DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 10/27/2025. Claims 9-10, 25-26, 31-32 have been amended. Therefore, claims 9-10, 13-16, and 25-36 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/2025 has been entered.
Previous Claim Objections
2. The Examiner has withdrawn the previous claim objections for claims 9, 25, and 31, per the remarks filed in the amendments.
Previous Claim Interpretation
3. The Examiner has withdrawn the previous claim interpretation, per the remarks filed in the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 9-10, 13-16, and 25-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract without significantly more.
6. Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claim 9 recites a machine (i.e., a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), claim 25 recites a process (i.e., a series of acts or steps), claim 31 recites a manufacture (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
7. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
8. Claim 9 which is representative of claims 25 and 31 recites:
“convert and enhance the plurality of case-specific workers’ compensation data output into at least one optimized workers’ compensation report;”, “mine the plurality of pending case-specific data within the at least one optimized report for statistical comparisons against the historical aggregated data, the comparisons relating at least to reporting of a primary treating physician, the nature and extent of a claimed injury, findings on physical examination by a Qualified Medical Examiner, impairment percentage parameter, disability status, and wage information regarding an employee;”, “evaluate the plurality of case-specific workers’ compensation data and statistical comparisons only after creation of the at least one optimized report;”, “generates a unique compliance report use of relevant medical guides, employs the statistical comparisons between the historical aggregated data and pending case-specific data;” and “output a first value or level of findings based on existing non-compliance indicators derived from the compliance report and a second value or level of findings based on corrected non-compliance indicators derived from the compliance report, the second value representing the corrected value of an injury claim or the amount of money saved by correcting the non-compliance reflected in the optimized report”, “a task and action ranking function that relies on predetermined ranking requirements and is configured to determine the relative relevance of non-compliance indicated from the compliance report.”
The limitations above demonstrate the independent claims recite the abstract idea of monitoring for non-compliance in worker’s compensation claim data which encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices (i.e. mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (i.e., legal obligations, sales or marketing activities, business relations), mental processes (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgements, opinions.) See MPEP 2106.04 II
The Applicant’s Specification in at least [00117] In an exemplary embodiment, the valuation logic 2106 receives the AMA compliance report 2114, processes this report, and generates a value of findings 2118 that is based on raw non-compliance indicators (e.g., discrepancies with the AMA Guides) contained in the compliance report. The value of findings 2118 may directly reflect or correlate to assigned non-compliance levels 1 through 5, with 1 being the least non-compliant (or most compliant) and 5 being severely non-compliant. Non-compliance levels may be based on a predetermined standard set by consensus of experts in the industry. The valuation logic 2106 also generates a value of findings 2120 that is based on corrected non-compliance indicators. The value of findings 2120 may represent the corrected value of an injury claim and/or the amount of money saved by correcting any discrepancies with the AMA Guides. The valuation logic 2106 also may determine or process an impairment percentage parameter. The impairment percentage parameter may directly correlate to a monetary value of the injury claim, as instructed by treatises or statutes, including the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule referenced in the California Labor Code, or an equivalent rating schedule from other states. In yet another embodiment, the AMA compliance report 2114 is subsequently transmitted and conveyed to the TPA Module 50 for analysis and qualification purposes related to benefits determination.
As such, the limitations recite fundamental economic practices and legal obligations when viewed as a whole because the claims cover processes for monitoring worker’s compensation claim data for non-compliance. For example, the series of steps process and analyze if a workers compensation claim was handled correctly and in compliance with standards to minimize the risk of non-compliance issues and potential legal issues for a claims adjuster. The series of steps also recite mental processes that perform a compliance analysis for determining certain findings to report to a claims adjuster which are acts that may be performed in the human mind with or without pen/paper. Therefore, the limitations may be reasonably characterized as subject matter falling within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. The claim recites an abstract idea.
9. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a programmable case management system”, “an American Medical Association (AMA) compliance detection module”, “at least one communication link;”, “a network interface”, “a plurality of processors”, “a memory device…holding an instruction set executable”, “a case management server comprising a memory”, “the case management server further employing an array of scripting languages for executing specific tasks and application program interface (API) calls at the AMA compliance detection module and at a plurality of application modules”, “the plurality of application modules each comprising a processor”, “via the API calls”, “over the network”, “a central database”, “the central database further housing a standardization algorithm and optimizer template”, “by a first logic block within the case management server”, “the plurality of processors having access to both the memory and central database and at least one of the plurality of processors”, “the AMA compliance detection module comprising a central processing unit (CPU), “a compliance report generator that comprises a report processor, report memory, and one or more data receivers”, “by a second logic block within the AMA compliance detection module, including through the compliance detection module’s”, “the compliance detection module’s use of an artificial intelligence algorithm”, “a valuation processor using output logic”, “wherein at least one of the plurality of application modules is a third party administrator’s (TPA) module comprising a TPA-specific processor”, “the valuation processor”, “the case management system”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” – see claims 9, 25, 31, is/are recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification. The specification describes the additional elements in general terms without describing any of the particulars, such that the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computer components being used to perform the abstract idea. At best, the recited additional elements are adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The other additional elements of: “hosts a workers’ compensation session”, “store aggregated data relating to historical workers’ compensation claims”, “funnel…a plurality of case-specific medical and non-medical workers’ compensation data, relating to a pending claim…store the plurality of case-specific workers’ compensation data” adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The other additional elements of: “real-time” and “thereby improve the accuracy…and reduce information processing delays” as recited in the claim are an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use in which to apply the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (h)
10. Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
11. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a programmable case management system”, “an American Medical Association (AMA) compliance detection module”, “at least one communication link;”, “a network interface”, “a plurality of processors”, “a memory device…holding an instruction set executable”, “a case management server comprising a memory”, “the case management server further employing an array of scripting languages for executing specific tasks and application program interface (API) calls at the AMA compliance detection module and at a plurality of application modules”, “the plurality of application modules each comprising a processor”, “via the API calls”, “over the network”, “a central database”, “the central database further housing a standardization algorithm and optimizer template”, “by a first logic block within the case management server”, “the plurality of processors having access to both the memory and central database and at least one of the plurality of processors”, “the AMA compliance detection module comprising a central processing unit (CPU), “a compliance report generator that comprises a report processor, report memory, and one or more data receivers”, “by a second logic block within the AMA compliance detection module, including through the compliance detection module’s”, “the compliance detection module’s use of an artificial intelligence algorithm”, “a valuation processor using output logic”, “wherein at least one of the plurality of application modules is a third party administrator’s (TPA) module comprising a TPA-specific processor”, “the valuation processor”, “the case management system”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” – see claims 9, 25, 31 amount to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception which does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the analysis concludes the claims are ineligible at Step 2B.
The other additional elements of: “hosts a workers’ compensation session”, “store aggregated data relating to historical workers’ compensation claims”, “funnel…a plurality of case-specific medical and non-medical workers’ compensation data, relating to a pending claim…store the plurality of case-specific workers’ compensation data” were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A – Prong Two and must be re-evaluated at Step 2B to determine whether the additional elements recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
In MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs, Alice court decisions indicate “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory” are well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. Thus, the additional elements when viewed individually and in combination with the judicial exception do not provide an inventive concept.
12. Claims 10, 13-16, and 26-30, 32-36 are dependents of claims 9, 25, and 31.
Claims 10, 26, and 32 recite “wherein the plurality of application modules further comprises at least two of an employee’s module, an employer’s module, a physician’s module, an attorney’s module” at a high-level of generality. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. See MPEP 2106.05(b), Claims 13, 27, and 33 recite “wherein the optimized report comprises an Optimized Medical Report (OMR)” which serves to further describes the data or information, i.e., type of report, that may be used in performing the abstract idea, which does not make the claim any less abstract, Claims 14, 28, and 34 recite “wherein the optimized report comprises an Optimized Legal Report (OLR)” which serves to further describes the data or information, i.e., type of report, that may be used in performing the abstract idea, which does not make the claim any less abstract, Claims 15, 29, and 35 recite “wherein the compliance report comprises an AMA compliance report” which serves to further describes the data or information, i.e., type of report, that may be used in performing the abstract idea, which does not make the claim any less abstract, Claims 16, 30, and 36 recite “wherein the optimized report comprises an Optimized Legal Report (OLR) which serves to further describes the data or information, i.e., type of report, that may be used in performing the abstract idea, which does not make the claim any less abstract. Accordingly, the dependent claims have been considered individually and in combination with the abstract idea. When viewed as a whole none of the dependent claims recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 27 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “Under Step 2A-Prong One, the claims as amended do not recite a business method or fundamental economic practice. Rather, the claimed invention is a case management system comprising structure that performs real-time processing over a network, API calls across multiple modules, a standardization algorithm and optimizer templates to transform and enhance case data into unique and more accurate reports, statistical data mining across historical and pending medical/claims data, integration of an AMA compliance detection module with a CPU, logic blocks, and AI algorithm, and a unique TPA module that ensures valuation accuracy and mitigates information processing and decision delay (i.e., latency) by identifying and accounting for relevance of certain metrics. In other words, even if case management or compliance determination is considered an “abstract idea,” the claimed invention is implemented in a specific, technical architecture, and not as a mental process.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis. The Examiner identified the limitations that recite an abstract idea and explained why the limitations fall within the organizing certain methods of human activity and mental process grouping of abstract ideas. The reply does not properly challenge the abstract idea identified in the previous rejection.
At best, the Applicant’s reply is an attempt to limit the claimed invention to particular technological environment or field of use, but relying upon the technical architecture does not remove the claims from the abstract idea realm. It is important for Applicant to note that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) While the claimed system and method certainly purport to accelerate the process of analyzing worker’s compensation data for non-compliance, the speed increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer(s), rather than the patented method itself. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Arguing otherwise disregards the entire system architecture that permits the claimed technological improvements in the first place. Indeed, the claims as amended are supported by the specification at least in ¶¶ 51, 54, 84, and 150, as well as FIGS 1, 23-26, and 33-34. Applicant cannot stress enough that the system architecture and capabilities of the claimed case management system to overcome data inaccuracies and delay/latency in compliance determination are not ideas capable of being performed in the human mind, and respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider the pending rejection in light of the further claim amendments.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis. In the instant case, the support from the Specification and the reply provides a high-level general explanation of the system architecture and capabilities of the claimed case management system, rather than a technical explanation that discusses improvements to the functioning of computer or to any other technology or technical field. The remarks do not provide a discussion from the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a). Applicant’s reply merely states the claims “overcome data inaccuracies and delay/latency in compliance determination” in a conclusory manner without any details relating to a technological solution to a technological problem. Using result focused functional claim language is a frequent feature of ineligible claims, especially those that claim the use generic computer components and network technology to carry out business tasks. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Even if a judicial exception applied, the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two, because it improves the functioning of a computer system and medical/legal compliance infrastructure by at least reducing delay in processing case-specific data for compliance determinations across multiple distributed modules (a technical improvement); using optimizer templates and algorithms to convert and enhance raw medical/legal data into optimized, standardized, and structured reports (improving data interoperability); employing a two-tiered logic block system (first logic block in the case management server, second logic block in the AMA compliance detection module) to ensure compliance is only checked after optimized report creation (technical ordering that improves system accuracy and efficiency); and incorporating an AI algorithm not as a generic buzzword, but specifically tied to statistical comparisons of structured datasets, thereby enhancing report generation accuracy. Further, the TPA module’s processor and valuation processor work in conjunction with one another to identify the relevance of various metrics that impact compliance determination and the time, or delay, in processing a particular claim. Thus, the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis. The courts have previously held, "to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself" Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Here, the ordered combination of limitations and additional elements are recited in a results-oriented manner and are directed to achieving these results rather than providing technological improvements as disputed by Applicant. The Examiner asserts that clever draftsmanship of further narrowing how the abstract idea may be performed using generic computing components does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The claimed invention also satisfies Step 2B of Alice. First, Applicant recites a specific technical configuration consisting of multiple processors, a network interface, central database, API-based module integration, and two separate logic blocks.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible at Step 2B. It is important for Applicant to note Step 2A Prong Two overlaps with Step 2B, thus many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. For example, since the additional elements of “a programmable case management system”, “an American Medical Association (AMA) compliance detection module”, “at least one communication link;”, “a network interface”, “a plurality of processors”, “a memory device…holding an instruction set executable”, “a case management server comprising a memory”, “the case management server further employing an array of scripting languages for executing specific tasks and application program interface (API) calls at the AMA compliance detection module and at a plurality of application modules”, “the plurality of application modules each comprising a processor”, “via the API calls”, “over the network”, “a central database”, “the central database further housing a standardization algorithm and optimizer template”, “by a first logic block within the case management server”, “the plurality of processors having access to both the memory and central database and at least one of the plurality of processors”, “the AMA compliance detection module comprising a central processing unit (CPU), “a compliance report generator that comprises a report processor, report memory, and one or more data receivers”, “by a second logic block within the AMA compliance detection module, including through the compliance detection module’s”, “the compliance detection module’s use of an artificial intelligence algorithm”, “a valuation processor using output logic”, “wherein at least one of the plurality of application modules is a third party administrator’s (TPA) module comprising a TPA-specific processor”, “the valuation processor”, “the case management system”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” were considered to be mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer in Step 2A, they will also be mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer in Step 2B. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Second, Applicant recites a non-conventional arrangement, including delaying compliance detection until after the optimized report is created, and real-time funneling of claim-specific data into a central system with ranking-based prioritization by a TPA processor in conjunction with a valuation processor.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible at Step 2B. In the instant case, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the claim specific data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant's claim 9 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-update processing is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). Thus, the ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. Claim 9 does not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Third, Applicant recites technical improvement over routine systems. For example, prior systems may store case data or check compliance separately, but here the system integrates compliance checking with statistical mining against historical datasets in real time. Moreover, the ranking function of the TPA-specific processor ensures efficient prioritization of non-compliance findings, mitigating delays in compliance determination and reducing risk of inaccuracies in system computations.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible at Step 2B. In the instant case, an important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. The Specification does not discuss or identify any technical problems being addressed relating to integrating the datasets between the systems or the processor that is performing the ranking for non-compliance. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Fourth, the claimed system offers concrete technological benefits, including reduced processing delays, improved accuracy in valuation, and cost savings through automated correction of non-compliance” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible at Step 2B. Here, the reply is merely relying upon benefits of using the claimed system. It is important for Applicant to note, the courts have previously held “the utility of the method does not make it eligible”. See Univ. of Fla.Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (automated data synthesis technology did not make claims non-abstract even if it produced "life altering consequences"); In re Elbaum, No. 2023-1418, 2023 WL 8794636, at 2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2023) (an abstract idea's tax benefits and usefulness did not confer eligibility); In re Mahapatra, 842 F. App'x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he fact that an abstract idea may have beneficial uses does not mean that claims embodying the abstract idea are rendered patent eligible.") See also MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Applicant also notes that the Examiner has withdrawn all previous rejections based on the prior art, demonstrating that Applicant’s invention integrates unconventional technological features into its claimed case management system. Courts and the PTAB have upheld eligibility where claims are directed to improving computer functionality or technical processes. Here, the optimization and standardization algorithms, distributed architecture across a plurality of specified processor-based modules, and specialized ranking conducted by the processors achieve just that. Even if computer components known in the art are used, Applicant’s claims reciting an ordered combination and system architecture is not the way generic case management systems normally function, so this does not fall within the purview of “apply it on a computer.” Indeed, it bears noting that in Alice, the system was a black-box computer performing a financial settlement—there was no technical detail or specific architecture, unlike in Applicant’s claimed invention.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, it is important for Applicant to note the lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C.102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C.101. See MPEP 2106.05(I) Next, the optimization and standardization algorithms, a plurality of specified processor-based modules, and processors recite nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract on a computer. As previously explained, the ordered combination of additional elements in the claim does not alter the analysis at Step 2A or lead towards eligibility. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Applicant submits that claims 10, 13-16, 26-30, and 32-36 also recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, at least because they depend on independent claims which, as explained above, fall squarely within the bounds of eligible subject matter under Alice and subsequent Federal Circuit and PTAB cases that examine eligibility under Alice. The dependent claims also add more elements to the practical application of Applicant’s claimed system and method, further supporting subject matter eligibility here.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the rejection presents findings for each of the dependent claims 10, 13-16, 26-30, and 32-36, explaining why the additional limitations recited by these claims do not impart subject matter eligibility. Applicant’s reply does not persuasively challenge these findings. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are be maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571) 270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights