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.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category, a method, a system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 1 or claim 13 or claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea of receiving, a communication, wherein the communication is associated with a request to interact with hosted by an enterprise associated with; transforming, and based on the request, the communication into a structured format using specified in the request thereby generating a request data object, wherein the request data object comprises a unique user identifier and user metadata associated with the request; generating, an enhanced request data object by injecting the request data object with additional metadata, the additional metadata including a unique service identifier; storing, the enhanced request data object in a transaction tracking database including a plurality of enhanced request data objects categorized by application and indexed, for each categorized application, by respective timestamps, unique user identifiers, and unique service identifiers; processing, the request data object using the application, by executing a plurality of processing steps performed associated with the application, wherein responsive to each processing step, the enhanced request data object is updated with a status indicator of each processing step, wherein the plurality of processing steps comprises a predefined sequence of processing steps for the application, and wherein updating the enhanced request data object comprises updating a respective status indicator corresponding to each processing step as the request data object is processed by; and outputting, responsive to updating the respective status indicator, and before processing of the request data object is completed, a control signal associated with the updated respective status indicator of the enhanced request data object. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or claim 13 or claim 18 or claims include by a processor of a computing device, from a third-party computing device, an application; the computing device; by the processor; an application program interface (API) associated with the application; by the processor; by the processor; by the processor; by one or more computing systems; the one or more computing systems; by the processor. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of by a processor of a computing device, from a third-party computing device, an application; the computing device; by the processor; an application program interface (API) associated with the application; by the processor; by the processor; by the processor; by one or more computing systems; the one or more computing systems; by the processor 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 system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. This is supported by the original disclosure that describes the computer components merely generic components, [0064] of applicant’s specification states a general-purpose computing apparatus. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claims 13 and 18 recite similar limitations and are ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-12, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 14-17, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 13. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 19-20, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 18. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are deemed not persuasive. The applicant amended the claims. The examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 based on applicant’s amendment. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above.
In response to applicant’s argument to 101 rejections under step 2A, Prong Two, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or claim 13 or claim 18 or claims include by a processor of a computing device, from a third-party computing device, an application; the computing device; by the processor; an application program interface (API) associated with the application; by the processor; by the processor; by the processor; by one or more computing systems; the one or more computing systems; by the processor. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to specification, the limitations that applicant argues in the specifications are not recited in the claims. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument to 101 rejections under 2B, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of by a processor of a computing device, from a third-party computing device, an application; the computing device; by the processor; an application program interface (API) associated with the application; by the processor; by the processor; by the processor; by one or more computing systems; the one or more computing systems; by the processor 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 system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. This is supported by the original disclosure that describes the computer components merely generic components, [0064] of applicant’s specification states a general-purpose computing apparatus. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, claims are not patent eligible. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to specification, the limitations that applicant argues in the specifications are not recited in the claims. The original disclosure that describes the computer components merely generic components, [0064] of applicant’s specification states a general-purpose computing apparatus. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s claims amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights