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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim amendments on 08/11/2025. The claim amendments are entered. Presently, claims 8, 11-12, 18-27, and 29-32 remain pending. Claims 8, 11-12, 15, 18-19, 21-23 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “(i) each of the one or more rules for the item dynamically switches between a first expression type and a second expression type based on a numerical value represented, the second expression type being different from the first expression type; and (ii) program instructions to determine a change in numeric value, and program instructions to determine that a change in features has occurred in response to determining the change in numeric value” are not mental processes and integrate the claims into a practical application.
Examiner response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Dynamically switching rules between a first expression type and a second expression type based on a numeric value is practically implementable in the human mind. For example, if a given value is 16 ounces, a human can apply a rule/formula that converts the ounces into gallons for a first expression type. Additionally, a human can apply a different rule if the numeric value is 10 miles by applying a different rule/formula that converts the miles into kilometers. Arguments are not persuasive.
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 8, 11-15, 18-27, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 8, 11-14, and 29-32 are directed to a computer-readable storage media defined to not encompass signals/carrier waves, claims 15, 18-20 are directed to a system comprising at least a processor, and claims 21-27 are directed to a method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claim 8 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
“program instructions to determine a plurality of domains of a text corpus which correspond with contextual information for each portion of a document of the text corpus by performing natural language processing (NLP) on the document of the text corpus” (Mental process. A human can perform natural language processing on a new paper and determine that each article is a domain and a human can further identify contextual information corresponding to the article such as elections results that may be related to that article.)
“program instructions to identify a plurality of numeric expressions in the text corpus associated with a type of item” (Mental process. A human can identify a numeric expression in a text associated with a type of item.)
“program instructions to generate a plurality of feature vectors corresponding to the identified plurality of numeric expressions” (Mental process. A human can generate a number of feature vectors corresponding to a generic expression. For example, a feature vector corresponding to a numeric expression “yogurt 17 oz” might have a feature “ounces” with a value “17” and another feature “product” with a value “dairy”.)
“program instructions to identify one or more common features of the plurality of feature vectors, wherein the identified one or more common features are based on cluster analysis of the plurality of feature vectors mapped to a feature space such that a common feature of the one or more common features is identified based on a predetermined statistically significant portion of a cluster containing the common feature in comparison to a normalized value range” (Mental process. A human can identify a common feature based on a cluster of feature vectors by determining that 67% or 95% of the cluster falls within a normalized value range.)
“program instructions to remove at least one feature vector which is an outlier from remaining features vectors of the plurality of feature vectors in the feature space” (Mental process. A human can remove a vector that is an outlier from a plurality of vectors.)
“program instructions to generate one or more rules for representing numeric quantities of the type of item based, at least in part, on the one or morecommon features of the plurality of feature vectors, wherein each of the one or more rules for the item dynamically switches between a first expression type and a second expression type based on a numerical value represented, the second expression type being different from the first expression type” (Mental process. A human can create one or more rules to represent a numeric quantities of an item type based on a common feature. A human can further change the expression type of a rule being applied, for example using a ounces to gallon conversion or a miles to kilometer conversion.)
“program instructions to determine a change in numeric value” (Mental process. A human can determine a change in a numeric value)
“program instructions to determine that a change in features has occurred in response to determining the change in numeric value” (Mental process. A human can determine that features change in response to the numeric value changing.)
“program instructions to generate a formatted portion of text based, at least in part, on the one or more rules for representing numeric quantities of the type of item, wherein the formatted numeric expression includes one or more of the following formatted features: (i) expression type and (ii) expression precision.” (Mental process. A human can use rules to format a text using an expression type of precision.)
Step 2A, Prong 2
“one or more computer-readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See 2106.05(f).)
“program instructions to…” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See 2106.05(f).)
“program instructions to send the formatted portion of the text associated with the type of item to an artificial intelligence (AI) system for generating an output that includes the formatted portion of the text associated with the type of item.” (Sending the formatted text insignificant is extra-solution activity. Using the AI system to generate an output including the formatted portion is mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See 2106.05(f).)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
“one or more computer-readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See 2106.05(f).)
“program instructions to…” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See 2106.05(f).)
“program instructions to send the formatted portion of the text associated with the type of item to an artificial intelligence (AI) system for generating an output that includes the formatted portion of the text associated with the type of item.” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed sending step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Using the AI system to generate an output including the formatted portion is mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See 2106.05(f).)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
“program instructions to determine a respective plurality of normalized numeric values for the numeric value feature of the plurality of feature vectors.” (mathematical concept.)
“program instructions to perform NLP on surrounding text and headings for each portion of the document of the text corpus,” (mental process. A human can read text and headings for paragraphs in a document and apply different rules based on the topic (i.e., category) of the text).
Step 2A, Prong 2
“wherein each of the one or more rules for the item comprises a plurality of representative variations such that each of the plurality of representative variations correspond with a different domain than remaining representative variations” (Linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
“wherein each of the one or more rules for the item comprises a plurality of representative variations such that each of the plurality of representative variations correspond with a different domain than remaining representative variations” (Linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
“program instructions to identify a first common feature of the plurality of feature vectors based, at least in part, on a first range of normalized numeric values” (Mental process. A human can identify a common feature based on a range of normalized values.)
“program instructions to identify a second common feature of the plurality of feature vectors based, at least in part, on a second range of normalized numeric values” (Mental process. A human can identify a common feature based on a range of normalized values.)
“wherein the one or more rules include frequently used numeric expression features with a domain for item grouping” (mental process. A human can generate a rule that groups gallons in one group and tablespoon in another.)
“wherein the change in features comprises a change in expression type, a change in precision, and a change in unit of a numeric expression” (mental process. A human can convert one expression type to another (e.g., gallons to oz.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 & 2B
The claim does not recite any additional elements not already addressed.
Claim 13 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
“wherein the one or more rules for representing numeric quantities include (i) the first common feature for numeric quantities in the first range of normalized numeric values and (ii) the second common feature for numeric quantities in the second range of normalized values.” (mathematical concept.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 & 2B
The claim does not recite any additional elements not already addressed.
Claim 14 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
“program instructions to generate a formatted numeric expression based, at least in part, on the one or more rules for representing numeric quantities of the type of item, wherein the formatted numeric expression includes one or more of the following formatted features: (i) expression type, (ii) expression precision, and (iii) unit of measurement.” (Mental process. A human can format a numeric expression based on a rule so that the formatted numeric expression includes a unit of measurement.)
Step 2A, Prong 2
“program instructions to receive a numeric value associated with the type of item” (Insignificant extra-solution activity.)
“program instructions to retrieve one or more rules for representing numeric quantities of the type of item” (Insignificant extra-solution activity.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
“program instructions to receive a numeric value associated with the type of item” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed receiving step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
“program instructions to retrieve one or more rules for representing numeric quantities of the type of item” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed retrieving step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
See rejection of claim 8 above. Same rationale applies
Step 2A, Prong 2 & 2B
The claim recites another additional element “a computer system comprising a computer processor, a computer readable storage media, and program instructions” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.)
Claim 18 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
“program instructions to determine a respective plurality of normalized numeric values for the numeric value feature of the plurality of feature vectors.” (mathematical concept.)
“program instructions to perform NLP on surrounding text and headings for each portion of the document of the text corpus,” (mental process. A human can read text and headings for paragraphs in a document and apply different rules based on the topic (i.e., category) of the text).
“program instructions to generate at least one representation rule that corresponds to common features of measurements based on a value of the item” (mental process. A human can generate a rule that corresponds to measurement values of an item)
Step 2A, Prong 2
“wherein each of the one or more rules for the item comprises a plurality of representative variations such that each of the plurality of representative variations correspond with a different domain than remaining representative variations” (Linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
“wherein each of the one or more rules for the item comprises a plurality of representative variations such that each of the plurality of representative variations correspond with a different domain than remaining representative variations” (Linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
“program instructions to identify a first common feature of the plurality of feature vectors based, at least in part, on a first range of normalized numeric values” (Mental process. A human can identify a common feature based on a range of normalized values.)
“program instructions to identify a second common feature of the plurality of feature vectors based, at least in part, on a second range of normalized numeric values” (Mental process. A human can identify a common feature based on a range of normalized values.)
“program instructions to generate at least one representation rule for items similar to the item, wherein the one or more rules include frequently used numeric expression features with a domain for item grouping wherein the one or more rules include frequently used numeric expression features with a domain for item grouping” (mental process. A human can generate a rule for similar items that groups gallons in one group and tablespoon in another.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 & 2B
The claim does not recite any additional elements not already addressed.
Claim 20 recites:
See rejection of claim 13 above. Same rationale applies.
Claim 21 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
“determining, by one or more processors, a plurality of domains of a text corpus which correspond with contextual information for each portion of a document of the text corpus by performing natural language processing (NLP) on the document of the text corpus” (Mental process. A human can perform natural language processing on a new paper and determine that each article is a domain and a human can further identify contextual information corresponding to the article such as elections results that may be related to that article.)
“identifying, by one or more processors, a plurality of numeric expressions in the text corpus associated with a type of item” (Mental process. A human can identify a numeric expression in a text associated with a type of item.)
“generating, by the one or more processors, a plurality of feature vectors corresponding to the identified plurality of numeric expressions” (Mental process. A human can generate a number of feature vectors corresponding to a generic expression. For example, a feature vector corresponding to a numeric expression “yogurt 17 oz” might have a feature “ounces” with a value “17” and another feature “product” with a value “dairy”.)
“identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more common features of the plurality of feature vectors” (Mental process. A human can identify a common feature.)
“removing, by the one or more processors, at least one feature vector which is an outlier from remaining features vectors of the plurality of feature vectors in the feature space” (Mental process. A human can remove a vector that is an outlier from a plurality of vectors.)
“generating, by the one or more processors, one or more rules for representing numeric quantities of the type of item based, at least in part, on the one or more common features of the plurality of feature vectors, wherein each of the one or more rules for the item dynamically switches between a first expression type and a second expression type based on a numerical value represented, the second expression type being different from the first expression type” (Mental process. A human can create one or more rules to represent a numeric quantities of an item type based on a common feature. A human can further change the expression type of a rule being applied, for example using a ounces to gallons conversion or a miles to kilometer conversion.)
“determining, by the one or more processors, a change in numeric value” (Mental process. A human can determine a change in a numeric value)
“determining, by the one or more processors, that a change in features has occurred in response to determining the change in numeric value” (Mental process. A human can determine that features change in response to the numeric value changing.)
“generating, by the one or more processors, a formatted portion of text based, at least in part, on the one or more rules for representing numeric quantities of the type of item, wherein the formatted numeric expression includes one or more of the following formatted features: (i) expression type and (ii) expression precision” (Mental process. A human can format a numeric expression based on a rule so that the formatted numeric expression includes a unit of measurement.)
“wherein the identified one or more common features are based on cluster analysis of the plurality of feature vectors mapped to a feature space such that a common feature of the one or more common features is identified based on a predetermined statistically significant portion of a cluster containing the common feature in comparison to a normalized value range” (Mental process. A human can identify a common feature based on a cluster of feature vectors by determining that 67% or 95% of the cluster falls within a normalized value range.)
Step 2A, Prong 2
“…by one or more processors…” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See 2106.05(f).)
“receiving, by the one or more processors, a numeric value associated with the type of item” (Insignificant extra-solution activity.)
“retrieving, by the one or more processors, one or more rules for representing numeric quantities of the type of item” (Insignificant extra-solution activity.)
“sending, by the one or more processors, one or more instructions to initiate a display of the formatted portion of text associated with the type of item on a client device comprising an artificial intelligence (AI) system” (The steps of sending and displaying are insignificant extra-solution activity. The AI system is a generic computer component. See 2106.05(f).)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
“…by one or more processors…” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See 2106.05(f).)
“receiving, by the one or more processors, a numeric value associated with the type of item” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed receiving step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
“retrieving, by the one or more processors, one or more rules for representing numeric quantities of the type of item” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed retrieving step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.)
“sending, by the one or more processors, one or more instructions to initiate a display of the formatted portion of text associated with the type of item on a client device comprising an artificial intelligence (AI) system” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed sending step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed displaying step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The AI system is a generic computer component. See 2106.05(f).)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 22 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
“performing, by the one or more processors, NLP on surrounding text and headings for each portion of the document of the text corpus” (mental process. A human can read text and headings for paragraphs in a document).
Step 2A, Prong 2 & 2B
The claim does not recite any additional elements not already addressed.
Claim 23 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
“generating, by the one or more processors, at least one representation rule that corresponds to common features of measurements based on a value of the item wherein the plurality of feature vectors include one or more of the following feature dimensions: (i) numeric value, (ii) expression type, (iii) expression precision, and (iv) unit of measurement” (Mental process. A human can generate a rule based on the numeric value, expression type, precision, and unit of measurement of the item,).
“wherein the one or more rules include frequently used numeric expression features with a domain for item grouping” (mental process. A human can generate a rule that groups gallons in one group and tablespoon in another.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 & 2B
The claim does not recite any additional elements not already addressed.
Claim 24 recites:
See rejection of claim 11 above. Same rationale applies.
Claim 25 recites:
See rejection of claim 12 above. Same rationale applies.
Claim 26 recites:
See rejection of claim 13 above. Same rationale applies.
Claim 27 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
This claim does not appear to recite and judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 2
“sending, by the one or more processors, the formatted portion of text to the client device” (Insignificant extra-solution activity.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
“sending, by the one or more processors, the formatted portion of text to a client device” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed sending step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 29 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
“categorizing the document in the text corpus based on a region the document originated from” (mental process. A human can classify a document as Japanese.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 & 2B
The claim does not recite any additional elements not already addressed.
Claim 30 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
“categorizing the document in the text corpus based on metadata of the document” (mental process. A human can classify a document based on a publication date.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 & 2B
The claim does not recite any additional elements not already addressed.
Claim 31 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
“transcribing the retrieved audio file included in the text corpus” (mental process. A human can listen to a voice message and write down the message on paper)
Step 2A, Prong 2
“retrieving an audio file included in the text corpus” (Insignificant extra-solution activity.)
“storing the transcribed retrieved audio file in the text corpus” (Insignificant extra-solution activity.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
“retrieving an audio file included in the text corpus” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed sending step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed displaying step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The AI system is a generic computer component. See 2106.05(f).)
“storing the transcribed retrieved audio file in the text corpus” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed sending step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed displaying step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 32 recites:
Step 2A, Prong 1
“transcribing an audio portion file of the retrieved video file included in the text corpus” (mental process. A human can listen to a voice message and write down the message on paper)
Step 2A, Prong 2
“retrieving a video file included in the text corpus” (Insignificant extra-solution activity.)
“storing the transcribed audio file in the text corpus” (Insignificant extra-solution activity.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
“retrieving a video file included in the text corpus” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed sending step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed displaying step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The AI system is a generic computer component. See 2106.05(f).)
“storing the transcribed audio file in the text corpus” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed sending step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed displaying step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
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 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 HENRY K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0217. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Li B Zhen can be reached at 5712723768. 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.
/H.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 2121
/Li B. Zhen/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2121