Detailed Action
This action is in response to the RCE filed on 09/10/2026 for the amended claims filed 08/11/2026 for application 17/499,546, in which:
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent claims.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are currently amended.
Claims 2 and 5-8 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 9-12 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/15/2026, 10/29/2025, 06/27/2025, 06/14/2022, 06/01/2022, and 10/12/2021 has been entered.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections:
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant asserts (Pages 10-11), that under Step 2A Prong Two, independent claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant supports their assertions, by noting that the present claim amendments clarify how the input variable determined by the model learning apparatus is actually utilized by the control apparatus to improve the system's ability to track a target output value while maintaining stable control. For example, claim 1 now specifically recites "the control apparatus is configured to calculate the value of the input variable v at the future time, and control the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine by inputting the calculated value of the input variable v to the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine, such that an output of the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine at the future time is closer to the target value than an output of the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine at the present time".
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections for the amended claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). The pending Claims are directed to a judicial exception due to reciting limitations which fall within the “mental processes” group and/or “mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas; where the judicial exception is unable to be directed to significantly more than the judicial exception due to the pending Claims not including additional elements that contribute to an “inventive concept”. The alleged utilization by the control apparatus with the use of an input variable to control an internal combustion engine or hybrid engine is merely inputting a calculated variable which then outputs a value. Due to the additional elements falling under MPEP 2106.05, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the specific details are discussed below within the Examiner’s Responses and 35 USC § 101 Rejections. The claims are indeed directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea; however, improvements to an abstract idea are still considered an abstract idea. More specific details are discussed below within the responses and 35 USC § 101 Rejections.
Applicant further supports their assertions (Pages 11-12), by noting Figure 4 and how it illustrates the predictive control method performed by the control device. Specifically, step S24, the model learning apparatus solves an optimal control problem to calculate an input variable v for improving the system's ability to track a target output value while maintaining stable control. More specifically, the input variable v, which is uniquely determined using the learned model, is calculated based on the current output variable y of the system, as recited in claim 1. The current output variable y is itself produced by the current input variable v, and that current input variable v has been calculated based on an output variable y at a slightly earlier point in time. Thus, in the control apparatus of claim 1, an input variable v calculated based on an output variable y at a first point in time ("at a present time") is used to control the system at a subsequent point in time ("at a future time"), thereby producing an output variable y at a still later point in time. In other words, the input variable v applied to the system at step S25 is specifically calculated so that the system output approaches the target value. Accordingly, claim 1 explicitly recites this time relationship in the limitation directed to calculating the input variable v for controlling a future output. This is a practical application because a specific machine (the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine) is controlled to achieve a specific outcome, as recited in claim 1. In other words, claim 1 is not directed to abstract mathematics alone.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office Action below within each limitation, in Step 2A Prong 1, have a details within the parentheses of why they are being evaluated as abstract ideas. Eligibility must be assessed based on the claim as a whole. When viewed as an integrated whole, the additional elements recited within the independent claim only recite performance of an abstract idea within a computer, restricting to a particular technological environment, or data gathering for the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; thus, as the additional elements fall within MPEP 2106.05 they are unable to integrate the judicial exception as they are unable to provide significantly more. The additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically). The claims are not a technical solution to a technical problem as the independent claim is merely performing abstract ideas with specific restrictions within a computer. Thus, the additional elements are not able to integrate the abstract ideas in a practical application. The claims are directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The independent claim fails to recite the steps that achieve the improvement. The pending Claims are directed to a judicial exception due to reciting limitations which fall within the “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas; where the judicial exception is unable to be directed to significantly more than the judicial exception due to the pending Claims not including additional elements that contribute to an “inventive concept”. The amended claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
MPEP 2106.05(a) recites:
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology … the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification
…
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.
Figure 4 does illustrate the predictive control method performed by the control device. Although the Claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the Claims. In terms of the “variables” they are merely calculated at different time periods (mathematical relationships between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations) and used to control an engine by merely inputting the calculated values (which is merely data gathering). The rejections follow the steps of the analysis laid out within the MPEP which was followed for the previous and current examination (see MPEP 2106). The rejection also follows the steps of the analysis as laid out in the MPEP which was followed for the previous and current examination (see MPEP 2106). Applicant fails to show how any alleged technical improvement would be provided by anything more than the judicial exception on its own. As noted in the rejection, due to the additional elements falling under MPEP 2106.05, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections for the amended claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
Applicant asserts (Page 13), that the features of claim 1 describe specifically a technical
improvement is achieved, i.e. by bringing the output variable y to approach a desired target. This is an improved control system that specifies how the result is achieved. Applicant supports these assertions by noting MPEP 2106 regarding McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-16, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016), that the "McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea". The Office action asserts that the claims' recitation of an improvement via 'increased correlation' merely describes an abstract idea, relying on MPEP 2106.0S(a) for the proposition that a claimed improvement must be reflected in the claim language itself, not merely described in the specification. However, claim 1 as quoted above clearly recites a control step, i.e. "the control apparatus is configured to calculate the value of the input variable v at the future time, and control the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine by inputting the calculated value of the input variable v to the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine, such that an output of the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine at the future time is closer to the target value than an output of the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine at the present time." Therefore, the technical improvement is specifically claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant fails to show how the claim includes components or steps that would provide the alleged improvement described in the specification or by the cited case law. By MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), "the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished". Moreover, the examiner maintains that the Claim does not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exceptions. The cited case law shows an integrated method via teaching a method in computer software for use with a computer for the rapid, efficient lip synchronization and manipulation of character facial expressions, thereby allowing for rapid, creative, and expressive animation products to be produced in a very cost effective manner. The Applicant’s claimed invention does not provide the reason for “why”/”how” the alleged improvement is found/curated via calculating different variables at different times to then control an engine. The target value is merely noted with no indication of “why”/”how” the claimed invention is significantly more than another similar invention for controlling an engine.
Applicant further asserts (Pages 13-14), that claim 1 more clearly defines the relationship between (i) measuring the output variable, (ii) calculating the control input using the learned model, and (iii) controlling the actual system based on the calculated input so that the output approaches the target value. In other words, claim 1 encompasses not only mathematical calculations but also the physical act of controlling the system and achieving improved control performance. See MPEP 2106, which states that "Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element ( or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include ... Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim." That is, a physical act of controlling the system is necessarily implemented with a machine, and is thus a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the previous and current rejections for the amended claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). Eligibility must be assessed based on the claim as a whole. When viewed as an integrated whole, the additional elements recited within the independent claim only recite performance of an abstract idea within a computer, data gathering, or restricting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; thus, as the additional elements fall within MPEP 2106.05 they are unable to integrate the judicial exception as they are unable to provide significantly more. The additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically).
Applicant asserts (Page 14), that for the reasons set forth above, claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and is thus subject matter eligible. Claims 11 and 12 recite similar features and likewise integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent claims 3, 4, and 9-10 are likewise subject matter eligible due to at least their dependency, so all § 101 rejections should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The office action establishes a proper and well- supported prima facie case as the claims are explained to be not patentable via the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility steps within MPEP 2106; thus, the additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically). The limitations are unable to provide the alleged improvement as they are currently being evaluated as either abstract idea(s) or additional elements that fall within MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, for the reasons given above and in the updated rejections below, the rejection to all claims (including claim 1 and all dependent claims) are maintained and updated as necessitated by claim amendments. Applicants’ arguments regarding the other independent and dependent claims rely upon the same assertions with respect to claim 1 and are thus likewise unpersuasive. More specific details are discussed below within the 35 USC § 101 Rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 1 recites an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, claim 1 further recites the machine comprising of:
… learn a model that shows a relationship between an input variable v input into a system and an output variable y output from the system … (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
… learn a nonlinear equation of state for predicting the output variable y by using the input variable v … (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
… learn the equation of state by using the model and an input-output data set including multiple sets of input variable data and output variable data with respect to the model, wherein the model is an equation of state including a bijective mapping Ψ that uses the input variable v as an input thereof and a bijective mapping Φ that uses the output variable y as an input thereof (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
the model is defined by an expression (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
37
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where a left side of an equal sign is a time derivative of an n-dimensional vector that indicates the output variable y, where n denotes an integer number; and in a right side of the equal sign, the input variable v is an m-dimensional vector, where m denotes an integer number, an exogenous input d is a p-dimensional vector that indicates an uncontrollable input affecting a variation of the output variable y, where p denotes an integer number, the mapping Ψ is a function that gives an m-dimensional vector by using the input variable v and the exogenous variable d as inputs thereof, the mapping is a function that gives an n-dimensional vector by using the output variable y and the exogenous variable d as inputs thereof, and a function A', a function B' and a function c' are respectively functions that give an nxn matrix, an nxm matrix, and an n-dimensional vector by using the exogenous variable d as an input thereof (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
calculate a value of the input variable v at a future time based on a value of the output variable y at a present time by using the learned equation of state, the value of the input variable v at the future time being for controlling a target value of the output variable y of the system at the future time (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
… estimate an output (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to estimate an output)
evaluate a matching degree of an estimated output with a set of the output variable data in the input-output data set (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate a matching degree between specific variables)
… calculate the value of the input variable v at the future time, and control the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine by inputting the calculated value of the input variable v to the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine, such that an output of the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine at the future time is closer to the target value than an output of the internal combustion engine or the hybrid engine at the present time (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
Claim 1 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mathematical concepts” and “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited consist of:
A control apparatus that is an in-vehicle electronic control unit configured to control a system including an internal combustion engine or a hybrid engine in a vehicle, the control apparatus comprising: (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
a model learning apparatus configured to … the model learning apparatus comprising: (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
a storage that stores a model used to … (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
a processor programmed to … (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
the storage stores in advance an input-output data set including multiple sets of input variable data and output variable data with respect to the model expressed by the expression (1) (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
give a set of the input variable data in the input-output data set to the model and … (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
update a learning parameter of the model according to a result of the evaluation, so as to learn the equation of state (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
the control apparatus outputs the calculated input variable v to the system and controls the system (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
the input variable v is at least one of an accelerator position, a speed of the vehicle, and an acceleration of the vehicle as the input variable in the case of the internal combustion engine, or the input variable v is at least one of an accelerator position, an operation amount of a brake and an acceleration of the vehicle in the case of the hybrid engine, the output variable y is at least one of an internal combustion engine speed, an emission amount of carbon dioxide, and an emission amount of hydrocarbons in the case of the internal combustion engine, or the output variable y is at least one of an output torque, an output value of a motor, a power storage amount of a battery, and a limiting value of the power storage amount in the case of the hybrid engine (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
the control apparatus configured to … (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional elements a-e, g, and j are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional elements f and h falls within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Additional element i is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 3:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 3 recites the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 1 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, claim 3 further recites the machine comprising of wherein in the expression (1), the mapping Ψ is defined as an internal variable u and the mapping Φ is defined as an internal variable x, and the processor learns the equation of state defined by an expression (2) to an expression (4):
PNG
media_image2.png
93
285
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations). Claim 3 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no new additional elements recited.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 4 recites the apparatus of Claim 3. Claim 3 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, claim 4 further recites the machine comprising of wherein the mapping Ψ is defined by an expression (5) to an expression (8):
PNG
media_image3.png
126
337
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the mapping Φ is defined by an expression (9) to an expression (12):
PNG
media_image4.png
134
311
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where i denotes a layer number in a multilayer neural network; each of LΨ and LΦ denotes number of layers in the multilayer neural network; each of WΨ and WΦ denotes a weight, each of bΨ and bΦ denotes a bias; and each of ΨΨ and ΦΦ is an activation function and denotes an arbitrary bijective mapping that gives an output of an identical dimension with a dimension of an input thereof (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations). Claim 4 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no new additional elements recited.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 9:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent claim 9 recites the apparatus of claim 3. Claim 3 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, claim 9 further recites the machine comprising of learn an equation of state expressed by an expression (13) to an expression (15) obtained by discretizing the equation (2) to the equation (4) by a time step at a discrete time k:
PNG
media_image5.png
64
277
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
31
373
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations). Claim 9 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no new additional elements recited.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 10:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 10 recites the apparatus of Claim 9. Claim 9 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, claim 10 further recites the machine comprising of determine a target value of the input variable v corresponding to a target value of the output variable y (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine a target value of an input variable corresponding to another target variable of an output variable). Claim 10 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the new sole additional element recited consists of the processor solves an optimal control problem using the equation of state learned by the processor, and the processor solves an optimal control problem using the equation of state expressed by the expression (13) to the expression (15) and learned by the processor (to perform a mathematical process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 incorporates substantively all the limitations of claim 1 in a model learning method of learning a model (thus, a method) and further recites implemented with an in-vehicle electronic control unit that shows a relationship between an input variable v input into a system and an output variable y output from the system, the system including an internal combustion engine or a hybrid engine, in a vehicle, the model learning method comprising: … a process of … obtaining… using an optimum value of the input variable v to improve followability of an output from the system to a target value, while stably controlling the system … outputting the calculated input variable v to the system … (these claim limitations appear to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)), and does not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a particular application; thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible as it does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself); thus, claim 11 is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 incorporates substantively all the limitations of claim 1 in a non-transitory computer -readable storage medium (thus, a manufacture) and further recites that comprises and stores a program that causes an information processing apparatus to … including an internal combustion engine, a hybrid engine, or a powertrain in a vehicle … the program causing the information processing apparatus to perform … a function of… obtaining … using an optimum value of the input variable v to improve followability of an output from the system to a target value, while stably controlling the system … outputting the calculated input variable v to the system … (these claim limitations appear to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)), and does not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a particular application; thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible as it does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself); thus, claim 12 is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM RAHMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1646. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/MICHAEL H HOANG/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
