DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 21, which are currently pending, are fully considered below.
Claims 6 and 9 are amended.
Claim 8 is canceled.
Claims 11 – 21 are new.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 18, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 – 7 and 9 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or
composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible
subject.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite:
acquiring a data sample to be detected from a target business asset object;
detecting whether there is a data segment in the data sample to be detected that conforms to a business entity identifier format, wherein the business entity identifier format is used to represent a format feature of a business entity identifier field, and the business entity identifier field is used to carry a business entity identifier associated with a user;
in response to determining that there is a data segment in the data sample to be detected that conforms to the business entity identifier format, invoking at least one business entity service to determine whether user data is capable to be acquired based on the data segment, wherein the business entity service is used to acquire corresponding user data based on a business entity identifier; and
in response to determining that the user data has been acquired based on the data segment, determining that the target business asset object has the user data stored therein.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 1, 9, and 10 limitations of “acquiring…” “detecting…” and “determining…” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
MENTAL PROCESSES MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 1, 9, and 10 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim limitations of “in response to determining that there is a data segment…” and “in response to determining that the user data…” fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Determining is drawn to collecting and analyzing data. Similarly, a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application 2106.04(d)
The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012) (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found ‘‘the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,’’ but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’). Similarly, in a growing body of decisions, the Federal Circuit has distinguished between claims that are ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception (which require further analysis to determine their eligibility) and those that are not (which are therefore patent eligible), e.g., claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.06(b) (summarizing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and other cases that were eligible as improvements to technology or computer functionality instead of being directed to abstract ideas).
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h).
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2); [AltContent: rect]
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
THE SEARCH FOR AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT MPEP 2106.05(I)
The second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)).
An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
Claims 2, 11, and 17 recite:
wherein the business entity identifier format comprises one or more identifier formats, and before invoking the business entity service to determine whether the user data is capable to be acquired based on the data segment, the method further comprises:
in response to determining that there is a data segment in the data sample to be detected that conforms to a first identifier format, determining a business entity service corresponding to the first identifier format; and
wherein invoking the business entity service to determine whether the user data is capable to be acquired based on the data segment comprises:
invoking the business entity service corresponding to the first identifier format to determine whether the user data is capable to be acquired based on the data segment.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 2, 11, and 17 limitations of “determining…” and “invoking…” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 2, 11, and 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim limitations of “in response to determining that there is a data segment…” and “invoking the business entity service…” fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claims 3, 12, and 18, Wang teaches:
wherein different business entity services are used to acquire corresponding user data based on business entity identifiers of different business entity types, and invoking the business entity service corresponding to the first identifier format to determine whether the user data is capable to be acquired based on the data segment comprises:
invoking a first business entity service of the business entity service corresponding to the first identifier format to determine whether the user data is capable to be acquired based on the data segment; and
wherein the method further comprises: in response to determining that the user data has been acquired based on the data segment, determining that the target business asset object has user data of a business entity type corresponding to the first business entity service stored therein.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 3, 12, and 18 limitations of “invoking…” and “determining…” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 3, 12, and 18 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim limitations of “invoking a first business entity service…” and “in response to determining that the user data…” fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Determining is drawn to collecting and analyzing data.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claims 4, 13, and 19, Wang teaches:
in response to determining that the user data has been acquired based on the data segment, determining that the data segment belongs to a business entity identifier of the business entity type corresponding to the first business entity service.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 4, 13, and 19 limitations of “determining…” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 4, 13, and 19 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim limitations of “in response to determining…” fails to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claims 5, 14, and 20, Wang teaches:
wherein invoking the first business entity service of the business entity service corresponding to the first identifier format to determine whether the user data is capable to be acquired based on the data segment comprises:
invoking the first business entity service of the business entity service corresponding to the first identifier format and using the data segment as an input of the first business entity service to determine whether to output the user data belonging to the business entity type corresponding to the first business entity service.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 5, 14, and 20 limitations of “invoking…” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 5, 14, and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim limitations of “invoking the first business entity service…” fails to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claims 6, 15, and 21, Wang teaches:
wherein business entity identifiers of the different business entity types comprise at least one of a user identifier, a device identifier, and a multimedia resource identifier.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 6, 15, and 21 wherein limitation recites abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 6, 15, and 21 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim limitation of “wherein business entity identifiers” fails to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claims 7 and 16, Wang teaches:
wherein before detecting whether there is a data segment in the data sample to be detected that conforms to the business entity identifier format, the method further comprises:
receiving a target detection list from a preset configuration center, wherein the target detection list comprises business entity identifier formats corresponding to business entity identifiers of different business entity types; and
acquiring a business entity identifier format corresponding to a business entity identifier of each business entity type from the target detection list.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 7 and 16 limitations of “receiving…” “acquiring…” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xin Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20210182421) discloses an information acquisition method and device.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3034. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights