DETAILED ACTION
This action is made FINAL in response to the amendments filed on 4/03/2026
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, 3 - 12, and 14 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
a risk determination part that generates a sentence that describes a relationship between the explanatory variables and a target variable in the explainable predictive model, for each of the at least one explainable predictive model, based on relationships among elements of the at least one explainable predictive model, and determines risk in the at least one explainable predictive model based on the similarity between ethical risk factor information and the explanatory variables contained in the sentence among the multiple explanatory variables used in training, which wherein the ethical risk factor information contains an ethical risk factor;
For example, a human compares known risk factors to a situation, describes the relationship, and mentally judges the risk.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a model acquisition part that acquires at least one explainable predictive model trained by the multiple explanatory variables;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
a model output part that outputs the selected model.
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim further recites processor, memory, a risk assessment apparatus, model acquisition part, risk determination part, and model output part, which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In addition, the recitation of explainable predictive model, ethical risk factor information, and ethical risk factor amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
a model acquisition part that acquires at least one explainable predictive model trained by the multiple explanatory variables;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
a model output part that outputs the selected model.
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The processor, memory, risk assessment apparatus, model acquisition part, risk determination part, and model output part are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of explainable predictive model, ethical risk factor information, and ethical risk factor amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the risk determination part calculates a risk determination score assessing risk in the at least one explainable predictive model based on similarity between the ethical risk factor information and the explanatory variables contained in the sentence among the multiple explanatory variables used in training, and the model selection part selects a model based on the risk determination score.
For example, the limitation “risk determination part calculates a risk determination score” is can be completed by human writing down or simply calculating a risk of items (i.e. a “10” could be high risk and a “1” could be low risk). Further, said human can “select” different models depending n said risk determination score. Humans calculating a risk determination score has done before computers where ever even invented.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the risk determination part calculates a risk determination score assessing risk in the at least one explainable predictive model using at least one of the sentence and an element in the sentence, and the ethical risk factor information, and the model selection part selects a model based on the risk determination score
For example, the limitation “risk determination part calculates a risk determination score” is can be completed by human writing down or simply calculating a risk of items (i.e. a “10” could be high risk and a “1” could be low risk). Further, said human can “select” different models depending n said risk determination score. Humans calculating a risk determination score has done before computers where ever even invented.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the risk determination part calculates a risk determination score by calculating a statistical value indicating a relationship between at least one of the sentence and an element in the sentence, and the ethical risk factor information
For example, the limitation “risk determination part calculates a risk determination score” is can be completed by human writing down or simply calculating a risk of items (i.e. a “10” could be high risk and a “1” could be low risk). Further, said human can “select” different models depending n said risk determination score. Humans calculating a risk determination score has done before computers where ever even invented.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim does not recite an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and therefore passes Step 2A, Prong of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
an ethical risk factor information storage part that stores the ethical risk factor information, wherein the risk determination part determines risk in the at least one explainable predictive model based on the similarity between the ethical risk factor information and the explanatory variables contained in the sentence among the multiple explanatory variables used in training.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
an ethical risk factor information storage part that stores the ethical risk factor information, wherein the risk determination part determines risk in the at least one explainable predictive model based on the similarity between the ethical risk factor information and the explanatory variables contained in the sentence among the multiple explanatory variables used in training.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim does not recite an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and therefore passes Step 2A, Prong of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a model selection rule storage part that stores a model selection rule, which is a rule for selecting a model from the at least one explainable predictive model, and the model selection part selects a model from the at least one explainable predictive model based on the risk determination score and the model selection rule.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
a model selection rule storage part that stores a model selection rule, which is a rule for selecting a model from the at least one explainable predictive model, and the model selection part selects a model from the at least one explainable predictive model based on the risk determination score and the model selection rule.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the model selection rule is a rule that selects a model based on the risk determination score and a coefficient of an explanatory variable in a predictive formula of the at least one model
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula, or algorithm, which is identified as an abstract idea. Specifically, the recited “model selection rule” involves a mathematical formula which simply performs a calculation on values, which is considered a data processing step that can be performed with a generic computer. Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. The recited steps are performed on a generic processor and do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract mathematical operations.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. “A model selection rule” is performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 9,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the model selection rule is a rule stating that a model relating to a calculated risk determination score exceeding a predetermined value is not selected
For example, a human can easily the determination of a score exceeding a predetermined value by simply comparing said score to said predetermined value. Humans have been comparing values before computers where ever invented.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 10,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the model selection rule is a rule including a list of information about specific ethical risk factors and stating that, when a model contains the information on the list with respect to the ethical risk factor information specified by the list, regardless of a risk determination score, the model relating to the risk determination score is not selected.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human can easily create a list of information about specific ethical risk factors. Humans have been created lists before computers were ever created.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
Claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above. The non-transitory computer-readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As to claims 14,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
calculating a risk determination score assessing risk in the at least one explainable predictive model based on similarity between the ethical risk factor information and the explanatory variables contained in the sentence among the multiple explanatory variables used in training, and selecting a model based on the risk determination score.
For example, a human can mentally calculate a score a make a selection based on that score.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 15,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
calculating a risk determination score assessing risk in the at least one explainable predictive model using at least one of the sentence and an element in the sentence, and the ethical risk factor information, and selecting a model based on the risk determination score.
For example, a human can mentally calculate a score a make a selection based on that score.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 16,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
calculating a risk determination score by calculating a statistical value indicating a relationship between at least one of the sentence and an element in the sentence, and the ethical risk factor information.
For example, a human can mentally calculate a score and use that score to determine the strength of a relationship
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 17,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
determining risk in the at least one explainable predictive model based on similarity between the ethical risk factor information and the explanatory variables contained in the sentence among the multiple explanatory variables used in training.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 18,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim does not recite an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and therefore passes Step 2A, Prong of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
storing a model selection rule, which is a rule for selecting a model from the at least one explainable predictive model, and selecting a model from the at least one explainable predictive model based on the risk determination score and the model selection rule.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
storing a model selection rule, which is a rule for selecting a model from the at least one explainable predictive model, and selecting a model from the at least one explainable predictive model based on the risk determination score and the model selection rule.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 19,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the model selection rule is a rule that selects a model based on the risk determination score and a coefficient of an explanatory variable in a predictive formula of the at least one model
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula, or algorithm, which is identified as an abstract idea. Specifically, the recited “model selection rule” involves a mathematical formula which simply performs a calculation on values, which is considered a data processing step that can be performed with a generic computer. Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. The recited steps are performed on a generic processor and do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract mathematical operations.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. “A model selection rule” is performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 20,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the model selection rule is a rule stating that a model relating to a calculated risk determination score exceeding a predetermined value is not selected
For example, a human can easily the determination of a score exceeding a predetermined value by simply comparing said score to said predetermined value. Humans have been comparing values before computers where ever invented.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 21,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the model selection rule is a rule including a list of information about specific ethical risk factors and stating that, when a model contains the information on the list with respect to the ethical risk factor information specified by the list, regardless of a risk determination score, the model relating to the risk determination score is not selected.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human can easily create a list of information about specific ethical risk factors. Humans have been created lists before computers were ever created.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
The amendments overcome the Claim Objections and the Claim Objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments overcome the 112 Rejection and the 112 Rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The amendments overcome the 102 and 103 Rejections and the 102 and 103 Rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The 101 Rejection still has not been overcome. The claims are abstract and the steps in the claims can be completed with a mental process and/or generic computer components. Additionally, the steps in the claims do not describe an improvement of technology in any way.
The applicant argues:
Without acquiescing to the merits of this rejection, Applicant has amended claims 1 and 11, on which all other rejected claims depend, to better capture commercial embodiments. Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims are patent eligible because it describes a practical application of the alleged abstract idea. Claim 1 has been amended to recite a model acquisition part that acquires at least one explainable predictive model trained by multiple explanatory variables. However, accessing the risk for all the explanatory variables used in the training is computationally impractical and introduces unnecessary computations, especially when the number of explanatory variables is large. Accordingly, claim 1 has been amended to recite "generates a sentence that describes the relationship between the explanatory variables and a target variable in the explainable predictive model, , and determines risk in the at least one explainable predictive model based on similarity between ethical risk factor information and the explanatory variables contained in the sentence among the multiple explanatory variables used in training." Thus, the system and method described in the claims avoid assessment of each of multiple explanatory variables used in the training, thereby improving computational efficiency.
Furthermore, the claimed invention improves the functioning of the computer and therefore describes a practical application. As explained in paragraph [0059] of the specification, the claimed invention enables "eliminating the need to select explanatory variables and assess risk in an exhaustive manner, and an effect of efficiently performing explanatory variable selection and risk assessment can be obtained even with an increased number of explanatory variables," thereby reducing the burden on the processor and improving efficiency.
The examiner disagrees as the amended claims continue to recite an abstract idea. The evaluating of relationships between explanatory variables and determining risk are implemented using generic computer components. The so-called improvement of avoiding assements of all variables and increasing efficient constitutes an intended results rather than a specific technological solution. The claims do not recite a particular improvement in computer functionality, model architecture, or training technique, but instead rely on generic data processing and analysis. Accordingly, the amendments do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more and the 101 Rejection is maintained.
Claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights