DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communications filed on 03/02/2026. Claims 1, 8, & 15 have been amended. Presently, Claims 1-20 remain pending and are hereinafter examined on the merits.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Previous objections to the Abstract are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 03/02/2026.
Previous objections to the Drawings are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 03/02/2026.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC § 101 have been fully, considered, but are not persuasive.
The Examiner directs the Applicant’s attention provided in the Office Action regarding the grounds for rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of the amendments filed on 03/02/2026. Specifically, the Examiner response is set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 below.
Examiners Notes
Claims 1-20, though rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101 & 35 USC § 112(a) are not rejected under the prior arts. The claims are statutorily ineligible for indication of allowable subject matter. Note; a change in scope in view of the requested corrections will require further search and consideration.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “computing device” for receiving the MRI data and voltage data is configured to deliver a controlled dose” in claim 8-9, 11, and 13 invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The term “device” is a non-structural generic placeholder that does not include any specific structure for performing the accompany functions. See MPEP 2181.I.A: The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“computing device” refers to a generic smart phone, tablet, a laptop, a desktop computer, a server or combinations thereof for receiving MRI data and Voltage data in specification ¶0014.
¶0014, ‘The computing device101 may comprise for example, a smart phone, a tablet, a laptop, a desktop computer, a server, combinations thereof, and the like. The computing device101 may send and receive data to/from the EEG device102 and/or the MRI device103’
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 8, & 15: recites:
“determining, based on the MRI data and the voltage data, one or more flux measurements wherein each flux measurement of the one or more flux measurements is associated with an electrode of the plurality of electrodes;”
An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). This can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015), see MPEP § 2161(I).
The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) for a lack of written description. Proper written description cannot be identified in the specification, claims, and drawings directed to determining, based on the MRI data and the voltage data, one or more flux measurements wherein each flux measurement of the one or more flux measurements is associated with an electrode of the plurality of electrodes. Specifically, the specification defines mathematical tools and physical variables to be used, ¶0070. The specification provides little operational information on how the system actually executes these steps. Rather than detailing a concrete implementation, the specification presents a theoretical framework that lies on generalizations, conceptual physics, and black-box processing. There is a lack of clarity, regarding how the determining steps of the flux measurements are practically performed. There is no explanation of intermediate steps. There is no information on how the computing device structures this digitized data to execute the calculations. While PCA and gradient decent are multi-stage data processes that require specific approaches to formatting, the specification provides no implementation details amounting to nothing more than “naming the process”. Ultimately, the specification describes the idea of determining flux measurements by leaning on conceptual physics, assuming the use of known techniques, and treating complex software as functional. The specification does not provide a lack of written description of how the computing device actually performers the determining steps of the flux measurements. Therefore, the specification and drawings are directed to mere examples of methods tantamount to a black box, rather than showing procession of a particular implementation. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to implement the described process without disclosure of a particular implementation. In addition, an assertion that could be derived using simulations or test (i.e., prophetic examples) does not demonstrate that the inventors’ actual did so or had possession of the specific functional relationships and constraints to obviate the lack of written description requirement. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended to achieve the aforementioned step. Since the instant specification fails to provide a finite sequence of steps for performing the determination of the flux measurements, the aforementioned claims fail to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency to abovementioned claims.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 1 is directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Claim 8 are drawn to a “system” which describes one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a machine.
Claim 15 is directed to an “apparatus” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), and/or the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.), substantially as follows:
“ determining, based on the MRI data and the voltage data, one or more flux measurements wherein each flux measurement of the one or more flux measurements is associated with an electrode of the plurality of electrodes;
converting the MRI data and the voltage data into first image data;
generating, based on the one or more flux measurements and from the first image data, corrected image data; and ”
For each claim (1, 8, & 15) the above recited steps set forth an abstract idea because each describe operations manipulate and analyze data using mathematical relationships and/or evaluative reasoning that can be performed mentally. The steps, as generically recited, operate on the data as informational content, meaning numerical data of measured physical phenomena. Specifically, the determination of flux measurements based on MRI data and voltage data reflects an application of mathematical relationships that relate the magnetic flux values, electrode voltages, and resulting flux quantities. Determining flux from voltage and magnetic field measurements involve evaluating quantitative relationships between the measured signals (i.e., the data). These relationships express mathematical operations applied to underlying datasets, such as calculating values from voltage measurements and magnetic field measurements to produce a flux associated with each electrode. The claim is generically broad specifying a determination of flux measurements “based on” these datasets without reciting a particular unconventional data processing mechanism, thus the limitation is indeed described as the use of mathematical relationships applied to numerical values. Hence, the claimed determining step is grounded in mathematical manipulation of numerical measurement values of received data.
Additionally, the claimed operations of converting the MRI data and voltage data into first image data, and generating based on the one or more flux measurements and from the first image data, corrected image data, describe operations performed on data representing numerical values, which reinforces that the claim is directed to abstract relationships applied to data. In particular, these claimed operations of converting the MRI data and voltage data into first image data, and generating based on the one or more flux measurements and from the first image data, corrected image data, do not require any particular transformation. Instead, these operations describe transforming one set of numerical values into another set of numerical values that represent image data. The image data in this context can be understood as arrays or matrices of numerical values corresponding to pixel or voxel intensities. Thus, the conversion and generation steps involve manipulating numerical datasets representing measurements and derived quantities.
The claim explicitly treats MRI measurements, voltage measurements, flux measurements, and image data as information values that are mathematically related to one another, the recited operations describe applying relationships between these values to derive new datasets. Moreover, the steps, as emphasized, operate on numerical data of measurements, operations that can be understood as evaluating and transforming measurement information. A person analyzing the measurement values could conceptually apply relationships between the MRI measurements, voltage values, and flux measurements to compute numerical image values representing a corrected image. There is nothing recited in the recited limitations to suggest an undue level of complexity in how the steps are performed. Accordingly, the limitations set forth the types of mathematical reasoning and evaluative processes that fall squarely within the abstract categories of mathematical relationships and/or mental evaluation of information.
Prong Two: Claims 1, 8, & 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites [1] additional steps of receiving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, wherein the MRI data comprises magnetic field data associated with a magnetic field; receiving voltage data from an electroencephalography (EEG) device, wherein the voltage data comprises data sampled via one or more voltages from a plurality of electrodes; (claim 1),
[2] additional steps of an MRI device configured to send magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, wherein the MRI data comprises magnetic field data associated with a magnetic field; an electroencephalography (EEG) device configured to send voltage data, wherein the voltage data comprises one or more voltages sampled from a plurality of electrodes; and a computing device configured to: receive the MRI data; receive voltage data; (claim 8).
[3] additional steps of one or more processors; and memory storying processor executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: receive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, wherein the MRI data comprises magnetic field data associated with a magnetic field; receive voltage data from an electroencephalography (EEG) device, wherein the voltage data comprises data sampled via one or more voltages from a plurality of electrodes; (claim 15).
[4] further an additional step of outputting the corrected image data (claim 1, 8, & 15).
The steps in [1], [2], & [3] represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details). Data gathering and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 (f and g)). Regarding the processor language written at such a high level of generality of structural limitations, the processor language amounts to a generic computer component with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The limitation is generically recited in the claims such that it amounts to a data gathering steps that would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.
The step in [4] represents merely recites outputting correction data as a insignificant post-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the estimated bio-information is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, there is no evidence of record that would support the assertion that this step is an improvement to a computer or technological solution to a technological problem. Ultimately, the Applicant’s describe improvement in the process of using MRI data, and voltage data, but this is not an improvement in the function of a computer or other technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(ii); “the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology”; See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); 2106.05(a); and 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to the abstract idea. Also, there does not appear to be any particular structure or machine, treatment or prophylaxis, transformation, or any other meaningful application that would render the claim eligible at step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1, 8, & 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps receiving magnetic field data and voltage data. These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or insignificant pre extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, as discussed above, limitations with respect to the processor languages/terms, respectively, amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept. The data gathering steps that were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
As an evidence, Tucker et al (US 10,610,121 B1) discloses,
[Col.3 l.4-27] , ‘(7) FIGS. 2 and 3 show a portion of the subject's cortex which has been identified as a desired target 18 for desynchronization according to the invention. Such a target may be identified in any manner known in the art, such as from electroencephalographic (“EEG”) signatures and/or a priori anatomical knowledge. With particular reference to FIG. 3, for obtaining EEG signatures, the same electrodes 12 that are used for stimulation can be used as sensors of the electrical potentials generated by the brain as is known in the art. In such case, the system 15 would include a standard multi-channel voltage measuring device 14b, and the controller 16 may be adapted accordingly for controlling the voltage measuring device to measure electrical potentials (arrow “b”) sensed by the electrodes 12, and to send the measured data (arrow “c”) to the controller 16, so that the controller 16 may analyze the measured data and/or output the data (arrow “d”) for analysis by another device (e.g., a separate computer). (8) The identified target may further be imaged by any means known in the art, such as by magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”). The image may be used to conceptually subdivide the target into a number of different subpopulations, such as those referenced as “SP.sub.1” and “SP.sub.2” in FIG. 2, and “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D” in FIG. 3.’)
As another evidence, Leuthardt et al (US 2019/0090749 A1) discloses,
¶0114, ‘As seen in FIG. 1, system 100 includes a sensing system 102 that is configured to detect a plurality of measurements of brain activity that is representative of at least one parameter of the brain of the subject during a resting state. In one suitable embodiment, sensing system 102 is a magnetic resonance imaging device (MRI) that is configured to generate at least one spectroscopic signal representative of a plurality of measurements of brain activity that is representative of at least one parameter of the brain of the subject during a resting state. More specifically, sensing system 102 may generate an altered magnetic field within the brain to measure various parameters of the brain. In another suitable embodiment, sensing system 102 may be a specialized MRI, such as a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) device that is used to measure a variation in blood flow (hemodynamic response) related to neural activity in the brain or spinal cord (not shown) of the subject. In yet another suitable embodiment, sensing system 102 may be an electrocorticography device having at least one electrode (not shown) to measure at least one voltage fluctuation within the brain. It should be noted that the present disclosure is not limited to any one particular type of imaging and electrical technique or device, and one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the current disclosure may be used in connection with any type of technique or device that enables system 100 to function as described herein.’
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims:
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons:
Describe determining based on synchronized MRI timing data and voltage timing data, estimated MRI artifact data and estimated artifact voltage data and determining, based on the synchronized MRI timing data and the voltage timing data, a match between a time stamp assigned to each image of a series of voltage images and a time stamp assigned to each image of a series of MRI images. (claim 4 & claim 11 & claim 18)
Describe the voltage data comprises measurements associated with the voltage timing data indicative of a magnetic field gradient (claim 5 & Claim 12)
The following dependent claims merely further describe the pre-extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons:
Describe receiving the MRI data comprises receiving the MRI data from an MRI device and wherein the MRI data comprises one or more magnetic field properties associated with the magnetic field generated by the MRI device and wherein the MRI data comprises a series of images wherein each image of the series of images is associated with a time stamp. The data gathering steps and pre-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized. (Claim 2 & 9-10)
Describe the voltage data comprises data sampled from the plurality of electrodes in a preconfigured spatial configuration and wherein each electrode of the plurality of electrodes is associated with a position and a flux. The data gathering steps and pre-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized. (Claim 3 & 16-17)
Describe determining voxel data, wherein the voxel data comprises a plurality of voxels and wherein each voxel of the plurality of voxels is associated with a plurality of tensors and wherein each tensor of the plurality of tensors is associated with an interaction between an electromagnetic field and one or more particles in a human brain and further describe a first tensor of the plurality of tensors is associated with a direction of the magnetic field at a point in space, and wherein a second tensor of the plurality of tensors is associated with a magnitude of the magnetic field at a point in space, and wherein a third tensor of the plurality of tensors is associated with direction and magnitude of a net magnetic field at a point in space, and wherein a fourth tensor of the plurality of tensors is associated with a rate of precession of the first tensor, and wherein a fifth tensor of the plurality of tensors is associated with a net change in magnetic flux influenced by the rate of precession of the first tensor. The data gathering steps and pre-solution activity/post-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized. (Claim 6-7, 13-14, & 19-20)
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798