DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 10/28/2021 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/21/2025 has been entered.
a. Claims 1, 6, 11-12, 14-18, 22 are amended
b. Claims 13, 19-21, 23 are cancelled
c. Claims 25 are new
Overall, Claims 1-12, 14-18, 22, 24-25 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-12, 14-18, 22, 24-25 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application) without significantly more.
Per Step 1 and Step 2A of the multi-step eligibility analysis, independent Claim 1, Claim 11 and Claim 16 and the therefrom dependent claims are directed respectively to a system, to a computer implemented method and to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium. Thus, on its face, each such independent claim and the therefrom dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
However, Claim 1, (which is representative of Claims 11, 16) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites: determine that (i) a first portion of the transaction data satisfies a first portion of the rules data associated with a first rule and with data activity that is suspicious and (ii) a second portion of the transaction data satisfies the first portion of the rules data and a second portion of the rules data associated with a second rule associated with data activity that is not suspicious and comprising the rule suspension data, wherein the first portion of the transaction data is associated with one or more users initiating transactions using one or more user computing devices, the one or more users having a first amount of computer resources dedicated thereto for detecting suspect data; generate one or more alerts including a recommendation associated with detecting suspect data; transmit the one or more alerts to the one or more user computing devices; monitoring future transaction data associated with users; override first rule based upon the second rule being satisfied; suspend sending at least one alert to at least one customer computing device associated with the second portion of the transaction data based upon the second rule being satisfied.
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the drafted process is comparable to a sales activities or behaviors, business relationships process, i.e. a process aimed at detecting suspect transaction activity (i.e. commercial activity) over a computer network and suspending the offending transaction portion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations of agreements in form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g. agreements in form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Alternatively, and/or in addition, the limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations mentally or manually, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or manually by a human. For example, “determine that (i) a first portion of the transaction data satisfies a first portion of the rules data associated with a first rule and with data activity that is suspicious and (ii) a second portion of the transaction data satisfies the first portion of the rules data and a second portion of the rules data associated with a second rule associated with data activity that is not suspicious and comprising the rule suspension data, wherein the first portion of the transaction data is associated with one or more users initiating transactions using one or more user computing devices, the one or more users having a first amount of computer resources dedicated thereto for detecting suspect data”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally making the determination. Further, “generate one or more alerts including a recommendation associated with detecting suspect activity”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally issuing alerts. Further, “transmit the one or more alerts to one or more user computing devices”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally transmitting the alerts. Further, “monitoring future transaction data associated with users”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally monitoring future transactions. Further, “; override first rule based upon the second rule being satisfied”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally conditionally overriding a rule. Finally, “suspend sending at least one alert to at least one customer computing device associated with the second portion of the transaction data based upon the second portion of the transaction data satisfying the second portion of the rules data”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally suspending the offending transaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, (A) remaining elements of the independent claims are directed to: input a query for transactions data over a period of time; receive transaction data from the processing cube, wherein the transaction data is associated with a plurality of processed transactions processed over the payment processing network and over the first period of time; store the rules data in the database server, the rules data comprising (i) at least one indicator of suspect data, the suspect data being indicative that a party associated with the suspect data is involved in money laundering and (ii) rule suspension data associated with data that satisfies the at least one indicator of suspect data activity and is not suspect data.
When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general processing, receipt and transmission claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) Additional remaining claim elements are: the transaction data; the first portion of the transaction data; the alerts; the computing devices. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, they do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
(C) Finally, recited computing elements, i.e. computing system; processor, memory, a transaction data warehouse, a processing data cube, a data base, are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing elements performing generic computer functions, like obtaining data, interpreting the obtained data and providing results, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, these additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because: (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
(A) Step 2B of the eligibility analysis for the independent claims concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, remaining elements of the independent claims are directed to: input a query for transactions data over a period of time; input a query for transactions data over a period of time; receive transaction data from the processing cube, wherein the transaction data is associated with a plurality of processed transactions processed over the payment processing network and over the first period of time; store the rules data in the database server, the rules data comprising (i) at least one indicator of suspect data, the suspect data being indicative that a party associated with the suspect data is involved in money laundering and (ii) rule suspension data associated with data that satisfies the at least one indicator of suspect data activity and is not suspect data.
When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general processing, receipt and transmission claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) Furthermore, additional remaining elements of the independent claims contain descriptive limitations explaining the nature, structure and/or content of: the transaction data; the first portion of the transaction data; the alerts; the computing devices. However, these claim elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claimed invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
(C) Finally, the recited computing elements of the independent claims are: computing system; processor, memory, a transaction data warehouse, a processing data cube, a data base. When considered individually, these additional claim elements serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. They do not constitute “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”. (MPEP 2106.05(a)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of any of these areas.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to significantly more, to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination.
Dependent Claim 2 (which is representative of claims 12, 17) is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: determine a second portion of the rules data to associated with a second portion of the transaction data; determine whether the second portion of the transaction data complies with the second portion of the rules data by analyzing the second portion of the transaction data and the second portion of the rules data; and generate a suspect activity alert message upon determining the second portion of the transaction data does not comply with the second portion of the rules data. These limitations are similar in scope to the independent claim limitations analyzed in Step 2A Prong One and found to be directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 4 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: generate a suspect activity alert message if the first portion of the transaction data indicates activity above the at least one suspect activity threshold. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general processing, receipt and transmission claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 5 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: generate a suspect activity alert message if the first portion of the transaction data indicates activity below the at least one suspect activity threshold. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general processing, receipt and transmission claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 6 (which is representative of Claims 14) is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: receive feedback data comprising an indication of whether the one or more alerts identified money laundering. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general processing, receipt and transmission claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 7 (which is representative of Claims 15) is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: modify the rules data based on the feedback data. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general processing, receipt and transmission claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 8 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: determine whether the first portion of the transaction data includes unusual patterns indicative of money laundering. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general processing, receipt and transmission claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 9 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: determine whether the first portion of the transaction data includes changes in transaction behavior indicative of money laundering. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general processing, receipt and transmission claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 10 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: determine whether the first portion of the transaction data includes high risk customers indicative of money laundering. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general processing, receipt and transmission claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 22 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: detecting the suspect activity by one or more customers associated with the one or more customer computing devices. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general processing, receipt and transmission claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 25 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: receive feedback data associated with whether or not the one or more alerts transmitted to the one or more user computing devices identified suspect data; and update the rules data based upon the feedback data. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general processing, receipt and transmission claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 3 (which is representative of Claim 18) and claim 24 are not directed to any abstract ideas and are not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these recited claims provide further descriptive limitations of elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of: the rules data, the user. However, these elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules, as disclosed in the application specification in fig5, fig6 and [0073]-[0083], including among others: processor; memory; input; media output; comm. Interface; storage interface.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, Claims 1-12, 14-18, 22, 24-25 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210357927 A1 Kita; David Ben et al. TRANSACTION AUTHENTICATION SYSTEM AND RELATED METHODS - Methods and systems are provided authenticating transactions on a token contract. A transaction rule compliance engine that utilizes stored user information to ensure that transactions of tokens associated with the token contract comply with defined ruleset. A curation system maintains the stored user information on the token contract or elsewhere on the blockchain system. The disclosure relates more particularly to apparatus and techniques for authentication systems interacting with blockchain networks to effect control over blockchain transactions that might be executed by a blockchain network or stored on a blockchain ledger.
US 20170109837 A1 Loganathan; Ravi et al. KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER ALERT SYSTEMS AND METHODS - Transaction data is analyzed according to one or more transaction rules to identify accounts that are suspected of being used for activity such as money laundering. The methods may be performed on an inquiry basis for ad hoc investigation of transaction activity relating to one or more particular account owners or other entities, or may be performed on an ongoing basis for monitoring transaction activity of one or more account owners or other entities for suspicious activity.
US 20130143670 A1 JUNKIN; William H. et al. REGULATED GAME ASSET DRIVEN ECONOMY - A game asset driven economy and managing thereof are disclosed. The economic value of a game asset that has a utility in a game is estimated. The game asset can be traded in the game asset driven economy at a market price determined based on the estimated economic value of the game asset.
US 7603358 B1 Anderson; Randall Marvin et al. Compliance rules analytics engine - The present invention relates to compliance rules analytics systems and methods for facilitating compliance, such as the compliance of an investment portfolio or a set of investment portfolios, with a rule or a set of rules. The present invention relates to rule-based systems, e.g., portfolio compliance rule-based systems. Portfolio compliance is a unique challenge because it requires maintenance of potentially millions of aggregations with fast impact analysis of any proposed transaction set. An aggregation is a combination of positions, e.g., positions owned or controlled by a single trader or group of traders, that one can use to ensure compliance with rules such as regulations. A position is the amount of a security either owned (which constitutes a long position) or borrowed (which constitutes a short position).
US 20090112775 A1 CHIULLI; ALLAN T. et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ASSIGNING RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRADE ORDER EXECUTION - An embodiment of the present invention provides a system and method for a sponsoring organization to: (1) utilize a rules-based computer system to capture trade orders from sub-advisors (money management firms) in order to implement a pre trade compliance review process, thereby enabling the sponsoring organization to prevent the execution of trade orders by a sub advisor that violates securities laws and/or account restrictions; and (2) determine and assign, based on expected market impact of a trade order to buy or sell securities, whether responsibility (discretion over the decisions related to how, when and with whom a trade order is executed) for executing the trade order is assigned to the money management firm for an investment portfolio or to the sponsoring organization of that portfolio. Trade orders are categorized in real-time as "high touch" (significant effort and market impact) or "low touch" (insignificant effort and market impact).
US 20080027860 A1 Mullen; Matthew James et al. Compliance Control In A Card Based Program - An analysis system processes financial transactions data for compliance with a payment program, such that the processing involves receiving data relating to a set of financial transactions that have been authorized by a payment processing system, and determining if one or more of the authorized financial transactions will be subjected to further processing, wherein the further processing operates on the received data and identifies authorized financial transactions that may be out of compliance with transaction rules of the payment program.
US 20050262008 A1 Cullen, Andrew A. III et al. Method of and system for consultant re-seller business information transfer - A computer system for storing of business information to be transferred from a consultant to a buyer includes a database system for maintaining configurable business information organized into a plurality of information components and a server connected to the database system and connectable to the buyer and the consultant. The server is operable to receive a selection of an information component and configure the information component in accordance with consultant instructions. The configuration includes establishing a data value library and creating an information setting the server is operable to integrate the information setting into at least one work flow entity and integrate the at least one work flow entity into a process design. This Abstract is provided to comply with rules requiring an Abstract that allows a searcher or other reader to quickly ascertain subject matter of the technical disclosure. This Abstract is submitted with the understanding that it will not be used to interpret or limit the scope or meaning of the claims. 37 CFR 1.72(b).
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “Applicant respectfully disagrees and respectfully submits that the present claims are directed to technical improvements in the technical field of suspect activity detection and allocation of computer resources in a computer network, as explained below in further detail.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Providing a user with promotions information along navigation information is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional limitations,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Further Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1, as representative example, is directed to a specific computing system with specific components (e.g., at least one processor, a transaction data warehouse including a processing data cube, a database server, and at least one memory) that provide the technical improvements described below in further detail.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The claims of the instant application are not directed to “a specific computing system.” The claims are directed to a process aimed at detecting suspect transaction activity (i.e. commercial activity) over a computer network and suspending the offending transaction portion. The “specific computing system” is only a recitation of tools utilized to implement the recited process.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Additionally, the August 4, 2025 USPTO Memo (Memo) explains that "Examiners are reminded not to expand [the mental process grouping] in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind." While the Office Action asserts that "Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or manually by a human"”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action doers not make such an allegation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1 is directed to computer-specific activity and not organizing human activity or limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, “computer-specific activity” is not an eligibility criterion (see MPEP 2106.04-07)
Second, see response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The Office Action at Pages 4-5 alleges that any alleged judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Thus, in this case, "a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and ... the claim reflects the asserted improvement," which is sufficient to establish a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(a).”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims are patent-eligible under Step 2A and requests that the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection be withdrawn.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response here above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant respectfully submits that it is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art at least to perform the steps of Claim 1 recited above.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action does not make such an allegation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The rejection is maintained, necessitated by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698