DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101:
Examiner notes the physical structures are all claimed at a high level of generality and are merely used for extra-solutionary activity whether that is data gathering or data output (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Or the structures merely amount to implementing/performing the mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity on a generic computer or in a computer environment (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C). The recited structures are not complex but are merely conventional equipment used for extra-solutionary activity claimed at a high level of generality. Providing instructions to perform a procedure on a display is merely implemented certain methods organizing human activity on conventional elements claimed at a high level of generality. The claimed invention have no limitations reciting any particular structure that would be considered more than what is conventional in the art or anything beyond that which is conventional in the art. As such none of the structure elements provide significantly more.
These limitations identified in the 101 rejection below describe a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a medical, biomedical or engineering professional with the aid of a pen and paper; their knowledge gained from education, background, or experience; or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests an undue level of complexity that the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform the mental process steps. Examiner notes a human can look at data from multiple sources. A practitioner often looks at multiple data sets (such as patient history, survey of current symptoms, blood test results, imaging results, heart rate, blood pressure, weight, etc.) to make determinations. The claims themselves do not even combine the data in any particular way, they are merely stored together. Thus, no alleged improvement is even shown or reflected in the claims.
From MPEP 2106.05(a): “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);” Mere automation does not provide significantly more.
Per MPEP 2106.05(g): When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611-12, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); Flook, 437 U.S. at 593-95, 198 USPQ at 197 (a formula would not be patentable by only indicating that is could be usefully applied to existing surveying techniques); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the use of a well-known XML tag to form an index was deemed token extra-solution activity). Because this overlaps with the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration, it should not be considered in the Step 2A Prong Two extra-solution activity analysis.
(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention). See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (restricting public access to media was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1242, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (in patents regarding electronic menus, features related to types of ordering were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity). This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:
• Mere Data Gathering:
i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
ii. Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982);
iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754; and
vi. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis).
Thus, clearly the limitations do not provide significantly more as they are merely data gathering.
The claims recite “the sway recognition calculates a value set by the system based on the first measurement value and the second measurement value, and determines that value as a head-position sway value”. Nothing about this limitation is particular. There is no particular calculation being recited or claimed. It just generically calculate a value using other values. Nothing specific or particular is being claimed. This is well within the capabilities of a human mind or a human with pen and paper. There is nothing showing how this generic calculation provides any improvement.
Further per MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” Examiner notes taking measurements while trying to minimize confounding variables is well established in the medical and scientific field. The claims merely collect data and perform generic analysis. There is nothing showing any clear improvement or that this is functionality beyond invoking the functionality of generic computer components and sensors. Combining multiples sources of data so that a clinician can create a comprehensive clinical picture of a subject’s condition is not an improvement. This is a standard operating procedure to collect multiple sources of data to make a diagnosis. For example, see the cited prior art which all discloses this process as being common. Doctors acquire medical histories, symptoms, blood tests, imaging scans, etc. to make diagnosis (i.e. they collect data from multiple sources to create a comprehensive clinical picture of a subject’s condition). This is conventional and thus the claims do not provide any improvement. Regarding any alleged improvement on Page 12 of Applicant’s remarks, Examiner notes from MPEP 2106.05(a): “the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) “. The claims do not reflect the alleged improvement on Page 12 of Applicant’s remarks. There is no clear improvement reflected in the claims. Combining medical data to make a diagnosis is well known within the art. Confining it to a particular condition does not provide significantly more as it’s merely indicating field of use.
Further per MPEP 2106.05(b) I: When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, the following factors are relevant.
II. WHETHER THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS IMPLEMENTS THE STEPS OF THE METHOD
Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We are not persuaded by the appellant's argument that the claimed method is tied to a particular machine because it ‘would not be necessary or possible without the Internet.’ . . . Regardless of whether "the Internet" can be viewed as a machine, it is clear that the Internet cannot perform the fraud detection steps of the claimed method"). For example, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly”).
III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE
Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted) (“[N]othing in claim 3 requires an infringer to use the Internet to obtain that data. The Internet is merely described as the source of the data. We have held that mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.’” 654 F.3d at 1375, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citation omitted)). See MPEP § 2106.05(g) & (h) for more information on insignificant extra-solution activity and field of use, respectively.
Nothing in the claim is specifically claimed. It is all generic conventional structures recited at a high level of generality to either perform extra-solutionary data gathering or to perform the abstract idea limitations. An audiometer is a well known and conventional structure, a processor is a well known and conventional structure, an acceleration sensor is a well known and conventional structure, a display is a well known and conventional structure.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a) II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:
i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
ii. Using well-known standard laboratory techniques to detect enzyme levels in a bodily sample such as blood or plasma, Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1355, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1082-83, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
iv. Delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level of generality, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
v. A general method of screening emails on a generic computer, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1315-16, 120 USPQ2d at 1358-59;
vi. An advance in the informational content of a download for streaming, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
vii. Selecting one type of content (e.g., FM radio content) from within a range of existing broadcast content types, or selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content) from within a range of well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicants claims are merely gathering data from multiple sources which is known in the health care field. Health care practitioners often get multiple different data types before making any opinions or diagnoses. The claims do not require any analysis that is beyond the capabilities of a human. The claims do not appear to recite any analysis steps let alone recite any specific analysis. The claims are merely directed to using conventional equipment to acquire data and then storing that data. Conventional patient’s medical histories would inherently have multiple sets of medical data stored in the same memory/computer/server in association with each other. Applicant’s claims do not provide significantly more.
Examiner notes “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.” (MPEP 2106.05 I).
Applicant’s argument concerning the 101 are not persuasive.
Response to Amendment
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 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Step 1, claims 2-5 and 7 are all within at least one of the four categories (claims 2-5 being apparatuses and claim 7 being a method).
Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, the independent claim 5 recites:
an audiometer that measures a hearing acuity threshold of a subject, a nystagmus data capturing device implemented via the processer that measures nystagmus data on the subject, and a medical interview result display device that displays a result of a medical interview about dizziness with the subject;
a head-position sway measuring device that measures a head-position sway value indicating a variation amount of sway of a head position of a subject, the head-position sway measuring device including:
a display that instructs the subject to open or close the subject's eyes, wherein the display displays a dynamic graphic image selected to be gazed by the subject;
an acceleration sensor that measures a displacement of the head position of the subject; and
a sway recognition display device implemented via the processor that determines the head-position sway value based on the displacement of the head position measured by the acceleration sensor, wherein
the acceleration sensor measures one of a first measurement value that is the displacement of the head position where the display instructs the subject to open the subject's eyes and a second measurement value that is the displacement of the head position where the display instructs the subject to close the subject's eyes, and then measures the other of the first measurement value and the second measurement value successively or after a lapse of a predetermined length of time,
the sway recognition display device acquires the first measurement value and the second measurement value measured after the first measurement value, the sway recognition calculates a value set by the system based on the first measurement value and the second measurement value, and determines that value as the head-position sway value,
the sway recognition display device is a portable device; and
a server that stores the hearing acuity threshold, the nystagmus data, and the medical interview result measured before a lapse of a predetermined length of time from when the head-position sway measuring device measured a head-position sway value, and the head-position sway value in association with the hearing acuity threshold, the nystagmus data, and the medical interview result.
the independent claim 7 recites:
instructing, by a display that instructs the subject to open or close the subject's eyes and that displays a dynamic graphic image selected to be gazed by the subject, the subject to do one of opening and closing the subject's eyes and then instructing the subject to do the other of opening and closing the subject's eyes successively or after a lapse of a predetermined length of time;
measuring, by an acceleration sensor that measures a displacement of the head position of the subject, a first measurement value that is the displacement of the head position where the display instructs the subject to open the subject's eyes and a second measurement value that is the displacement of the head position where the display instructs the subject to close the subject's eyes;
determining by a sway recognition display device implemented via the processor that determines the head-position sway value based on the displacement of the head position measured by the acceleration sensor, the sway recognition display device acquiring the first measurement value and the second measurement value measured after the first measurement value, and the sway recognition display device calculating a value set by the system based on the first measurement value and the second measurement value, the head-position sway value based on the calculated value;
measuring a hearing acuity threshold of the subject with an audiometer, measuring nystagmus data on the subject with a nystagmus data capturing device implemented via the processor and determining a result of a medical interview about dizziness with the subject with a medical interview result display device implemented via the processor; and
storing the head-position sway value in association with the hearing acuity threshold, the nystagmus data, and the result of a medical interview about dizziness in a server.
The above underlined claim limitations are tied to the abstract idea of mental processes in that they are concepts that can be performed in the human mind. This group encompasses concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). They also are tied to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity in that they are concepts that concern managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations describe a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. These limitations describe instructing a subject/patient to perform a task. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a medical, biomedical or engineering professional with the aid of a pen and paper; their knowledge gained from education, background, or experience; or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests an undue level of complexity that the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform the mental process steps.
The claimed steps of recognizes(ing), acquires(ing), calculates(ing), determines(ing), and stores(ing) can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas. The claimed step of instructs(ing) is considered managing personal interactions/behavior.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Examples of managing personal behavior recited in a claim include:
i. filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis);
ii. considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and
iii. a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exceptions (abstract ideas) in claims 2-5 and 7 are not integrated into a practical application because:
•The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for instructs(ing) and recognizes(ing), acquires(ing), calculates(ing), determines(ing) and stores(ing) merely invoke a computer as a tool.
•The data-gathering step (measures(ing)) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
•There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for instructs(ing) and recognizes(ing).
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide a medical measurement.
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer for instructs(ing) and recognizes(ing). The claims do not apply the obtained response measurement to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole 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.
Regarding Step 2B:
The additional elements are identified as follows:
‘an auditometer that measures a hearing acuity threshold of a subject’, ‘a nystagmus data capturing device implemented via the processor that measures nystagmus data on the subject’, ‘a medical interview result display device that displays a result of a medical interview about dizziness with the subject;’, ‘a head-position sway measuring device that measures a head-position sway value….’, ‘a display that instructs’, ‘an acceleration sensor that measures a displacement….’, ‘a sway recognition display device implemented via the processor that determines….’, in claims 5 and 7 and ‘a portable device’, ‘a server’ in claim 5, ‘the display’ in claim 2,
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
The prior art provided by the Applicant in the IDS and by the Examiner in PTO-892 which disclose each of the elements as being known and conventional in the art elements;
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3. Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
Further these elements are either used for data gathering or for performing the abstract ideas. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry or 3) further recite additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art.
Claims 2-4 is additional data output and further limit the abstract ideas and how they are being implemented on conventional equipment
Claim 2 recites an additional limitation which is an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity
Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM EST.
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, JASON SIMS can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights