple logical sections that each represent portions of the NL query, such as terms, phrases, tokens, and so forth. A set of query contexts are then determined for the multiple logical sections” and [0105]);
querying a context store using the identifier of the context attribute and the search value of the respective context element to obtain one or more context items of context associated with the client application, wherein each of the context items comprises a value corresponding to the search value of the respective context element and a reference value corresponding to a data item associated with the host application ([0105], “in response to a query utilizing a query term (e.g., an NL query from a user), a set of data is aggregated that pertains to the query term. The set of data is inspected to identify a set of data records that share a common value for a first attribute. The set of data records is then iteratively processed to identify a second attribute of the set of data records that represents a contextual qualifier for the first attribute, and to determine that values for the second attribute vary among the set of data records. With reference to the example above, for instance, the first attribute is a “city” data field with a value of “Springfield,” and the second attribute is a “state” data field populated with different state values for states that have a city named “Springfield.” Generally, a “contextual qualifier” represents data that provides context for other data. For instance, with reference to data attributes of a data record, a second attribute describes different contexts for a first attribute, such as an environment, a type, a physical description, a price, a market, and so forth, for the first attribute” and ([0113], [0214]-[0215] and [0554]-[0556]); and
providing, to the client application, the one or more context items of the context associated with the client application and one or more corresponding data items associated with the host application ([0106], [0108], query output/query result).
Regarding claims 22, 29 and 36, Panuganty discloses retrieving the one or more corresponding data items from a data store, each of the one or more corresponding data item pertaining to a reference value stored in a respective context item of the one or more context items ([0105]-[0108]).
Regarding claims 23, 30 and 37, Panuganty discloses wherein the context associated with the client application is characterized by a context schema that specifies one or more context attributes, each context attribute identifying a respective context element of the context associated with the client application ([0113], [0214]-[0215] and [0554]-[0556]).
Regarding claims 24, 31 and 38, Panuganty discloses wherein each of the one or more context items stored in the context store comprises one or more values, each value corresponding to a respective context attribute of the one or more context attributes ([0105]-[0108] and [0548]-[0553], attribute values).
Regarding claims 25, 32 and 39, Panuganty discloses wherein each of the one or more context items that is stored in the context store conforms to the context schema ([0185]-[0187] and [0213]-[0215]).
Regarding claims 26, 33 and 40, Panuganty discloses wherein the identifier of the context attribute is at least one of an identifier of the context schema, a name of the context attribute, or a name of the respective context element ([0105], [0185]-[0187] and [0213]-[0215]).
Regarding claims 27 and 34, Panuganty discloses wherein the context store stores context items of multiple contexts each associated with one of a plurality of client applications ([0354], [0388], [0476] and [0581]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lewis (US 2019/0172068) discloses method and system for implementing a CRM quote and order capture context service.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERILYN P NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-4026. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197.
/MERILYN P NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
April 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights