DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 04/22/2025. Claims 1-8, 11-12, 17-24 have been canceled. Claim 9 has been amended. Claims 25-36 have been newly added. 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 25, and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9, 25, and 31 recite the limitation of “hosted by a case management server, over a network, the server comprising”. This is a minor typo-graphical error. The limitation must recite the case management server comprising to remove the objection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an American Medical Association (AMA) compliance detection module”, “a compliance report generator”, “a third part administrator’s (TPA) module” in claims 1, 25, 31. Because the claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
“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”, “convert 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 compliance monitoring in claims management 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 interactions when viewed as a whole because the claims cover processes for compliance monitoring in claims management. For example, the series of steps allow an employee/worker to initiate a workers compensation claim and the processes assess if the 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 necessary to carry out the 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”, “a communication link;”, “a network interface”, “a processor”, “a memory device…holding an instruction set executable”, “a case management server”, “a network”, “a plurality of application modules”, “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 processor having access to both the memory and central database”, “a compliance report generator”, “by a second logic block within the AMA compliance detection modules, including through the compliance detection module’s”, “the compliance detection module’s use of an artificial intelligence algorithm”, “a valuation processor using output logic”, “a third party administrator’s (TPA) module”, “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: “real-time” recited in the claim is an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular field of use or technological environment 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”, “a communication link;”, “a network interface”, “a processor”, “a memory device…holding an instruction set executable”, “a case management server”, “a network”, “a plurality of application modules”, “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 processor having access to both the memory and central database”, “a compliance report generator”, “by a second logic block within the AMA compliance detection modules, including through the compliance detection module’s”, “the compliance detection module’s use of an artificial intelligence algorithm”, “a valuation processor using output logic”, “a third party administrator’s (TPA) module”, “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.
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 comprises at least two of an employee’s module, an employer’s module, a physician’s module, an attorney’s module, and a third party administrator’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 22 April 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejection Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “The system’s creation of the optimized report in Claim 9 is not conventional: During the Examiner Interview, Examiner inquired about the optimization process in Applicant’s claims, and whether it was simply a standard text conversion. It is not. The claimed system requires a standardization algorithm and a separate optimizer template. Indeed, as stated in Applicant’s disclosure, “one objective of the CCMS 100 is standardizing the input measurements received by various parties and then generating an optimized report as a final output which a non-physician non-expert can understand.” (Applicant’s Disclosure ¶ 0083). In other words, the invention specifies a two-part data conversion process to achieve optimization. Further, Figure 27 and ¶ 0127-0131 in Applicant’s Disclosure demonstrate that the claimed optimization process requires more than just a routine text conversion. For example, Step 2508 in Figure 27 shows that after the text-based conversion (in Step 2504), the system will use a custom “stored template” (¶ 0131) to perform one or more additional optimization processes to convert (and translate if necessary) the key information into an optimized report that is then run through an AMA compliance detection module: Importantly, Applicant’s disclosure also specifies that the compliance detection module executes operational instructions and algorithms (¶ 0167), and specifically houses the stored optimizer template that forms the basis of the optimized report (Fig. 24, Fig. 27). There is no requirement that Applicant disclose the specific algorithm for the optimization process. Rather, as explained more below, the timing of the optimization, where it’s conducted, the results achieved through the optimization process, and how the optimization contributes to the improved system performance are the relevant issues here.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis. The features relied upon by applicant (such as creation of the optimized report, optimization process) are part of the judicial exception discussed above in Step 2A Prong One, and do not comprise additional elements, individual or in combination that integrate the exception into a practical application. The “system”, “separate optimizer template” are discussed at a high-level of generality in light of the cited passages from the specification. The specification fails to provide any technical details for the components, but instead describes the system and methods in purely functional terms. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “For example, Applicant’s disclosure states that “third party adjusters often provide benefits under a claim (including for temporary disability, permanent disability, and/or mileage) when such benefits are not legally warranted or compliant under applicable law. This is typically due to a misapplication or failure to streamline or access the relevant criteria, including threshold compensability of a claim, wage information regarding the injured employee and reporting details of the primary treating physician,” and that “clear access and organization of these criteria” are required. (¶ 0004). Further, “one objective of the CCMS 100 is standardizing the input measurements received by various parties and then generating an optimized report as a final output which a non-physician non-expert can understand.” (Applicant’s Disclosure, ¶ 0083, emphasis added). The optimized report, generated specifically within the compliance detection module, helps achieve this.
The disclosure further provides an example of what an optimized report may demonstrate, including in Fig. 30, where data identifying each injured body part, each specific test for each relevant body part, and each result for each specific test are matched so that the system has access to the relevant information just before conducting compliance determinations. (As stated in amended claim 9, “the AMA compliance detection module [is] configured to evaluate the plurality of case-specific workers’ compensation data and statistical comparisons only after creation of the at least one optimized report.”). To be sure, the example in Fig. 30 is not a conventional report template in the industry it represents a uniquely generated report that is only available after the plurality of application modules funnel the relevant data, in real-time, to a central database where the optimizer template is specifically stored, as recited in amended claim 9 (and see, e.g., Applicant’s Disclosure Fig. 24, ¶ 0083). Indeed, Applicant’s disclosure states that “medical reports written by examining physicians”’-which form the basis for compliance determinations in conventional systems are not always accurate,” leading to faulty compliance determinations. (¶ 0003). Applicant’s claimed system aims to resolve this problem by drawing on additional data funneled from other distinct modules in real-time, and then standardizing and optimizing all of the key data into a unique report that then undergoes compliance determination. (¶ 0001, 0055, 0083, 0107, 0112-0115, 0121).
Importantly, ¶ 0121 of Applicant’s disclosure states that an “impairment parameter” may also be included in the optimized report. Such an impairment parameter “may directly correlate to a monetary value of the injury claim.” (¶ 0118). Figs. 30-31, (¶ 0157-0158) of Applicant’s system disclosure then demonstrate “how for each body part, a compliance value is determined for each test” indicated in the optimized report. This further substantiates that the optimized reporting aspect of the claimed system, including the way it is created, where it is created, when it is created, and how it is used, adds value to the system architecture, is not conventional, not abstract, and supports the finding that Applicant’s claimed invention recites patentable subject matter.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the features relied upon in the arguments above do not change the previous analysis under Step 2A Prong Two. The recitation of a method that supplies various data to create an optimized report, as disputed by Applicant, is simply not enough to transform the patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent eligible invention. The Specification describes the additional elements (such as the plurality of application modules, a central database, optimizer template) in general terms, without describing the particulars, thus the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques being used to perform the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a) The remarks point to features (such as impairment parameter) which merely describes the data or information that may be included in the report, however, the feature does not make the claim any less abstract. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The compliance report/output further improves system performance: Applicant’s claimed system also uses the compliance output to improve system performance and the overall system architecture. For example, once a compliance determination is made, “the compliance result is stored in a memory” and “may be stored in the central CCMS database.” (40143, Fig. 28, ¶ 0167). Expanded system functions also allow for “artificial intelligence integration into the various modules for making compliance determinations via statistical analysis and custom algorithms applied to large, aggregated data sets related to WC claims.” (¶ 0169). In other words, compliance determinations feed back into the system’s memory/central database and can be used for statistical evaluations of future workers’ compensation claims. Additionally, compliance reports can be “transmitted and conveyed to the TPA Module for analysis and qualification purposes related to benefits determination.” (4 0118, 0161). Specifically, as shown in amended claim 9 and supported by the disclosure, the TPA Module may include “a task and action ranking function,” which “may be applied in compliance ranking and be configured to assess the adjuster’s actions,” in order to determine the “relative relevance of this non-compliance.” (¶ 0103, 0107). Indeed, one objective of the system is for a user to “quickly and easily understand how detrimental or not information contained within [a] document is,” including with respect to compliance reports. (¶ 0051). In conventional systems, if the value of a claim is determined to be high, “the insurance company may initiate an additional compliance review.” (¶ 0003). But in Applicant’s improved system, the TPA Module is specifically configured to take the compliance output (again, based on the optimized report) and rank the relevance of any non-compliance, obviating the need for an unnecessary and costly second compliance determination. Indeed, “the non-compliance report may be transmitted in real-time to the relevant parties, including third party adjusters, to help determine a final decision.” (¶ 0003). Ultimately, the TPA module’s function and configuration involving the outputted compliance report further improves efficiency in the claimed system’s use. Therefore, Applicant’s claimed system uses the compliance report to further improve operation and the architecture of the system itself-both as it relates to statistical evaluation of future claims and as it relates to assessing relevance of non-compliance-something conventional systems do not do. Such an improvement supports the finding that Applicant’s claimed invention recites eligible subject matter.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis. Here, the Applicant purports the compliance reporting improves system performance, however, the improvement is in the abstract idea itself and not the generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception. As for the TPA module, the courts have previously held requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015) to be mere instructions to apply an exception. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Applicant’s claimed system does not use AI in an abstract way: As explained, the claimed system utilizes “artificial intelligence integration into the various modules for making compliance determinations via statistical analysis and custom algorithms applied to large, aggregated data sets related to WC claims.” (Applicant’s Disclosure 40169). Applicant does not simply recite the use of Al for data and document processing. Rather, the Al component is specifically used at least by the compliance detection module to facilitate compliance determinations using an aggregate of historical compliance determinations as compared to pending optimized report/compliance evaluations, 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. (Applicant’s Disclosure e.g., ¶ 0002-0004, 0051, 0160, 0169). Applicant is unaware of any conventional systems (particularly those dated prior to May 2022 and prior to the launch of chat-GPT) that integrate Al in a specifically configured compliance detection module used for injury claims in this way. In any event, the Al component must be considered as part of the overall claimed system architecture, and not on its own. As explained, Applicant’s improved system architecture, including all of the specifically configured components and the order in which they carry out their tasks, is not abstract and is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims as a whole, under their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, recite eligible subject matter under Section 101.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis. Here, the Applicant purports the claimed system does not use AI in an abstract way, however, it is important to note mere recitation of use of an artificial intelligence algorithm in a claim does not impart patent eligibility. See MPEP 2106.05(b) At best, the claim recites the use of artificial intelligence algorithm at a high-level of generality. The specification (¶ 0050,0174) discusses in a conclusory manner how artificial intelligence algorithm may be used to collect and analyze medical-legal reports compared to AMA Guides. In ordinary use, artificial intelligence is frequently employed to compare data and identify patterns, make decision, automate tasks. Thus, the use of artificial intelligence as recited in the claim does not lead towards eligibility. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Dependent Claims: 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. Accordingly, Applicant’s claims 9-10, 13-16, and 25-36 satisfy the two-part test of Alice and Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner consider the claims eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the dependent claims fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or provides an inventive concept.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-11, filed 4/22/2025, with respect to claims 9-10, 13-16, and 25-36 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of White (US 2020/0342969 A1) in view of Allen (US 2017/0255754 A1) has been withdrawn.
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 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