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 .
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on March 2nd, 2026, amended claims 1 and 6 are entered. Claims 1, 3-17, 19, and 45-47 are current pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered. The objections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's arguments, filed on March 2nd, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained, and further clarified, in view of the amendments.
At Pgs. 8-9 of the Reply, Applicant argues that “[t]he examiner has analogized the claimed method to actions by a human. ‘It is certainly possible for a clinician to look at a print out and make diagnostic decisions.’ However, this analogy fails. The applicant has not claimed looking at a print out and making a diagnosis. What the applicant has claimed, e.g., in claim 1, is receiving a first pulse of heart rate data and a second pulse of heart rate data from one or more optical sensors of a wearable physiological monitor worn by a user during a window corresponding to the characteristic pulse shape; encoding the first pulse of heart rate data and the second pulse of heart rate data into the latent space with an autoencoder, and measuring a distance between the pulses in the n-dimensional space”.
Examiner would like to clarify that the previous analogy of “a clinician to look[ing] at a print out and mak[ing] diagnostic decisions” was made in efforts to explain that the abstract idea was being grouped as a mental process, not to directly equate one situation to the other. Also, the step of “receiving a first pulse of heart rate data and a second pulse of heart rate data from one or more optical sensors of a wearable physiological monitor worn by a user during a window corresponding to the characteristic pulse shape” is categorized as insignificant extra-solution activity, in the form of data-gathering, and the steps of “encoding the first pulse of heart rate data and the second pulse of heart rate data into the latent space with an autoencoder” and “measuring a distance between the pulses in the n-dimensional space” are part of the abstract idea. Furthermore, although the Applicant refers to the step as “measuring” a distance in their arguments, Examiner notes that the current claims actually use the term “calculating” a distance.
At Pg. 9 of the Reply, Applicant argues that “[t]his novel use of an autoencoder to analyze heart rate pulses is more than a passing distinction. It provides several meaningful advances in physiological monitoring, resulting in an improved monitoring device”, further citing [0145] of the U.S. Patent Application Publication, as well as [0149] and [0153] of the Applicant’s Specification. The Examiner would like to emphasize that no particular improvements are being claimed, and that the claims are significantly broader than the Specification.
Regardless, “[t]he full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification).” MPEP 2106.05(a). “That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” Id.
“[I]n McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea.” MPEP 2106.05 (a). There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. Unlike McRO, the claimed system invokes a computer as a tool to perform a mathematical concept and/or mental process.
The processor, units, and memory perform the same with or without the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, it is unclear how the abstract idea can improve the standard functions of the additional elements.
At Pg. 10 of the Reply, Applicant argues that “[t]he claims have been amended to clarify the technical features and advantages of the applicant's approach to pulse wave analysis. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to emphasize the use of a local autoencoder stored on a wearable device, and now recites ‘storing the autoencoder in a memory of a wearable physiological monitor worn by a user’”.
However, the addition of the limitation “storing the autoencoder in a memory of a wearable physiological monitor worn by a user” fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it recites mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant argues that “[c]laim 6 has been amended to emphasize the acquisition of high-speed, high-resolution data and concurrent real-time display of an objective score calculated on the basis thereof”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the Applicant has amended the claims to recite “displaying the at least one objective measure of cardiovascular condition to the user continuously in real-time with a recommendation to the user updated at one or more specific time periods based on the at least one objective measure of cardiovascular condition”, there is no recitation of “high-speed” or “high-resolution” in the limitations of claim 6.
Moreover, the Examiner notes that it is not the “determining” step that is being done “continuously in real-time”, but the “displaying” step. The “displaying” step is not part of the abstract idea and is considered data-outputting, which is insignificant, extra-solution activity. “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978)” MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the Examiner would like to clarify that everything occurs in “real-time”, as there is no other standard of time that is being referred to. It appears that the Applicant may be equating “real-time” to “high-speed”, but those two terms are not equivalent to each another.
Further at Pg. 10 of the Reply, Applicant argues that “[w]ith respect to McCro, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., it is unclear why ‘a specific, unconventional set of rules to automate a process’ is patent eligible in McCro, but a specific, unconventional autoencoder and latent space to extract inferences from optical pulse data is not patentable ineligible in the applicant's case.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to clarify that the claims of the instant application fail to recite a specific, unconventional set of rules to automate a process similar to that of McRO. The specific properties of the applicant’s latent space are still part of the abstract idea, and the “autoencoder” is an additional element that simply implements the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The additional element of an “autoencoder” fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Examiner further notes that even newly discovered abstract ideas are considered abstract. The Court recognized that “a novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth” might be patentable. Id., at 67 (quoting Mackay Radio, 306 U. S., at 94). But it held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle. For the mathematical formula had “no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer.” Benson, supra, at 71. Hence the claim (like the claims before us) was overly broad; it did not differ significantly from a claim that just said “apply the algorithm.” See Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012).
Thus, the claimed steps do not improve the functioning of the data acquisition or the storing in the database. “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” MPEP 2106.05(a). The data acquisition and the database storage appear to perform the same with or without the abstract idea. Therefore, any improvement resides solely within the abstract idea.
Lastly at Pg. 10 of the Reply, Applicant argues that “[w]ith respect to Enfish, it is unclear why claims that ‘provided an improvement in the way a computer operated’ are patent eligible in Enfish but claims that provide an improvement in the way a physiological monitor operates are ineligible in the applicant's case.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Enfish recited patent eligible subject matter because the claims provided an improvement in the way a computer operated (i.e., data storage and retrieval). Conversely, the claims of the instant application recite analyzing pulse data to make a diagnosis. Therefore, Enfish is not relevant or analogous to the current claims.
At Pgs. 10-11 of the Reply, Applicant argues that “while the Office correctly notes that a ‘judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement,’ this omits the further MPEP provision that the ‘improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements,’ which is why ‘it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.’ In the present case, the applicant has devised a technical solution-a specially trained autoencoder and latent space-to the technical problem of processing a stream of heart rate pulses in order to provide human-interpretable results.”
Examiner would like to clarify that the claim has been analyzed as a whole, and that the additional elements have been considered, both individually and in combination. However, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 6 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The additional element of a “specially trained autoencoder” fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the Examiner would like to clarify that the “latent space” is not being considered an additional element; rather, it is part of the abstract idea.
When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1, 3-17, 19, and 45-47 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-17, 19, and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Each of Claims 1, 3-17, 19, and 45-47 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3-5, and 45 recite a computer program product. Thus, the claims are directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 6-17, 19, and 46-47 recite a method. Thus, the claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1, 3-17, 19, and 45-47 recites at least one step or instruction for creating, encoding, calculating, and determining which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1, 3-17, 19, and 45-47 recites an abstract idea, which have specifically been underlined below for clarity.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
acquiring pulse data including a plurality of heart pulse samples labelled with indicia of cardiovascular condition;
creating a latent space using the pulse data based on one or more features of a characteristic pulse shape in the pulse data by training an autoencoder of a neural network with the one or more computing devices to encode features of the plurality of heart pulse samples into to the latent space, and wherein a distance in an n-dimensional space of the latent space differentiates among the plurality of heart pulse samples based upon at least one objective measure of cardiovascular condition;
storing the autoencoder in a memory of a wearable physiological monitor worn by a user;
receiving a first pulse of heart rate data and a second pulse of heart rate data from one or more optical sensors of the wearable physiological monitor during a window corresponding to the characteristic pulse shape;
encoding the first pulse of heart rate data and the second pulse of heart rate data into the latent space with the autoencoder;
calculating a first distance within the latent space between the first pulse of heart rate data and the second pulse of heart rate data;
determining the at least one objective measure of cardiovascular condition based on the first distance; and
displaying the at least one objective measure of cardiovascular condition to the user with a recommendation to the user based on the at least one objective measure of cardiovascular condition.
Specifically, Claim 6 recites:
capturing a plurality of heart pulse samples having a characteristic pulse shape, the plurality of heart pulse samples labelled with indicia of cardiovascular condition;
creating a latent space for one or more features of the characteristic pulse shape by training an autoencoder of a neural network on the plurality of heart pulse samples to encode features of the plurality of heart pulse samples in the latent space, wherein a distance in an n-dimensional space of the latent space differentiates among the plurality of heart pulse samples based upon at least one objective measure of cardiovascular condition;
receiving a first pulse of physiological data from one or more optical sensors of a wearable physiological monitor worn by a user during a window corresponding to the characteristic pulse shape, the first pulse of physiological data including light sampled continuously at a rate of at least 50 Hz;
receiving a second pulse of physiological data;
with a processor, encoding the first pulse of physiological data and the second pulse of physiological data with the autoencoder into the latent space, calculating a first distance within the latent space between the first pulse of physiological data and the second pulse of physiological data, and determining the at least one objective measure of cardiovascular condition for the user based on the first distance; and
displaying the at least one objective measure of cardiovascular condition to the user continuously in real-time with a recommendation to the user updated at one or more specific time periods based on the at least one objective measure of cardiovascular condition.
The above underlined claim limitations constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019.
“A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ….” October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, II. A. i. “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at II. A. ii. “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at II. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claimed steps of creating, encoding, calculating, and determining recite a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). The step of “encoding the first pulse of heart rate data and the second pulse of heart rate data into the latent space” in independent Claim 1 is a mathematical relationship, that is accomplished by training an autoencoder, as described in [00136] of the Applicant’s Specification. The method further includes storing the autoencoder and the latent space as a machine learning model, as described in [00137] of the Applicant’s Specification. Referring to paragraph [00140] of the Specification, the autoencoder may output a latent space with generated features based on pulse samples in order to determine the value of the objective measure for a pulse sample.
The claimed steps of creating, encoding, calculating, and determining can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas. “[T]he ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. The pending claims merely recite steps for calculation that include observations, evaluations, and judgments.
The steps of acquiring and receiving data are considered data-gathering, and the step of displaying is considered data-outputting, which are both categorized as extra-solution activity and does not add significantly more to the abstract ideas identified, as it merely specifies the nature of the data which is exploited in the steps encompassing a mental process. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The collected data is manipulated by the steps of creating, encoding, calculating, and determining, which further recite a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), which is then outputted to display the results to the user. The Applicant’s Specification discloses that algorithms, thresholds, and summation/normalization are all utilized to compute mathematical relationships in order to calculate an objective measure, which all fall under mathematical concepts.
Dependent claims 3-5, 7-17, 19, and 45-47 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 6 (and their respective dependent Claims 3-5, 7-17, 19, and 45-47) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a “computer program product comprising executable code”, a “non-transitory computer readable medium”, “one or more computing devices”, an “autoencoder of a neural network”, a “memory”, a “wearable physiological monitor”, “one or more optical sensors” in independent claim 1; an “autoencoder”, “one or more optical sensors of a wearable physiological monitor”, a “processor” in independent claim 6; a “server”, a “data network” in dependent claim 7; a “photoplethysmography monitor” in dependent claim 10; and an “autoencoder network” in dependent claim 19 are generically recited elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 6 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., computing device as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 6 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 6 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1, 3-17, 19, and 45-47 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a “computer program product comprising executable code”, a “non-transitory computer readable medium”, “one or more computing devices”, an “autoencoder of a neural network”, a “memory”, a “wearable physiological monitor”, “one or more optical sensors” in independent claim 1; an “autoencoder”, “one or more optical sensors of a wearable physiological monitor”, a “processor” in independent claim 6; a “server”, a “data network” in dependent claim 7; a “photoplethysmography monitor” in dependent claim 10; and an “autoencoder network” in dependent claim 19. The above-identified additional elements of a “wearable physiological monitor”, “one or more optical sensors”, and a “photoplethysmography monitor” are categorized under data-gathering, which is extra-solution activity and does not add significantly more to the identified abstract idea. The rest of the additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The Applicant’s specification discloses that the processor(s) (according to paragraphs [0044]-[0048] and [0163]-[0174]) comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions (e.g. creating, encoding, calculating, and determining) and that the encoder (according to paragraphs [0136]-[0137]) may be “any machine learning model that encodes pulse shapes to a latent space”, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “computing device” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the computing device. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1, 3-17, 19, and 45-47 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. 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. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the computer program product and method of Claims 1, 3-17, 19, and 45-47 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1, 3-17, 19, and 45-47 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 6 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1, 3-17, 19, and 45-47 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1, 3-17, 19, and 45-47 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1, 3-17, 19, and 45-47 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 CHANEL J YOON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2695. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 571-272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANEL J YOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791