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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind. An analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility follows:
Step1: Claim(s) 1-20 recite a method, a system and media, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim(s) 1, 10, 19 recite detecting a noncompliance event based on content accessed by one or more user devices and served by an experience provider that is noncompliant with a data sharing preference of the one or more user devices; verifying the tabulation of funds due, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations entirely in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the steps of “detecting,” “verifying” may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, and judgement (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill). For example, “detecting” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses a user detecting a noncompliance event based on content accessed by one or more user devices and served by an experience provider that is noncompliant with a data sharing preference of the one or more user devices, and “verifying” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user verifying the tabulation of funds due.
Claim(s) 2-9, 11-18, 20 recite further limitations that fall under the judicial exception as recited in claim(s) 1, 10, 19. Each of the further limitations encompass performance of the steps within the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The additional elements recited in claim(s) 1, 10, 19, “computing system,” “processors,” “media,” and “providing, by the computing system using one or more APIs based on detecting the noncompliance event, an alert on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a client application, wherein the alert comprises one or more options associated with the detected noncompliance event;” “remediating the detected noncompliance event according to a remediation selection of the one or more options based on executing an API call with the experience provider by: transmitting a warning to the experience provider regarding a penalty for the noncompliance; receiving, from the experience provider, a data structure comprising a tabulation of funds due to resolve the penalty;… depositing the funds due into an account of a user of the one or more user devices to resolve the penalty” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations are directed to implementing the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and recite mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim(s) 2-9, 11-18, 20 recite further details regarding advertisement, selectable icon, temporarily blocking data exchanges, or transferring the funds due. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim(s) 1, 10, 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 above, the recitations of “computing system,” “processors,” “media,” and “providing, by the computing system using one or more APIs based on detecting the noncompliance event, an alert on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a client application, wherein the alert comprises one or more options associated with the detected noncompliance event;” “remediating the detected noncompliance event according to a remediation selection of the one or more options based on executing an API call with the experience provider by: transmitting a warning to the experience provider regarding a penalty for the noncompliance; receiving, from the experience provider, a data structure comprising a tabulation of funds due to resolve the penalty;… depositing the funds due into an account of a user of the one or more user devices to resolve the penalty” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and thus are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
Regarding claim(s) 2-9, 11-18, 20, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they simply apply the exception using a generic computer.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 recite an abstract idea without significantly more, and are not patent eligible.
Matter Not found in the Prior Art
There is no prior art rejection for independent claim(s) 1, 10, 19, and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons:
This is a CON of Patent No. US12339735B2. The elements of independent claim(s) 1, 10, 19 were not found through a search of the prior art, nor were they considered obvious by the examiner. In particular, among the prior art of records, US20210192651A1 do/does not teach or suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations:
As in claim 1, “remediating, by the computing system and via the security tool using the one or more APIs, the detected noncompliance event according to a remediation selection of the one or more options based on executing an API call with the experience provider by: transmitting a warning to the experience provider regarding a penalty for the noncompliance; receiving, from the experience provider, a data structure comprising a tabulation of funds due to resolve the penalty; verifying the tabulation of funds due; and depositing the funds due into an account of a user of the one or more user devices to resolve the penalty.”
As in claim 10, “ remediate, by the one or more processors and via the security tool using the one or more APIs, the detected noncompliance event according to a remediation selection of the one or more options based on executing an API call with the experience provider by: transmitting a warning to the experience provider regarding a penalty for the noncompliance; receiving, from the experience provider, a data structure comprising a tabulation of funds due to resolve the penalty; verifying the tabulation of funds due; and depositing the funds due into an account of a user of the one or more user devices to resolve the penalty.”
As in claim 19, “remediate, via the security tool using the one or more APIs, the detected noncompliance event according to a remediation selection of the one or more options based on executing an API call with the experience provider by: transmitting a warning to the experience provider regarding a penalty for the noncompliance; receiving, from the experience provider, a data structure comprising a tabulation of funds due to resolve the penalty; verifying the tabulation of funds due; and depositing the funds due into an account of a user of the one or more user devices to resolve the penalty.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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.
/KATHERINE LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights