Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claims are directed to the statutory categories of a method or a system. Step 1: Yes.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes. The claim(s) 1, 13 and 22 is directed to an abstract idea of comprising: receiving, data indicative of an order specifying a transaction for at least one financial product of three or more financial products which form a plurality of implied orders, the transaction to be completed before a subsequently received order alters the market therefore; converting, by a candidate list generator of a specifically configured match upon receipt, the data indicative of the received order to a first vector data structure representative thereof stored in coupled with the candidate list generator and having a column for each of the three of more financial products, a value stored in each column defined in accordance with the transaction specified by the data of the received order; receiving, by the candidate list generator, data representative of the three or more financial products; converting, by the candidate list generator in accordance with a plurality of rules stored in a database coupled therewith which control operation of, the data indicative of the three or more financial products to a plurality of vector data structures representative thereof and stored in, each having a number of columns equal to a number of unique components of all possible implied orders formed thereby, a values stored in each column of each vector data structure defined in accordance with each possible implied order, the method further comprising: non-iteratively computing and outputting, by the candidate list generator to, less than all of the plurality of implied orders excluding those implied orders formed by the three or more financial products, the outputted implied orders excluding those implied orders that are unable to trade with the received order, by: generating, by the candidate list generator according to at least one of the plurality of rules, a list data structure having stored therein data indicative of a list of identified candidate vector data structures from the plurality of vector data structures stored in, wherein the at least one rule controls the identification by the candidate list generator to at least select those candidate vector data structures from those stored in having at least one nonzero column in common with the first vector data structure indicative of having at least one of the three or more financial products in common; and repeated: selecting, by a comparator of coupled with the candidate list generator, according to at least one of the plurality of rules, a vector data structure from the list of candidate vector data structures and removing the selected vector data structure from the list of data structure, wherein the at least one rule controls the selection by the comparator, the number of candidate vector data structures stored in the list data structure being reduced thereby; forming, by the comparator, an intermediate vector data structure based on the first vector data structure, or a previously formed intermediate vector data structure, and the selected vector data structure and determining whether the intermediate vector data structure has no non-zero columns indicative of the received order of the first vector representation being complementary to, and thereby transactable with, the implied order represented by the selected vector data structure; and outputting, by an implied order generator of the match coupled with the comparator, to, the implied order represented by the selected vector data structure, only when the formed intermediate vector data structure has no nonzero columns; and wherein the method further comprises: executing, by when an implied order has been output thereto, a tradable cycle with the implied order to attempt to trade the implied order with the received order; and whereby, is optimized via a reduction in a number of implied orders processed in real time based on the application of the plurality of rules to the specifically configured vector data structures such that less than all of the possible implied orders are output to reducing an amount of time to complete transaction therewith before market therefore changes due to a subsequently received transaction which increases a probability of the attempt to trade the received order via the reduced amount of time for a subsequently received order to alter the market therefore, the computing capacity which would otherwise process those implied orders that are not output being freed up thereby, which is a fundamental economic practice and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or mental processes. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional elements: computer, electronic, a memory, processor, memory, a specifically configured match engine, the match engine, an electronic trading system; engine; the electronic trading system, and electronic trading system, the electronic trading system; an electronic trading system, electronic, electronic, by the electronic trading system, electronic, engine, electronically processable; the memory, the memory, the memory, the memory, the electronic trading system; the electronic trading system; the electronic trading system; electronic; engine; automatically; the electronically processable; automatically; automatically; the electronic trading system; electronic; the electronic are used to perform steps. The computer, electronic, a memory, processor, memory, a specifically configured match engine, the match engine, an electronic trading system; engine; the electronic trading system, and electronic trading system, the electronic trading system; an electronic trading system, electronic, electronic, by the electronic trading system, electronic, engine, electronically processable; the memory, the memory, the memory, the memory, the electronic trading system; the electronic trading system; the electronic trading system; electronic; engine; automatically; the electronically processable; automatically; automatically; the electronic trading system; electronic; the electronic in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor or generic computing device performing a generic computer function of processing data (receiving, converting, receiving, converting, generating, selecting, forming, outputting, executing and output steps). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Here, the specification clearly points out in at least [0061] general processors and general computer. As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a) "It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement" and "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology." The specification clearly points out in at least [0008] the inventive concept is the algorithm itself, the alleged improvements over other systems is an improved algorithm [0009], and the system for executing orders are generic systems comprising terminals that are general purpose computers [0031-0033] and [0061]. As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a) "It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement" and "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of computer, processor, memory, a specifically configured match engine, the match engine, an electronic trading system; engine; the electronic trading system, and electronic trading system, the electronic trading system; an electronic trading system, electronic, electronic, by the electronic trading system, electronic, engine, electronically processable; the electronic trading system; the electronic trading system; the electronic trading system; electronic; engine amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of computer, electronic, a memory, processor, memory, a specifically configured match engine, the match engine, an electronic trading system; engine; the electronic trading system, and electronic trading system, the electronic trading system; an electronic trading system, electronic, electronic, by the electronic trading system, electronic, engine, electronically processable; the memory, the memory, the memory, the memory, the electronic trading system; the electronic trading system; the electronic trading system; electronic; engine; automatically; the electronically processable; automatically; automatically; the electronic trading system; electronic; the electronic is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data gathering. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, 1, 13 and 22 are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-12, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claims 14-21, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 11. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are deemed not persuasive. The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to example 39, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The current case unlike example 39 has 101 rejections based on the MPEP. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims are like example 47 of the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility examples, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to abstract idea. The specification clearly points out in at least [0008] the inventive concept is the algorithm itself, the alleged improvements over other systems is an improved algorithm [0009], and the system for executing orders are generic systems comprising terminals that are general purpose computers [0031-0033] and [0061]. As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a) "It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement" and "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., 2022-1654 and 2022-1691 (Fed. Cir. 2024), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., 2022-1654 and 2022-1691 (Fed. Cir. 2024) cases are non-precedential decisions and therefore not given weight. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) decision in Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) decision in Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567, applicant’s specification and claims do not describe technological improvements, or a specific improvement to the way computers store and retrieve data in memory. Rather, applicant’s specification and claims describe methods for creating implied trade templates. The claims do not to improve the performance of computers or any underlying technology; instead, the focus is to use generic processor(s). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regards to Enfish, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Enfish, they made improvement to database technology. Unlike Enfish, the current case is directly to conventional and generic use of financial account authentication, which doesn't make any improvement to the computer technology. In the current claim limitation, the computer is generic computer. The applicant has not improved the computer. In the current claim limitation, the processor is generic processor. The applicant has not improved the processor. Therefore, applicant's arguments with respect to Enfish is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that similar to claims in SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems. Unlike the patentable claims in SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, the current claim recites the abstract idea of comprising: receiving, data indicative of an order specifying a transaction for at least one financial product of three or more financial products which form a plurality of implied orders, the transaction to be completed before a subsequently received order alters the market therefore; converting, by a candidate list generator of a specifically configured match upon receipt, the data indicative of the received order to a first vector data structure representative thereof stored in coupled with the candidate list generator and having a column for each of the three of more financial products, a value stored in each column defined in accordance with the transaction specified by the data of the received order; receiving, by the candidate list generator, data representative of the three or more financial products; converting, by the candidate list generator in accordance with a plurality of rules stored in a database coupled therewith which control operation of, the data indicative of the three or more financial products to a plurality of vector data structures representative thereof and stored in, each having a number of columns equal to a number of unique components of all possible implied orders formed thereby, a values stored in each column of each vector data structure defined in accordance with each possible implied order, the method further comprising: non-iteratively computing and outputting, by the candidate list generator to, less than all of the plurality of implied orders excluding those implied orders formed by the three or more financial products, the outputted implied orders excluding those implied orders that are unable to trade with the received order, by: generating, by the candidate list generator according to at least one of the plurality of rules, a list data structure having stored therein data indicative of a list of identified candidate vector data structures from the plurality of vector data structures stored in, wherein the at least one rule controls the identification by the candidate list generator to at least select those candidate vector data structures from those stored in having at least one nonzero column in common with the first vector data structure indicative of having at least one of the three or more financial products in common; and repeated: selecting, by a comparator of coupled with the candidate list generator, according to at least one of the plurality of rules, a vector data structure from the list of candidate vector data structures and removing the selected vector data structure from the list of data structure, wherein the at least one rule controls the selection by the comparator, the number of candidate vector data structures stored in the list data structure being reduced thereby; forming, by the comparator, an intermediate vector data structure based on the first vector data structure, or a previously formed intermediate vector data structure, and the selected vector data structure and determining whether the intermediate vector data structure has no non-zero columns indicative of the received order of the first vector representation being complementary to, and thereby transactable with, the implied order represented by the selected vector data structure; and outputting, by an implied order generator of the match coupled with the comparator, to, the implied order represented by the selected vector data structure, only when the formed intermediate vector data structure has no nonzero columns; and wherein the method further comprises: executing, by when an implied order has been output thereto, a tradable cycle with the implied order to attempt to trade the implied order with the received order; and whereby, is optimized via a reduction in a number of implied orders processed in real time based on the application of the plurality of rules to the specifically configured vector data structures such that less than all of the possible implied orders are output to reducing an amount of time to complete transaction therewith before market therefore changes due to a subsequently received transaction which increases a probability of the attempt to trade the received order via the reduced amount of time for a subsequently received order to alter the market therefore, the computing capacity which would otherwise process those implied orders that are not output being freed up thereby, which is a fundamental economic practice and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or mental processes. The current case claims are not a technical solution to technical problem, because all of the additional elements in the current case are doing merely receiving information or transmitting data back and forth and the courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. The claim limitations are directed to provide and performs processing information over a network, which doesn’t provide real basis for improvement to computer technology. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims are not a mental process and could not be performed just in the human mind or with pencil and paper and SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Cybersource, SiRF Tech., Inc v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Synopsys, TQP Development, LLC v. Intuit Inc., Research Corp. Techs., Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, In re Brown, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims are nothing more than a series of “mental steps” that could be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper—a subject matter that falls within the three types of abstract ideas identified in the Revised Guidance. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A] method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under [§] 101.”); see also In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[Mental processes—or processes of human thinking—standing alone are not patentable even if they have practical application.”); Gottschalk vs. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, . . . mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” (Emphasis added)). Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”). SiRF Tech., Inc v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Synopsys, Research Corp. Techs., Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, In re Brown are non-analogous case to current claims and current claims are not eligible under 101 based on MPEP. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to specification, the specification clearly points out in at least [0008] the inventive concept is the algorithm itself, the alleged improvements over other systems is an improved algorithm [0009], and the system for executing orders are generic systems comprising terminals that are general purpose computers [0031-0033] and [0061]. As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a) "It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement" and "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that similar to claims in Finjan. Unlike the patentable claims in Finjan, the current claim recites the abstract idea of for comprising: receiving, data indicative of an order specifying a transaction for at least one financial product of three or more financial products which form a plurality of implied orders, the transaction to be completed before a subsequently received order alters the market therefore; converting, by a candidate list generator of a specifically configured match upon receipt, the data indicative of the received order to a first vector data structure representative thereof stored in coupled with the candidate list generator and having a column for each of the three of more financial products, a value stored in each column defined in accordance with the transaction specified by the data of the received order; receiving, by the candidate list generator, data representative of the three or more financial products; converting, by the candidate list generator in accordance with a plurality of rules stored in a database coupled therewith which control operation of, the data indicative of the three or more financial products to a plurality of vector data structures representative thereof and stored in, each having a number of columns equal to a number of unique components of all possible implied orders formed thereby, a values stored in each column of each vector data structure defined in accordance with each possible implied order, the method further comprising: non-iteratively computing and outputting, by the candidate list generator to, less than all of the plurality of implied orders excluding those implied orders formed by the three or more financial products, the outputted implied orders excluding those implied orders that are unable to trade with the received order, by: generating, by the candidate list generator according to at least one of the plurality of rules, a list data structure having stored therein data indicative of a list of identified candidate vector data structures from the plurality of vector data structures stored in, wherein the at least one rule controls the identification by the candidate list generator to at least select those candidate vector data structures from those stored in having at least one nonzero column in common with the first vector data structure indicative of having at least one of the three or more financial products in common; and repeated: selecting, by a comparator of coupled with the candidate list generator, according to at least one of the plurality of rules, a vector data structure from the list of candidate vector data structures and removing the selected vector data structure from the list of data structure, wherein the at least one rule controls the selection by the comparator, the number of candidate vector data structures stored in the list data structure being reduced thereby; forming, by the comparator, an intermediate vector data structure based on the first vector data structure, or a previously formed intermediate vector data structure, and the selected vector data structure and determining whether the intermediate vector data structure has no non-zero columns indicative of the received order of the first vector representation being complementary to, and thereby transactable with, the implied order represented by the selected vector data structure; and outputting, by an implied order generator of the match coupled with the comparator, to, the implied order represented by the selected vector data structure, only when the formed intermediate vector data structure has no nonzero columns; and wherein the method further comprises: executing, by when an implied order has been output thereto, a tradable cycle with the implied order to attempt to trade the implied order with the received order; and whereby, is optimized via a reduction in a number of implied orders processed in real time based on the application of the plurality of rules to the specifically configured vector data structures such that less than all of the possible implied orders are output to reducing an amount of time to complete transaction therewith before market therefore changes due to a subsequently received transaction which increases a probability of the attempt to trade the received order via the reduced amount of time for a subsequently received order to alter the market therefore, the computing capacity which would otherwise process those implied orders that are not output being freed up thereby. The current case claims are not a technical solution to technical problem, because all of the additional elements in the current case are doing merely receiving information or transmitting data back and forth and the courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. The claim limitations are directed to receiving, retrieving, and transmitting information over a network, which doesn’t provide real basis for improvement to computer technology. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument with regard to DDR, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In DDR, they address problems unique to the Internet and solve problem necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks and improve an existing technological process. Unlike DDR, the current case does not make specific improvement to the technology. The current case just merely computing. In the current claim limitation, the computer is a generic computer. The applicant has not improved the computer. In the current limitation, the processor is a generic processor. The applicant has not improved the conventional processor. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regards to Bascom, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Bascom, they use the unconventional step of filtering Internet content using ISP. The filtering was performing remote server rather than local server. In Bascom, they provided technical basis and provided non-conventional and non-routine way of changing the filtering of Internet content using ISP. Unlike Bascom, the current case is all of the elements in the current case are doing merely communicating or sending data back and forth and courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be routine and conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. The current claims do not recite anything non-conventional and non-routine. The claim is merely gathered information of information over conventional network. Therefore, applicant’s argument with respect Bascom is not persuasive.5
In response to applicant's argument with regard to Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LI, UAB, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG, at 1 (E. D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2021) (Gilstrap, J.), Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 decisions, the examiner respectfully disagrees these decisions are analogous to the current claims and determinative for the current 101 analysis. Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LI, UAB, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG, at 1 (E. D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2021) (Gilstrap, J.), Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 cases are non-precedential decisions and therefore not given weight. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims are not a mental process and could not be performed just in the human mind or with pencil and paper, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims are nothing more than a series of “mental steps” that could be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper—a subject matter that falls within the three types of abstract ideas identified in the Revised Guidance. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A] method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under [§] 101.”); see also In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[Mental processes—or processes of human thinking—standing alone are not patentable even if they have practical application.”); Gottschalk vy. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, . . . mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” (Emphasis added)). Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to 35 U.S.C. 101, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification clearly points out in at least [0061] general processors and general computer. As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a) "It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement" and "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology."
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to Berkheimer, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The current case is all of the elements in the current case are doing merely communicating or sending data back and forth and courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be routine and conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that based on the lack of any valid rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, as described below, the Examiner cannot make any such showing that the claimed elements, in combination, are well-understood, routine, or conventional, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner showed the claimed elements, in combination, are well-understood, routine, or conventional in the office action described above. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695