DETAILED ACTION
1. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 11-12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 35, 37 and 39-41 are pending.
Claims 11, 19, 20, 25, 28 and 35 were amended or newly added in the Applicant’s filing on 06/11/2025.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing on 6/11/2025.
3. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 11 recites a method comprising:
receiving, by an order processing system, one or more orders for automatic execution at a first electronic exchange from one or more third party devices via a communication network.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., receiving orders), not method steps that may or may not be performed in future (i.e., automatically executing the orders at a first exchange. The intended purpose of the orders (i.e., to be automatically executed at a first electronic exchange) has no patentable weight.
Claims 19 and 20 have similar issues.
Claim 11 recites a method comprising:
automatically generating and transmitting, by the specialist model computer, an electronic message to the programmed computer;
automatically modifying, by the programmed computer based on the electronic message, the one or more orders upon receipt such that the one or more orders may be executed at one of the first electronic exchange and the second electronic exchange.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent is not met. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
Usage of the term and/or phrase “upon receipt” in Claim 11 suggests that there remains the possibility that the contingent limitations are not performed as the condition(s) precedent is not met (i.e., the electronic message is not received). Therefore, the claim limitations based upon the condition are optional claim limitations. As a matter of linguistic precision, optional claim limitations do not narrow the scope of the invention, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitation(s) fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
Claims 19 and 20 have similar issues.
Claim 11 recites a method comprising:
activating a timer configured to expire at an end of the predetermined time period,
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., activating a timer), not method steps that may or may not be performed. Reciting a system element in a method claim is configured to perform a method step (i.e., expire at an end of the predetermined time period) does not mean that the method step is actually performed.
Claims 19 and 20 have similar issues.
4. 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 11-12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 35, 37 and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system executing program code causing the processor to perform a method and/or computer-readable medium that, when executed, cause a processor to perform a method comprising:
receiving, by an order processing [entity], one or more orders for … execution at a first … exchange from one more third part[ies] … via a communication …, the order processing [entity] comprising a [first entity] and a specialist model … associated with a specialist;
… directing, by the order processing [entity], the one or more orders to the [first entity] and to the specialist model … such that the one or more orders are received by the specialist model … prior to the [first entity];
determining, by the specialist algorithm by the specialist model … based on live market data associated with a second … exchange that is in communication with order processing [entity], that the second … exchange can more match a criterion of one or more order criteria of the one or more orders better than the first … exchange;
… generating and transmitting, by the specialist model … , an … message to the [first entity];
… modifying, by the [first entity] based on the … message, the one or more orders to the upon receipt the one or more orders such that the one or more orders may be executed at one of the first … exchange and the second … exchange;
performing, by the [first entity], a delayed order execution procedure, thereby preventing execution of the one or more orders to the second … exchange for a predetermined time period, the delayed order execution procedure comprising a … process of:
activating [the measurement of time] to expire at an end of the predetermined time period;
determining that an automatic-execution-event has not occurred during the predetermined time period;
generating a … signal to signal expiration of the [predetermined time period], and
executing, responsive to the … signal, the one or more orders at the first … exchange.
These limitations, as drafted, recite a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to execute a trade order which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a order processing system (Claim(s) 11, 19 and 20), a programmed computer (Claim(s) 11, 19 and 20), a specialist model computer (Claim(s) 11, 19 and 20), communications network (Claim(s) 11, 19 and 20), electronic exchange(s) (Claim(s) 11, 19 and 20), a timer (Claim(s) 11, 19 and 20), a control signal (Claim(s) 11, 19 and 20), a processor (see Claim(s) 19 and 20), a memory (see Claim(s) 20) and automatic process(es) (Claim(s) 11, 19 and 20).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to (i) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 12, 14 and 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 35, 37 and 39-41 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 11, 19 and 20. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
No additional computer components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generically recited computer.
As such, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
5. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 35, 37 and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites a method comprising:
receiving, by an order processing system, one or more orders for automatic execution at a first electronic exchange from one or more third party devices via a communication network, the order processing system comprising a programmed computer and a specialist model computer associated with a specialist;
automatically directing, by the order processing system, the one or more orders to the programmed computer and to the specialist model computer such that the one or more orders are received by the specialist model computer prior to the programmed computer.
If the order processing system comprises (i.e., consists of) a programmed computer and a specialist model computer, what structural element is performing the method step of directing orders?
If the order processing system comprises (i.e., consists of) a programmed computer and a specialist model computer then there are no structural elements outside of the programmed computer and the specialist model computer to perform the method step of directing orders.
Does Applicant mean that there is a third computer (i.e., structural element) actively performing the method step directing the orders?
Claims 19 and 20 have similar issues.
Claim 11 recites a method comprising:
automatically modifying, by the programmed computer based on the electronic message, the one or more orders upon receipt such that the one or more orders may be executed at one of the first electronic exchange and the second electronic exchange.
Claim 11 is rejected based upon a reference to a claim element that is variable. “A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined.” See MPEP §2173.05(b)(II).
Claim 11 states an order will be modified “such that the one or more orders may be executed at one of the first electronic exchange and the second electronic exchange." However, the claim language fails to indicate what order modification is required for an order to “be executed at one of the first electronic exchange and the second electronic exchange." As said order modification could be any modification, said claim limitation fails to establish any limitations upon the order modification.
Claims 19 and 20 have similar issues.
Appropriate correction is requested.
6. No Prior Art Rejection
Applicant’s amended claims have overcome the prior art of record. No further prior art has been asserted against the claimed invention.
7. Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
§101 Rejection
Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not recite a judicial exception and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong One of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, p. 16.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A method instructing how to execute a trade order, such as establishing parameters for an order pertaining to pricing, timing or market venue, is a fundamental economic practice. A fundamental economic practice is a subcategory of a certain method of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites a practical application, specifically “an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,” and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 16-18.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
Applicants submit that the amended claims are not directed to the alleged abstract idea of "a series of steps instructing how to execute a trade order which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity." Rather, as illustrated by the particular and specific details noted herein, amended Claim 11 is directed to a computer- implemented method for improving stability of an automated matching system. See Arguments, p. 17 – emphasis original
As understood by the skilled person, the ability to stabilize prices / reduce volatility / absorb fluctuations / maintain orderliness are important technological solutions to maintaining computer system stability (i.e., a technological problem), by (for example) curing computer system instabilities caused by price cascades in automated trading systems. See Arguments, p. 18 – emphasis original.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP §2106.05(a) recites:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. – emphasis added.
However, the specification does not provide any evidence that the claimed invention results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer, an improvement to conventional technology or technological processes, or is addressing a computer-centric problem. Nor that there is even a technical (i.e., technology-based) problem to be solved.
There is no evidence in the specification that automated matching systems, the computer technology itself, is unstable (i.e., technology exhibits frequent, unpredictable issues like random restarts, application crashes, freezes, or error messages, often due to a problem with hardware, software, or a misconfigured setting). As such, there is no evidence that there is a computer-centric problem.
There is no evidence in the specification that the claimed invention improves the stability of an automated matching system, improving the computer technology itself. As such, there is no improvement to computer technology.
Applicant further argues:
More specifically, the programmed computer and specialist model computer of Claim 11 are able to "pre-process" incoming order flow information and automatically modify/influence the incoming order in a timely manner. The ability of the programmed computer and specialist model computer to modify/influence orders in the local/remote markets is important in automated electronic trading systems. As discussed in the subject specification, these features "provide significant value to the auction market," in that they are able to "add liquidity and stabilize prices," "absorb short-term fluctuations by bridging temporary gaps in supply and demand," "keeps the Exchange market fair and orderly," all of which "lowers volatility." Specification, [0057] (emphasis added). – See Arguments, p. 18 – emphasis original.
As understood by the skilled person, the ability to stabilize prices / reduce volatility / absorb fluctuations / maintain orderliness are important technological solutions to maintaining computer system stability (i.e., a technological problem), by (for example) curing computer system instabilities caused by price cascades in automated trading systems. See Arguments, p. 18 – emphasis original.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The specification does provide evidence, which the Applicant reiterates, that the claimed invention improves price stability, adds liquidity to the market and lowers market volatility but those are improvements to the financial market not to the computer technology.
Additionally, the specification provides no evidence that improvements to the financial markets result in an improvement in the functioning of a computer, an improvement to conventional technology or technological processes.
Applicant further argues:
As known to those of skill in the art, a price cascade is a chain reaction resulting in rapidly falling (or increasing) of prices in an electronic market. Because of the significant speed in which a cascade can occur (i.e., in milliseconds), price cascades have a significant impact on the system and on the electronic market itself. For example, cascading prices can cause an extraordinary influx of activity (e.g., tens of thousands of new orders and/or removal of existing orders, depending on the direction of the cascade) within a micro time period (e.g., fractions of a second), which can throw the system into a destabilized condition. Price cascades are a problem that only exist in electronic trading (not in manual trading), because the high speed of price movement cannot occur in a market based on manual trading techniques; and even if it could occur, manual techniques inherently have volume and speed limits (i.e., humans can only process so many orders at a time), which do not even approach the volume / speed needed to cause a cascading condition. See Arguments, p. 18 – emphasis original.
Conventional electronic exchange systems, on the other hand, lack such routing prevention and order-execution delay mechanisms, and are instead configured seek immediate execution of orders, whether by immediately executing or by routing to another system(s) for immediate execution there. Conventional electronic trading systems quickly become overwhelmed and freeze or shutdown altogether and are only able to resume functioning after the volume of the orders diminishes. See Arguments, pp. 18-19 – emphasis original.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees
There is no evidence in the specification that that the claimed invention is directed toward addressing the problem of price cascades or freezes/shutdowns due to price cascades. The specification does not even reference price cascades, or freezes/shutdowns due to price cascades.
Applicant further argues:
Applicants have recognized these technical problems and deficiencies of existing systems, and in response Applicants have created a unique processing topography (i.e., a technological solution) introduces a new 'side-process' not present in conventional systems to generate instructions to 'hold up' or change the automated execution (or automated transfer) of orders that affects the speed at which orders are processed (e.g., may introduce intentional delay to slow down the processing speed). Slowing down or purposely introducing delay into an automated trading system is completely contrary to their purpose (which is to remove delays and increase the rate and speed at which electronic orders are executed. Nonetheless, Applicants have introduced this novel specialist model computer (including its claimed functions) in order to reduce volatility, stabilize prices and prevent price cascading / system destabilization. In this respect, the claimed invention (and its functionality) certainly includes unconventional limitations that yield computer functioning improvements that do not exist in prior art systems. See Arguments, p. 19 – emphasis added.
A finding of novelty and nonobviousness does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that subject matter is patent eligible. “Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry.” See Assn for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013). Indeed, "[t]he 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” See Diamond v. Diehr, 209 USPQ 1, 9 (1981); See also Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1973 (2012) (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute §102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better inquiry under §101.”)
MPEP §2106.04(d) recites:
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); [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).
Examiner asserts that the additional elements amount to merely (1) including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or alternatively, (2) merely links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the additional elements amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea and, as such, satisfies Step 2B of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 19-24.
Applicant argues:
Here, the claims go well beyond the Office's generalization and do not merely claim the idea of a solution or an outcome. As described above, in conventional automated trading systems, orders with instructions to execute immediately are (required to be) electronically and immediately executed when they arrive at the system (under certain conditions, e.g., minimum variance) or they may be automatically routed to another electronic market center for execution (e.g., when the other market center is at a minimum variance). See Specification, [0023]-[0025]. In contrast, instead of performing immediate execution (or immediate transfer) of incoming orders (as in conventional automated trading systems), the programmed computer and specialist model computer can change how/by which electronic exchange the incoming orders are executed, including delaying / altering execution. The ability to modify (hold up) how orders with instructions for immediate execution are processed) is completely unconventional and contrary to how automated trading systems process these orders. See Arguments, p. 21 – emphasis original.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While delayed or altered execution of trade instructions may be unconventional and contrary to how automated trading systems process trade orders, delayed or altered execution of a process is conventional in automated computer systems.
Step 2B analysis is premised on determining whether a computer function is conventional activity previously known to the industry. Examiner asserts that the recited computer functions are conventional activity previously known to the industry, the computer industry. The industry is not limited to automated trading systems.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention satisfies §101 Guidelines, in part, based upon the decision rendered in the Board Decision on Appeal issued on 1/17/2020 and the Allowance issued on 1/30/2020 in the parent application 11/182,982 (now US Patent 10,699,366). See Arguments, pp. 12-13 and 22-24.
Each application is to be examined separately and independently based upon the most current guidance. Based upon the most current guidance, the claimed invention does not satisfy §101 Guidelines, regardless of the determination made in other applications. Moreover, PTAB decisions are fact specific to the case being decided and, therefore, lack general applicability.
Examiner notes that the Applicant is arguing that since the parent application satisfied §101 Guidelines then the child application must also be deemed to satisfy the §101 Guidelines but the converse is also possible. An alternate interpretation is that since the child application has not been deemed to have satisfy §101 Guidelines based upon current guidance then perhaps the parent application would not satisfy §101 Guidelines based upon current guidance.
Applicant further argues:
Regarding the "modifying" element, the Board noted that "the Examiner does not address that the modifying is done by a specialist's algorithm, to effect a change in an order directed to an automated matching system." Parent Appeal Decision, p. 10. More specifically, the Board stated "considering the combination of the 'defining' of 'instructions' along with the conditional steps that modify an incoming order to an automated system, the Examiner has not provided evidence that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional for a specialist (a type of 'market maker' in an open-call auction market) to be able to provide instructions, for an automated auction market, to modify orders, placed by entities other than the specialist and copied to the specialist before arriving at an automated auction market." Id. See Arguments, p. 23 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the Board stated that the Examiner failed to address or insufficiently addressed the “modifying” element in the Examiner Answer submitted for parent application 11/182,982, that does not mean that “modifying” element was determined to be significantly more under Step 2B by the Board. The Board’s statements just mean that the Examiner Answer previously submitted for parent application 11/182,982 was deficient by failing to address the “modifying” element.
8. 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 JASON M BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Calvin L Hewitt II can be reached on 571-272-6709. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 October 24, 2025