DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this Office Correspondence.
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 – 5, 9, 11 – 15 and 19 – 20 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.
Step 1: The claim 11 recites a method for “obtaining a set of
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 11 recites the limitations “identifying”, and “determining”, which specifically recite "identifying the first plurality of candidate API commands responsive to determining the first plurality of candidate API commands are associated with the first type.” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a "database" or "processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “identifying”, and “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper, within the plurality of command sets, performing by identifying the first plurality of candidate API commands responsive to determining the first plurality of candidate API commands are associated with the first type. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements "obtaining”, “applying”, “selecting”, “analyzing” and “executing”, these limitations amounts to data gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations represents an extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation(s) "obtaining”, “applying”, “selecting”, “analyzing” and “executing”, are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc....; Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); (v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Same rationale applies to claims 1 and 20, respectively, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Accordingly, claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Further the limitations in the dependent claims 1 – 5, 9, 11 – 15 and 19 – 20 merely specify the type of the data gathered and analyzed without adding significantly more. Analysis of the dependent claims is shown below.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the target contact list comprises a plurality of database records, and wherein the operation comprises: creating a new database record, in accordance with the database schema, based on the contact information comprised in the set of human-understandable text; and executing an operation to add the new database record to the plurality of database records comprised in the target contact list”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claim 12, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 2. The claim recites the additional limitation of “determining that the target contact list does not include any record corresponding to the contact information comprised in the human-understandable text, and wherein the generating and executing the operation is responsive to determining that the target contact list does not include any record corresponding to the contact information comprised in the human-understandable text”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim. Same rationale applies to claim 13, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the contact information is at least one of: a phone number; an email address; a job title; and a company name associated with a person, and wherein determining that the target contact list does not include any record corresponding to the contact information comprised in the human-understandable text includes: identifying a relationship between the contact information and a name included in the target contact list; identifying, using the database schema, a particular field associated with the contact information, and determining that the particular field in a database record corresponding to the name does not include the contact information”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea by specifying data types or information that is used in the profile generation, and therefore, does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claim 14, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 4. The claim recites the additional limitation of “recommending the operation execution, wherein the operation is executed in response to receiving user input selecting the operation for execution”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim. Same rationale applies to claim 15, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “recommending the operation execution, wherein the operation is executed in response to receiving user input selecting the operation for execution”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim. Same rationale applies to claim 19, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 – 5, 9, 11 – 15 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 – 8, 10 and 16 – 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The subject matter of claims 6 – 8, 10 and 16 – 18 recites the limitations if and when incorporating to independent claim(s), could be allowable.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 1 – 5, 9, 11 – 15 and 19 – 20 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. Claims 1 – 5, 9, 11 – 15 and 19 – 20 could be allowed when overcoming the rejections.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kesin (USPGPUB 2016/0342681), which discloses receiving concepts in a user interface. A data store is queried to retrieve a result set. The quantity of the concept in the segment is determined. The statistical distribution data associated with the concept is accessed. The percentile of the quantity from the statistical distribution data is determined. A ranking for the segment is determined relative to another segment. The ranking includes weightings. The presentation of the segment relative to another segment is caused in the user interface according to the ranking.
Kanno (USPGPUB 2002/0016787), which discloses document profile vector representing relative frequency of occurrence of each keyword in a document. The similarity between each document and retrieval condition is calculated based on document feature vector obtained by performing principal component analysis on a document profile vector group and designated number of similar documents is output based on calculated similarity.
Heller (USPGPUB 2014/0108496), which involves intercepting request to navigate to content from originating application on client device and evaluating requested content against navigation control criteria or rules to determine whether requested content is provided to be displayed in specified application and/or on specified platform differing from originating application and/or platform of client device. The navigation is redirected to specified application and/or platform based on matching criteria or rule based on determining that requested content matches criteria or rules; and
Rice (USPGPUB 2019/0363959) which involves accessing multiple electronic activities linked to a node profile maintained by multiple processors and provided an associated timestamp within a time period. A type of an electronic activity is determined. A feature extraction policy is selected to generate a first feature array for the electronic activity based on the type of the electronic activity. The first feature array for the electronic activity is determined based on the type of the electronic activity. A performance profile of the first node profile for the time period is generated by providing the generated first feature array for each electronic activity. Association between the first node profile and the performance profile is determined by multiple processors.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID AL ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4030. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
August 8, 2026
/SHAHID A ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights