Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 12/167,244

COMPENSATION MODEL FOR NETWORK SERVICES

Final Rejection §101
Filed
Jul 02, 2008
Examiner
KANG, IRENE S
Art Unit
3696
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Adcension LLC
OA Round
11 (Final)
16%
Grant Probability
At Risk
12-13
OA Rounds
6y 1m
To Grant
42%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 16% of cases
16%
Career Allow Rate
37 granted / 224 resolved
-35.5% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
6y 1m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
240
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
35.5%
-4.5% vs TC avg
§103
33.4%
-6.6% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
11.7%
-28.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 224 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. DETAILED ACTION The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received December 2, 2025. Claims 2, 10, 12, and 18-21 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-17, and 22-32 are currently pending in the instant application. Applicant elected claims 1-4, and 10-18 without traverse on December 12, 2011, after a restriction requirement. Claims 5-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant is herein being requested to cancel the withdrawn claims in a future correspondence. Claims 22, and 32 have been amended. Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13-17, and 22-32 remain pending and examined. The response to arguments and rejections are stated below. Response to Amendments and Arguments As to the rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13-17, and 22-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive so this rejection is thereby withdrawn. As to the rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13-17, and 22-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims do not fall under an abstract idea, specifically “methods of organizing human activity” and “fundamental economic principles or practices”. Examiner disagrees. The claims fall under the category of “organizing human activity” even though there is an interaction between a main server and a user terminal. In the current claims, users are given a benefit based on interactions with displayed content and satisfying proficiency criteria which is categorized in Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, as it relates to advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors and “fundamental economic principles or practices (including entering into a mutual agreement or contract)”. The claims then do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but rather is receiving and processing data and then outputting the results which merely adds the words “apply it” through use of a generic computer. This does not go beyond “apply it” and thus simply relying on a computer to perform routine tasks or calculations more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (a computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”); cf. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding a computer-implemented method patent eligible where the claims recite a specific manipulation of a general-purpose computer such that the claims do not rely on a “computer network operating in its normal, expected manner”). Examiner argues that the claims do not amount to significantly more because the limitations, in effect, merely add the words “apply it” to the “the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.” Examiner maintains that in the current claims, the computer is used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The rejection is thereby maintained. 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, 3, 4, 11, 13-17, and 22-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for providing a network service on an electronic communications network: wherein access to the network service for providing is provided as a benefit to a user based on a satisfaction of one or more criteria, the satisfaction indicative of a predetermined level of proficiency by the user wherein machine controlled network transmissions between a network user node for the user and at least one network site of one or more network sites provides the network service to, the network user node, wherein the at least one network site includes one or more processors, one or more memories, and one or more programs stored in the memories and configured to be executed by the one or more processors wherein the user network node, is provided with network access, for one or more network sessions, each of the network sessions including a corresponding one or more of the network transmissions between the network user node and the at least one network site, the corresponding one or more network transmissions for performing the network session by machine control, comprising; providing machine executable program code for execution with a network application at the network user node, wherein the network application accesses the at least one network site for providing the network service to the network user node and provides one or more display representations for the network service in a graphical user interface at the network user node during the execution of the program code, wherein the user has a plurality of interactions with the display representations wherein at least one of the interactions comprises positioning a pointing user input, without a corresponding selection user input, at a position on at least one of the display representations, wherein the network transmissions include information from the at least one network site to the network user node, and wherein the information is electronically stored on the network user node; upon the execution of the program code with the network application, activating at least a portion of the program code to (a) monitor the interactions with the display representations and transmitting one or more corresponding responsive transmissions of data indicative of the interactions to the at least one network site, and (b) instruction for accessing access user data from a local machine storage for the network user node, the user data for (interpreted as intended use) the at least one network site for comparing the user data with previous user-related data; wherein the interactions include electronic interactions of the user with at least a portion of the display representations, wherein the data indicative the interactions includes an indication of one or more of: (i) an amount of time of the interactions, (ii) a number of the display representations with which the user has at least one of the interactions, and (iii) a frequency of the interactions, and wherein the indication indicates a progress towards the satisfaction of the one or more criteria; receiving, via the electronic communications network, the corresponding responsive transmissions of the data indicative of the interactions; evaluating the one or more criteria according to machine instructions executed at one of the network sites for determining the satisfaction of whether the one or more criteria are satisfied, wherein execution of the machine instructions includes a machine comparison of one or more predetermined indications of user interactivity with the data indicative of the interactions; wherein when the one or more criteria are not satisfied for the predetermined level of proficiency, not providing the benefit; and wherein when the one or more criteria for the predetermined level of proficiency are satisfied, providing the benefit. The portion in bold contain an abstract idea and is akin to the subject matter groupings of “certain methods of organizing human activity”, and “fundamental economic principles or practices (including entering into a mutual agreement or contract)”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (independent and dependent) do not contain limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application but merely adds the words “apply it”. Adding the words “Apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). For instance, providing a network service on an electronic communications network: wherein access to the network service for providing is provided as a benefit to a user based on a satisfaction of one or more criteria, the satisfaction indicative of a predetermined level of proficiency by the user wherein machine controlled network transmissions between a network user node for the user and at least one network site of one or more network sites provides the network service to, the network user node, wherein the at least one network site includes one or more processors, one or more memories, and one or more programs stored in the memories and configured to be executed by the one or more processors wherein the user network node, is provided with network access, for one or more network sessions, each of the network sessions including a corresponding one or more of the network transmissions between the network user node and the at least one network site, the corresponding one or more network transmissions for performing the network session by machine control, comprising is merely “apply it” with the extra solution activity of transmitting data. Other than reciting the use of an electronic communications network, network user node, network site, one or more processors, machine, machine recording, and graphical user interface, with the judicial exceptions, the claims merely use instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses an electronic communications network, network user node, network site, one or more processors, machine, machine recording, and graphical user interface as a tool to perform the abstract ideas. As such, the claims include an abstract idea. When considered as a whole, the claims (independent and dependent) do not integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Insurance transactions is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The instant recited claims including additional elements do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. For example, independent claims 1, 22, and 32 recite a processor, memory, and a network which is not “substantially more” than a general purpose computer, and therefore merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13-17, and 22-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE S KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between M-F 10am-2pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Gart may be reached at (571)-273-3955. 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. /IRENE KANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3695 1/6/2026 /EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 01/09/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 02, 2008
Application Filed
Apr 10, 2009
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 20, 2010
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Jun 22, 2011
Response Filed
Mar 05, 2012
Final Rejection — §101
Jul 09, 2012
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 02, 2012
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 03, 2012
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 28, 2014
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 18, 2017
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Jan 25, 2018
Response Filed
Aug 05, 2019
Final Rejection — §101
Feb 10, 2020
Notice of Allowance
May 21, 2020
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 21, 2020
Final Rejection — §101
Nov 27, 2020
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 01, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 18, 2020
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Jun 17, 2021
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 28, 2021
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 01, 2021
Response Filed
Nov 11, 2021
Final Rejection — §101
Apr 22, 2022
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 31, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 04, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 04, 2022
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 29, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Mar 31, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 06, 2023
Response Filed
Feb 07, 2024
Final Rejection — §101
Aug 15, 2024
Notice of Allowance
Mar 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Dec 02, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586131
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR COVARIANCE MATRIX ESTIMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12555162
EVENT TRIGGERED TRADING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12469018
SPLIT ATM BOOTH AND METHOD OF PERFORMING BANKING TRANSACTIONS THEREIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Patent 12423701
TRANSACTION PROCESSING SYSTEM AND TRANSACTION PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12288203
Systems and Methods for an Electronic Wallet Payment Tool
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 29, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

12-13
Expected OA Rounds
16%
Grant Probability
42%
With Interview (+26.0%)
6y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 224 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month