DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 12 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 13 and 14 are cancelled.
Claims 2, 5 – 12 and 15-21 are currently pending.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 2, 5 – 12 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 2 and 5 - 11 are drawn to a method.
Claims 12 and 15 – 21 are drawn to an apparatus.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 12 and 15 – 21 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
12. (Currently Amended) An apparatus for predicting revenue for premiere and holdover box events by a plurality of players using distinct computing devices connected to at least one computer over a network, the at least one computer having at least one processor; communication circuitry; and memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions are executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
receive from each distinct computing devices first predictions for variables associated with the box office events wherein first predictions are received from a plurality of unregistered players of the plurality of players and from a plurality of registered players of the plurality of players;;
automatically generate a unique identifier for the distinct computing devices;
receive from the each distinct computing devices second predictions for the variables associated with the box office events wherein second predictions are received from a plurality of unregistered players of the plurality of players and from a plurality of registered players of the plurality of players;
determine an average of predictions for the variables associated with the box office events;
after conclusion of box office events, transmit via the communication circuitry results of the first and second predictions to the distinct computing device;
determine a score based on comparison of the results of the box office events and the first and second predictions; and
assign at least one prize to the distinct computing device based on the determined score, wherein only registered of the plurality of players are permitted to receive the at least one prize, wherein the variables are box office revenue for the box office events.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent the managing interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). For example, the underlined limitations are directed towards the rules for conducting a game wherein users or players (registered and unregistered) make first and second predictions regarding how much revenue a film event will produce, averaging the predictions, rules for scoring the users prediction and the awarding of a prize in accordance the users achieved score.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): using distinct computing devices connected to a computer over network, processors, circuitry, and memory. The claims further require receiving and transmitting data (i.e. predictions) to and from computing devices and additionally displaying data on computing devices.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed, processors, circuitry, memory and computing devices. Applicant has claimed computer processors, memory, circuitry, communication networks, computing devices . Applicant has also claimed readable media. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
The client devices 113 may include, without limitation, a mobile phone, PDA, pocket PC, personal computer, as well as any special or general purpose client device, such as a slot machine, a video poker machine, video or computer-based versions of table games, e.g., roulette, blackjack, etc. As such, the client device 113 preferably includes a processor122, a memory 123, a display 125, such as a CRT or an LCD monitor, for displaying information and/or graphics associated with the services provided by the system100, and at least one input device, such as a mouse, a touch-sensitive pad, a pointer, a stylus, a trackball, a button, e.g., alphanumeric, a scroll wheel, a touch-sensitive monitor, etc., or a combination thereof, for users to enter commands and/or information relevant to the system's services. With the general purpose type client devices 113, such as the PC or PDA, users may access the services provided by the system 100, e.g., the remote computer 118, with a browser or any other generic application, or with special purpose software designed specifically for accessing and providing the services disclosed herein. (Specification page 3:25-4:7)
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Cuddy et al (US 2019/0156630) establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0037] The wager-based elect EGM is well known in the art and offers players an opportunity to place a wager using cash or a cash equivalent in return for an opportunity to receive a cash or cash equivalent award calculated according to posted odds based on a random gaming outcome. EGMs are highly specialized computing and electromechanical devices comprising sophisticated anti-tampering and fraud monitoring devices with comprehensive security means embedded throughout each of the EGM's various subsystems to ensure operation of the machine in a manner consistent with the design of the game(s) it is configured to provide in compliance with all applicable gaming laws and regulations of the jurisdiction in which it is licensed. Due to the fact that EGMs may accept and dispense large quantities of cash or cash equivalents, security is paramount in their design and operation. Although EGMs comprise certain components common to conventional computing components, such as processors, memories, and displays, it should not be construed in any manner as a conventional computing device since it is clearly not configured to perform, and is incapable of performing, many of the routine data manipulation tasks for which conventional computing devices have become ubiquitous. Instead, an EGM is a specifically selected combination of hardware components configured to perform very high-level specialized functions and only a limited subset of conventional computing tasks as a necessary component of its specialized and highly secured wagering game operation. The considerably higher operational standards imposed upon EGMs clearly exceed the scope of conventional computing devices and confers subject matter eligibility upon the EGM and its associated hardware, firmware, and software, including the system and methods disclosed herein.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 and 12 and respective dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 12 recite new limitations of “determine an average of predictions for the variables associated with the box office events”. However it is not clear as to what predictions are being used to determine this average. The claims recite explicitly the use of first predictions and second predictions. However, the it is not clear from the recitation of “determine an average of predictions for the variables…” which predictions are actually being referenced to determine the average. Are the predictions being referenced, the first predictions, the second predictions or both the first and second predictions. The metes and bound of the claims cannot be determined in view of the claims.
Claims 2 and 12 recite new limitations “…wherein first predictions are received…” and “…wherein second predictions are received…” However the claims earlier already recite earlier in the claim limitation “receive from the distinct computing devices of the plurality of players first predictions for variables associated with the box office events…” and “receive from the distinct computing devices second predictions for the variables associated with the box office events,”. It is not clear if the second recitation of “first” and “second” predictions are the earlier referenced first and second predictions or a different set of “first” and “second” predictions. Clarification is needed.
The Examiner notes that the dependent claims inherent the same issues with respect to “first and second predictions. Specifically claims 5, 8, 10, 11, 15, 18, 20 and 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2, 7 – 10, 12 and 17 – 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walker et al (US 5,779,549) in view of Asher (US 2005/0181862) in view of Walker et al (US 2009/0291736) (hereinafter “Walker ‘736”) in view of Bates et al “The Combination of Forecasts”, 1969.
As per claim 2, Walker discloses:
receive from the distinct computing devices of the plurality of players, first predictions for variables associated with … events wherein first predictions are ; (Walker discloses a multiplayer game tournament system that is operated upon a system comprising a central controller #102 and a plurality of distinct I/O devices #104, #106 (Walker Fig 1, 5:9 – 31) wherein the users operating the I/O device are able to play a prediction game wherein they make predictions about a weather/temperature events occurring in a group of cities (Walker 11:15 – 29). Walker discloses a that a user makes a prediction that comprises multiple variable such as selecting 5 cities and an hour at which their temperature prediction is to be assessed)
automatically generate a unique identifier for the distinct computing devices: (Walker disclose the automatic generation of a unique identifier that is associated with player using the I/O device wherein the identifier is assigned by the controller) (Walker 6:21 – 28)
receiving from the distinct computing devices second predictions for the variables associated with the … events; (Walker discloses each player making multiple predictions (i.e. first and second). Walker discloses a that a user makes a prediction that comprises multiple variable such as selecting 5 cities and an hour at which their temperature prediction is to be assessed) (Walker 11:15 – 29)
after conclusion of the … events, calculate and transmit results of the first and second predictions to the distinct computing devices; (Walker discloses “The process steps 208, as shown in FIG. 6, for awarding a player a prize include the steps of the central controller accessing 450 the tournament database to retrieve the pre-established performance levels for the awarding of prizes. The central controller reviews 452 the performance of each player relative to the established performance requirements for the awarding of prizes. Preferably, the central controller updates 454 the winning player's database records to reflect that awards have been allocated to them. The central controller would then arrange for distribution 456 of the prize or prizes. This distribution process can be conducted through online or off-line methods.”) Walker 7:61 – 8:5)
determining a score based on comparison of the results of the … events and the first and second predictions; and (Walker discloses: Prizes awarded might be $100 for the player getting the top score, $50 for the player with the second highest score, and $25 for the third highest score. Alternatively, top scores could receive free entry fees to future tournaments, or points which may be accumulated and converted later into prizes. Although prizes are typically monetary in nature, prizes such as recognition may be equally appropriate. The recognition of being able to advance from one game session to the next game session can also be considered a prize.) (Walker 8:14 – 22)
assign at least one prize to the distinct computing devices based on the determined score, …, wherein the variables are … events. (Walker 8:14 – 22)
Walker fails to disclose that the variables are associated with box office events or that the variables are “…box office revenue for the box office…” events. Walker further fails to specifically disclose:
“…wherein first predictions are received from a plurality of unregistered players of the plurality of players and from a plurality of registered players of the plurality of players”
“wherein second predictions are received from a plurality of unregistered players of the plurality of players and from a plurality of registered players of the plurality of players;
“determine an average of predictions for the variables associated with the box office events;”
“…wherein only registered of the plurality of players are permitted to receive the at least one prize…”
However in a similar field of endeavor wherein players make predictions, Asher discloses a game system wherein players may make predictions wherein the prediction are regarding holdover events such as movie box office revenue predictions. (Asher 0019).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Walker in view of Asher to provide game wherein players wager upon variables for events that are based on holdover events such as movie or box office revenue predictions as this would attract a wide variety of players such as movie buffs who may be interested in wagering on various types of game events related to films or movies.
In a similar field of endeavor, that of a playing a game for financial prizes, Walker ‘736 discloses a game system wherein player that are able to win prize packages only if they register with the player tracking program (Walker ‘736, 0075). Thus, Walker ‘736 discloses a game wherein both register and unregistered player are able to engage in a game event that comprises a random event
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Walker in view of Walker ‘736 in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way by mean so restricting certain prizes to only players that register for a gaming service. This would provide an incentive to encourage players who may be reticent to registering for a gaming service to go ahead and register in order to be in the running for prizes.
In a similar field of endeavor wherein predictions or forecasts are made, Bates teaches that “Before the discussion of different ways in which forecasts could be combined, an empirical justification is given by making a crude combination of two forecasts. The forecasts chosen were of the international airline passenger data for which (amongst others) Brown, and Box and Jenkins have made monthly forecasts for one period ahead. The forecasts are published in an article by Barnard,1 who says, "the forecasting methods ... developed by Professor Box ... and Dr. (now Professor) Jenkins . . . have proved . . . so successful . . . that we are now searching for processes . . . (for which) it is possible to find alternative methods which forecast better". The combination illustrated is the arithmetic mean of the two individual forecasts, with Table 1 giving the details for 1953” (Bates 451 – 452)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Walker in view of Bates to use a known mathematical technique to average multiple predictions or forecast together. This would be beneficial as Bates teaches “The main conclusion is that the composite set of forecasts can yield lower mean-square error than either of the original forecasts” (Bates Abstract)
As per claim 7, wherein the box office events includes a plurality of films. (Combination of Walker in view of Asher as applied above, wherein Asher specifically teaches “The set of events may also include non-sporting events, such as political events (e.g., elections) and entertainment events (e.g., Academy Awards and movie box office revenue predictions). The set of events for selection may also include events occurring in different areas, such as different time zones or different countries. The designation of a group of events from which a bettor 20 must select on which to bet in a particular Event Select bet 12, the number of events that the bettor must select and other suitable information (such as required betting amount and winning payout rules or information) may be included in Event Select offerings 13 communicated to bettors 20 through betting system interfaces 14.” (Asher 0019). As can be seen, Asher clearly teaches the betting on a set of events (i.e. a plurality) wherein the set of events may be a plurality of movie box office revenue predictions)
As per claim 8, wherein the first and second predictions are of the box office events’ revenue of the films over a period of time (Combination of Walker in view of Asher as applied above, wherein Asher specifically teaches making predictions of box office revenue that takes place over a period of time (the determination of box office revenue takes a period of time to calculate) (Asher 0019).
As per claim 9, wherein the period of time is one or more days corresponding to a premiere of at least one of the plurality of films. (Combination of Walker in view of Asher as applied above, wherein Asher specifically teaches making predictions of box office revenue that takes place over a period of time (the determination of box office revenue takes a period of time to calculate) (Asher 0019). The Examiner notes that a box office revenue inherently corresponds to a number of days of films premier, as box office revenue cannot be calculated unless the film has premiered for some number of days to determine how much revenue it made).
As per claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to display on the distinct computing devices, of the plurality of players a list of the box office events; and elements which indicate predictions for each of the box office events. (Combination of Walker in view of Asher as applied above, wherein Walker discloses the presentation of elements upon a I/O device display wherein the elements allow for a user to make multiple selections that enable them to predict the weather for a period time and number of cities (Walker 10:12 – 63; 11:15 – 29). Examiner notes that the combination of Walker and Asher teaches the use of prediction events that are based upon box office events) (Asher 0019)
Independent claim(s) 12 is/are made obvious by the combination of Walker, Asher, Walker ’736 and Bates based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 17 is/are made obvious by the combination of Walker, Asher, Walker ’736 and Bates based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 7, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 18 is/are made obvious by the combination of Walker, Asher, Walker ’736 and Bates based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 8, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 19 is/are made obvious by the combination of Walker, Asher, Walker ’736 and Bates based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 9, which are similar in claim scope
Dependent claim(s) 20 is/are made obvious by the combination of Walker, Asher, Walker ’736 and Bates based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 10, which are similar in claim scope
Claim 5, 6, 11, 15, 16 and 21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walker et al (US 5,779,549) ) in view of Asher (US 2005/0181862) in view of Walker et al (US 2009/0291736) (hereinafter “Walker ‘736”) in view of Bates et al “The Combination of Forecasts”, 1969 in view of Englman (US 2009/0117969).
As per claim 5, Walker fails to disclose:
wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit to the distinct computing devices of the plurality of players a list of the plurality of players making predictions, wherein the list of the plurality of players includes their unique identifier
However, in a similar field of endeavor, wherein players compete in wagering events, Englman teaches a game system wherein players make wagers/predictions and the results are communicated back to the player via a scoreboard. (Englman 0077).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Walker in view of Englman to provide a game system that communicates game results to users in a leaderboard fashion wherein players are identified by a unique identifier. This would allow all players to see how they rank and compare to all players playing the game, thus ensuring the transparency of the game.
As per claim 6, wherein the list of the plurality of players is transmitted only to registered players of the plurality of players. (The combination of Walker in view of Englman, wherein Englman teaches the transmission of a leaderboard to registered users) (Englman 0077)
As per claim 11, wherein results of predictions are analyzed in order to determine a ranking order of the plurality of players based on score calculated from prediction accuracy and wherein the ranking order is transmitted only to the registered players. (The combination of Walker in view of Englman, wherein Englman teaches the transmission of a leaderboard to registered users wherein the leaderboard lists the player’s position or ranking on the leaderboard) (Englman 0077, 0080, Fig 10)
Dependent claim(s) 15 is/are made obvious by the combination of Walker, Asher, Walker ’736, Bates and Englman based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 5, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 16 is/are made obvious by the combination of Walker, Asher, Walker ’736, Bates and Englman based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 6, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 21 is/are made obvious by the combination of Walker, Asher, Walker ’736, Bates and Englman based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 11, which are similar in claim scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2 ,5 – 12 and 15-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see above rejection in addressing the newly amended claim language in view of Bates et al
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Step 2A, Prong 2,, the Applicant argues the following:
“While in many cases playing an online game can be considered to fall under the abstract idea of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities," using the game to gather enough information to make an acceptable prediction integrates the abstract idea into a practical application consistent with MPEP §2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations). Further evidence of the practicality of the application is the claims' use of a particular rule for creating the system's overall prediction based on the predictions of the individual players, both registered and unregistered.” (Remarks page 7). The Examiner disagrees and notes that gathering information to make an acceptable prediction (i.e. gathering data) and the mere implementation of a particular game rule to calculated an overall prediction are not evidence that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. These amount to mere further rules for implementing the game.
The Applicant further states: “This unique system provides a higher level of predictive quality to the system offering the game. This is done by expanding the base of predictions by allowing unregistered players as well as registered players to play. Thus, the system performs a service similar to the filtering discussed by the Federal Circuit in BASCOM” (Remarks page 7) and “Thus, using an online game to improve prediction accuracy, while clearly involving the judicial exception of "Organizing Human Activities," is directed toward increasing predictive quality and thus does not simply recite the judicial exception. Therefore, under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, and MPEP 2106.05(a), these claims "reflect an improvement to [a] technical field" and thus integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.” (Remarks page 8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s application of Bascom with regards to the present claims. The Examiner notes that beyond the mere allegation of integration into a practical application, the Examiner fails to see how present claims utilize a non-conventional technical arrangements that implements the idea in a concrete way to thereby provide a practical application rather than merely invoking generic computer components. The claims clearly implement game rules on generic computing devices such as a computer having a processor to receive event predictions from a plurality of users (registered and unregistered users), determine an identifier for the computing devices, determine an average of predictions, determine a score and offer a prize to registered users. The Examiner fails to see how the claims are similar to the fact patterns found in BASCOM.
Applicant further states, “Like the invention claimed in McRO, the currently amended claims provide "a particular way to achieve a desired outcome," here, of improving the quality of a prediction of revenue for a box office event. Accordingly, for at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that under Step 2A, Prong 2, all presently pending claims are directed to a practical application, and Applicant requests that the § 101 rejections be withdrawn.” (Remarks page 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike the claims at issue in McRO wherein the it was found “By incorporating the specific features of the rules as claim limitations, claim 1 is limited to a specific process for automatically animating characters using particular information and techniques and does not preempt approaches that use rules of a different structure or different techniques. See Morse, 56 U.S. at 113. When looked at as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques. The claim uses the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 177). Claim 1 of the ’576 patent, therefore, is not directed to an abstract idea.” (McRO page 27), the Examiner notes the present claims are merely utilizing generic computing technology to automate a human task at a high level of abstraction.
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 ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 2/3/2026
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715