DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 04/14/2026. Claims 1-29 have been canceled. Claims 30-49 have been newly added. Therefore, claims 30-49 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
1. 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.
2. Claims 30-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
3. Regarding Step 1, claim 30 recites a machine (i.e., a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), claim 37 recites a manufacture, (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means.) and claim 44 recites a process (i.e., an act or step, or a series of acts or steps). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
4. Regarding Step 2A [Prong One], the claims recite an abstract idea.
5. Independent claims 30, 37, and 44 recite:
“capturing…a first digital signal representing a user command that specifies a default help response type selected from a plurality of predefined help response types;”, “storing the specified default help response type;”, “capturing…a second digital signal representing a help request that includes a subject identifier associated with a predefined help topic;”, “determining…the stored default help response type corresponding to the user;”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations recite an abstract idea of allowing a user to choose how help is delivered during a chat session which encompasses commercial interactions (i.e., marketing/sales activities or business relations) and managing personal behavior or interactions between people (i.e., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and mental processes (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) which is subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04 II
The Applicant’s Specification emphasizes in at least [0002] Financial institutions that provide financial services are increasingly providing a greater number of client services. In order to alleviate call and chat density from customers over a network environment, such client services include automated virtual support agents (e.g., chatbots) who supplement human virtual support agents by directly interacting with customers via text chat, phone, instant messaging, etc.
Consistent with the specification, the limitations of, “capturing”, “storing”, “determining” in the context of the claim recite steps a business may perform when assisting a user with general or specific help inquiries which relates to marketing or sales activities and business relations. Also, the limitations of “capturing” and “storing” in the context of the claim recite steps a user may follow to personalize their own settings for help and responses from the business which relates to managing personal behavior or interactions between people. The limitations of “capturing…a help request” and “determining…default help response type” in the context of the claim recite mental process steps for “collecting data and recognizing certain data within the collected dataset” to identify the default response type for the user, which are acts or evaluations that can be practically performed in human mind or by a human with or without pen and paper. As such, the claim recites an abstract idea.
6. Regarding Step 2A [Prong Two], independent claims include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
“a server computing system”, “an authenticated client device”, “a non-transitory memory including a set of instructions of computer-executable program code”, “executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations including:”, “via a chat communication interface”, “a chatbot”, “a hyperlink response, an in-chat instructional text response, and an interactive chat response”, “a data structure maintained in the non-transitory memory”, “automatically”, “a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having with a set of instructions of computer-executable program code, which when executed by one or more processors of a server computing system, causes the server computing system to perform operations including:” – see claims 30, 37, and 44, are recited in the claims at a high-level of generality in light of the specification. The Applicant’s original Specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing any of the particulars, such that the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computer components being used to aid with performance of the abstract idea. The additional elements merely add the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The other additional elements of: “initiating an interactive chat help operation corresponding to both the subject identifier and the stored default help response type.” adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., data transmission/output, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The other additional elements of: “for conducting wireless communications” and “during an active virtual chat communication session” recited by the claim(s) is/are merely an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h)
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
7. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a server computing system”, “an authenticated client device”, “a non-transitory memory including a set of instructions of computer-executable program code”, “executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations including:”, “via a chat communication interface”, “a chatbot”, “a hyperlink response, an in-chat instructional text response, and an interactive chat response”, “a data structure maintained in the non-transitory memory”, “automatically”, “a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having with a set of instructions of computer-executable program code, which when executed by one or more processors of a server computing system, causes the server computing system to perform operations including:” – see claims 30, 37, and 44 are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
The other additional element of: “initiating an interactive chat help operation corresponding to both the subject identifier and the stored default help response type” was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and thus re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The Symantec, TLI Communications, Versata Dev. Group and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicated that: “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “presenting offers and gathering statistics” is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a generic manner. Thus, at Step 2B the claim(s) are ineligible.
8. Dependent claims 31-36, 38-43, 45-49 depend from claims 30, 37, and 44.
Dependent claims 31, 38, and 45 recite “wherein automatically initiating the interactive chat help operation comprises generating and transmitting a hyperlink signal for display in the chat communication interface that directs the authenticated client device to a network resource associated with the subject identifier.” which adds insignificant post-solution activity, i.e., data transmitting, the judicial exception. Using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, claims 32, 39, and 46 recite “wherein automatically initiating the interactive chat help operation comprises generating and transmitting instructional text for display in the chat communication interface.” which adds insignificant post-solution activity, i.e., data transmitting, the judicial exception. Using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, claims 33 and 40 recite “wherein the instructional text provides help on the subject of the help request” which further describes the type of data/information that may be used to perform the abstract idea, but does not make the claim any less abstract, claims 34, 41, and 47 recite “wherein automatically initiating the interactive chat help operation comprises initiating an interactive chat workflow in which the chatbot dynamically exchanges prompts and responses with the user to capture required data and execute a transaction associated with the subject identifier.” which adds insignificant post-solution activity, i.e., data transmitting, the judicial exception. Using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, claims 35, 42, and 48 recite “wherein automatically initiating the interactive chat help operation comprises transmitting a web link to a webpage of an enterprise website that is relevant to the subject of the help request” which adds insignificant post-solution activity, i.e., data transmitting, the judicial exception. Using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, claims 36, 43, and 49 recite “wherein automatically initiating the interactive chat help operation comprises generating and transmitting an audio file providing help on the subject of the help request” which adds insignificant post-solution activity, i.e., data transmitting, the judicial exception. Using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claim(s) 30-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Segre (US 2017/0324866 A1).
With respect to claims 30, 37, and 44, Segre discloses
a server computing system (¶ 0086: discloses a chat automation server 140 for conducting and managing automated/electronic chat communications with end users 106 operating end user devices 108), a computer program product (¶ 0090), and method (¶ 0064) for conducting wireless communications with an authenticated client device (¶ 0064, 0094: discloses methods for orchestrating automated chat communications with customer and end users by employing automated chat systems or chat robots to engage with customers.), the server computer system (¶ 0086: discloses a chat automation server) comprising:
a non-transitory memory including a set of instructions of computer-executable program code which when executed by one or more processors (¶ 0103: discloses the chat automation server further includes a computer readable storage medium having non-transitory computer readable instructions stored.),
causes the one or more processors (¶ 0103) to perform operations including:
capturing, via a chat communication interface during an active virtual chat communication session between the user and a chatbot, a first digital signal representing a user command that specifies a default help response type selected from a plurality of predefined help response types that includes at least a hyperlink response, an in-chat instructional text response, and an interactive chat response (¶ 0095, 0100, 0112-0113, 0127, 0129, 0150-0151: discloses the chat communication interface may include the actual chat and is configured to send signals to the end user device to populate the chat communication interface. The chat automation server 140 may ask the end user one or more predetermined questions.);
storing the specified default help response type in a data structure maintained in the non-transitory memory (¶ 0082, 0096, 0128, 0134-0135: discloses the mass storage devices 126 may store one or more databases related to agent data, customer data, interaction data, and the like. Chat automation profiles may be configured to interpret different words or phrases provided by the end user.);
capturing, via the chat communication interface, a second digital signal representing a help request that includes a subject identifier associated with a predefined help topic (¶ 0101, 0117-0118: discloses the chatbot may be configured to ask additional follow-up questions as to the purpose or topic of communication…receive signals from the end user device.);
determining, via the data structure, the stored default help response type corresponding to the user (¶ 0088, 0094, 0106, 0114, 0128, 0134, 0136: discloses the chat automation server 140 identifies from database 126 service preferences of the end user. Also, the chat automation server may select a chat automation profile with different characteristics or specializations that may be utilized to conduct an automated chat session…the profile of a particular chatbot may be used to select a chatbot with expertise for helping a customer on a particular subject control, for example how the chatbot communicates with the particular customer…once a chat automation profile is selected.); and
automatically initiating an interactive chat help operation corresponding to both the subject identifier and the stored default help response type. (¶ 0102, 0107, 0109, 0116, 0132, 0152, 0155: discloses the chat automation server 140 uses the chat communication interface to proactively deliver answers or responses to the end user. Responses may be categorized based on topics and suggested next actions. A selected chatbot may ask and answer various questions to and from the end user to attempt to resolve the needs of the end user. The particular chatbot selected by the default chatbot may have various conversation paths or scripts that may follow based on the customer intent information.)
With respect to claims 31, 38, and 45, Segre discloses
the server computing system, computer program product, and method,
wherein automatically initiating the interactive chat help operation comprises generating and transmitting a hyperlink signal for display in the chat communication interface that directs the authenticated client device to a network resource associated with the subject identifier. (¶ 0088, 0109, 0155: discloses the chat automation server 140 may provide an answer to the end user by way of the chat communication interface including a hyperlink to an internet website that is relevant to the input received from the end user.)
With respect to claim 32, 39, and 46, Segre discloses the server computing system, computer program product, and method,
wherein automatically initiating the interactive chat help operation comprises generating and transmitting instructional text for display in the chat communication interface. (¶ 0107, 0109-0110, 0150-0151: discloses after the response is selected...outputs an outbound text to be displayed at the end user device. The chat communication interface may include a communication summary for displaying the text from the chat automation server 140.)
With respect to claims 33 and 40, Segre discloses the server computing system and computer program product,
wherein the instructional text provides help on the subject of the help request. (¶ 0102, 0106-0107, 0152: discloses the chat automation server 140 may perform text analytics on the input received from the end user by way of the chat communication interface in order to proactively deliver answers or responses to the text received from the end user. Responses may be categorized based one topics.)
With respect to claims 34, 41, and 47, Segre discloses the server computing system, computer program product, and method,
wherein automatically initiating the interactive chat help operation comprises initiating an interactive chat workflow in which the chatbot dynamically exchanges prompts and responses with the user to capture required data (¶ 0095, 0112: discloses the chat automation server 140 may also host a default chat bot that may be invoked during a chat conversation if there is insufficient information about the customer. The default chatbot may be invoked to ask questions about the customer intent.) and execute a transaction associated with the subject identifier. (¶ 0094-0095)
With respect to claims 35, 42, and 48, Segre discloses the server computing system, computer program product, and method,
wherein automatically initiating the interactive chat help operation comprises transmitting a web link to a webpage of an enterprise website that is relevant to the subject of the help request. (¶ 0062, 0069, 0088, 0109, 0155-0156: discloses customers or other end users desiring to receive services from a business by initiate an inbound communication via their end user device. The chat automation server 140 may provide an answer to the end user by way of the chat communication interface including a hyperlink to an internet website that is relevant to the input received from the end user.)
With respect to claims 36, 43, and 49, Segre discloses the server computing system, computer program product, and method,
wherein automatically initiating the interactive chat help operation comprises generating and transmitting an audio file providing help on the subject of the help request. (¶ 0062, 0069-0070, 0088, 0094, 0156: discloses automated interactions may be useful for some customers because the structure and flow of an automated interaction can be optimized and to the point. Customers or end users desiring to receive services from a business may initiate an inbound communication. The response from the chat bot may be converted back into speech and delivered to the end user’s device.)
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “Here, independent claims 30, 37, and 44 recite operations performed by a server computing system during an active virtual chat communication session, including capturing digital signals via a chat communication interface, storing user-specific configuration data in non-transitory memory, retrieving the stored configuration upon subsequent help requests, and initiating system-level help operations based on that stored configuration. Indeed, when properly construed, the claims do not recite a fundamental economic practice, method of organizing human activity, mental process, or mathematical concept.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant arguments are not persuasive. Merely restating the limitations of claim 30 as amended at a high-level of generality does not change the previous 101 analysis or make the claimed invention any less abstract. The Specification makes clear the focus of the claimed invention as shown below:
[0001] The present disclosure relates to a computing device, computer program product, and computer-implemented method for delivering digital financial services and, more particularly, for a virtual chat communication platform that facilitates user-enabled chat help customization.
[0002] Financial institutions that provide financial services are increasingly providing a greater number of client services. In order to alleviate call and chat density from customers over a network environment, such client services include automated virtual support agents (e.g., chatbots) who supplement human virtual support agents by directly interacting with customers via text chat, phone, instant messaging, etc.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, newly added claim 30 covers a series of steps a user or customer may follow to personalize their help preferences with a business for future interactions which involves concepts that encompass commercial interactions (such as sales or marketing activities, business relations) and managing personal behavior or interactions between people. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) It is also important for Applicant to note claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Thus, the ordered combination of additional elements recited in claim 30 including - (server computing system, an active virtual chat communication session, a chat communication interface, non-transitory memory) do not preclude the identified limitations under Step 2A Prong One from falling within in the certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Instead, the claims outline specific, technical steps involving sever-client device interactions that includes dynamic, session-level customization and execution of help operations within an active chat session. This yields a technological improvement by reducing interface switching and network overhead during a chat help operation. In particular, the claims are rooted in computer technology; reciting specific interactions between server-generated chat communication interfaces, server-side data structures, and automated response engines. For instance, the claims include: capturing a first digital signal representing a user-specified default help response type during an active chat session; persisting that default response type in a server-maintained data structure; - capturing a second digital signal representing a help request that includes a subject identifier; and initiating an interactive chat help operation corresponding to both the subject identifier and the stored default help response type. These limitations are not directed to the abstract concept of "providing help" or "customizing responses," but instead define how a chat support system operates at a technical level to control response modality selection automatically across chat interactions.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. It is important for Applicant to note the courts have previously held abstract ideas may be described at different levels of abstraction. At best, Applicant attempts to mischaracterize the previous rejections under Step 2A Prong One and is mainly relying upon the specificity of the presently recited techniques or ordered combination of limitations recited in claim 30. The series of steps or limitations described by Applicant merely narrow how the judicial exception is being performed rather than provide a technological solution to a technological problem. The Applicant makes conclusory statements in regards to their technical improvement and fails to provide any findings from the Specification that support the alleged improvement. The benefits discussed above by Applicant with respect to reducing interface switching and network overhead during a chat help operation are not considered technical improvements to computer or chatbot functionality. Instead, they are benefits that flow from performing an abstract idea in conjunction with generic computer components. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Applicant further contends that the disputed claims satisfy Step 2A, Prong Two. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims are construed as reciting an abstract idea, the claims are nevertheless integrated into a practical application. The claims apply any such idea using a specific server-side architecture and runtime control logic that enhances the functioning of computerized chat platforms. In particular, the claimed invention: automates response modality selection based on a stored user preference rather than requiring repeated user input; dynamically determines response behavior at runtime using both a subject identifier and persisted configuration data; and initiates different system-level response mechanisms, including hyperlinks, instructional text, interactive chat workflows, and audio outputs. Such integration results in a chat support platform that is functionally distinct from conventional chat platforms, which rely generally on static flows, repeated menu selection, or single-session context.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Specification [¶ 0001-0002] and claims describe the automation of the personalized or tailored help responses through the use of generic-computer functions [¶ 0036-0054, Fig. 1]. The remarks that discuss “using a specific server-side architecture and runtime control logic” are simply relying upon the particular technological environment or field of use but fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h) The courts have previously held relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359 ("use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “On the other hand, Applicant's claimed approach reduces repetitive prompt exchanges, improves session efficiency, and enhances system responsiveness; effects that constitute a technical improvement to the operation of the chat support platform itself. Such claims are consistent with USPTO examples in which abstract ideas are found eligible when they are applied in a manner that improves computer functionality or another technology, rather than merely using a computer as a tool.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) the courts have previously held "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" 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). At best, the benefits discussed above by Applicant with respect to reduces repetitive prompt exchanges, improves session efficiency, and enhances system responsiveness are not considered technical improvements to computer or chatbot functionality. Instead, they are benefits that flow from performing an abstract idea in conjunction with generic computer components. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “To the extent analysis under Step 2B is necessary, the disputed claims recite additional technical features that, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Here, the claimed invention arises from the non-conventional arrangement of chat system components, including: persistent storage of user-defined default help response types; automatic enforcement of those defaults during later help requests without
renewed selection; coordinated processing of subject identifiers and stored preferences; and initiation of distinct system-level response workflows based on such coordination.
Such technical features are not generic computer functions performed in a routine manner. Rather, they reflect a specific improvement in how server-based chat platforms manage and respond to help requests over time.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The courts have previously held "If a claim's only inventive concept' is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea." BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290-91. "It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention 'significantly more' than that ineligible concept."
The remarks above that discuss benefits related to the features of claim 30, however, they do not recite any technological improvements. At best, the limitations recited in claim 30 allow a user to choose how help is delivered during a chat session. The limitations do not recite any improvements or technological details of how the server-based chat platform interacts with the user and/or stores/retrieves data. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1333, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (processing data, routing it, controlling it, and monitoring its reception with conventional technology is not inventive); Intellectual Ventures I LLC Erie Indem., Inc., 850 F.3d 1315, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (receiving requests and delivering records is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity); Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (using off-the- shelf computer, network and display technology to gather, analyze, send, and present data is not inventive); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (arranging, storing, retrieving, sorting, eliminating, and determining are conventional); In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Pat. Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (processing, receiving, and storing can be performed by general purpose computers with no special programming);
Also, the Examiner asserts that the limitations recited in the claim do not describe any new computing device or communication network/infrastructure and “fails to provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominately describes the system and methods in purely functional terms.” The Applicant’s Specification [¶ 0036-0054, Fig. 1] simply describes the components in terms of performing generic computing functions and, accordingly, are not directed to a solution to a “technological problem” as was the case in Diamond v Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The dependent claims further reinforce this inventive concept by reciting concrete and varied output modalities (hyperlinks, instructional text, interactive workflows, and audio files), confirming that the claims are narrowly tailored to particular technical implementations rather than claiming a result in the abstract.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant arguments are not persuasive. The remarks merely discuss the dependent claims using vague and functional descriptions of computing components and the computing environment which is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.05(b) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 30-49 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights