Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is responsive to the pre-appeal brief filed on 12/15/2025.
Claims 1, 5-9, 13-17, 21-22, 24 and 30-35 are presenting for examination
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/15/2025 with respect to the last rejections have been considered in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5-9, 13-17, 21-22, 24 and 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9 and 17:Step 1: Statutory Category
The claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claims recite the limitations
“generating …; ranking…”, which are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements:
“receiving…; rewriting…by modifying…”, amount to data gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“storing…, displaying…” represent(s) an extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presenting of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“processors; a machine; device; memory, machine-readable storage device” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:
“receiving…; rewriting…by modifying…”. These are identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
“storing…, displaying…”. These are identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334; i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350,
1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”.
“processors; a machine; device; memory, machine-readable storage device””, amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: relevant court decision: the followings are example of the court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see versata Dev. Group, Inc. v SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more. The claims as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 5-8 and 13-16, recite the additional elements, which do not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 21, recites the limitation “generating…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind.
“appending…; displaying…” present(s) an extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presenting of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 22 and 24, recites the additional limitations, which present(s) an extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presenting of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 30-35, recite the limitations. It is at best generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment of machine learning (see MPEP 2106.05(h). It amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-9, 13-17, 21-22, 24 and 30-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOAN T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)-270-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday from 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Thursday-Friday from 10:00 am - 2:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4103. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
05/01/2026
/LOAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights