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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten to overcome the applicable rejections set forth in this Office action because the examiner found neither prior art cited in its entirety, nor based on the prior art, found any motivation to combine any of the said prior art.
The primary reason for allowance for independent claims 1, 8, and 11 is determining, by the IDC engine, responsive to the detecting the stage transition, that a first processing unit, among the plurality of processing units, can process stage data having a second SDF, the second SDF based on a type of the first processing unit; determining, by the IDC engine, responsive to the IDC engine determining that the first processing unit can process stage data having the second SDF, a first data conversion to convert the data among the first stage data having the first SDF to have the second SDF; determining, by the IDC engine, a second processing unit, among the plurality of processing units, to perform the first data conversion; and, dispatching, by the IDC engine, the second processing unit to perform the first data conversion during continued runtime execution of the dataflow application on the dataflow computing system and in parallel with one or more of the plurality of processing units executing operations of the plurality of application stages, wherein the dispatching causes the second processing unit to execute the first data conversion without requiring a halt or restart of the dataflow application in conjunction with the rest of the limitations set forth in the claim.
The remaining claims, not specifically mentioned, are allowed because they are dependent upon one of the independent claims mentioned above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon (as provided in the Notice of References Cited dated 09/08/2025) is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Santan et al. (US 11,163,605) disclose a soft kernel to perform preprocessing on data to convert it into a format that is compatible with later stages of a pipeline flow.
Barrett et al. (US 9,817,866) disclose detection of a transition to a particular stage of a workflow.
Lin et al. (US 5,600,815) disclose that if data in a first or third memory stage is in parallel format, conversion to serial format is needed.
Response to Amendment and 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendment filed 02/18/2026 introduces new matter into the claims. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “during continued runtime execution of the dataflow application on the dataflow computing system, wherein the dispatching causes the second processing unit to execute the first data conversion without requiring a halt or restart of the dataflow application”. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A method, the method comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
detecting, by an Intelligent Data Conversion Engine (IDC engine), a stage transition of a dataflow application executing on a dataflow computing system, the dataflow application comprising a plurality of application stages, the IDC engine included in the dataflow computing system, the dataflow computing system comprising a plurality of heterogeneous processing units (abstract idea mental process i.e., [00110] of the instant specification states that detecting a stage transition can include detecting initiating execution of the dataflow application, an operation of the dataflow application, and/or a change in an execution state of the application which can all be performed mentally);
the stage transition detected by the IDC engine based on monitoring, by the IDC engine, an execution state of the dataflow computing system during runtime execution of the dataflow application on the plurality of processing units (abstract idea mental process);
determining, by the IDC engine, responsive to the detecting the stage transition, that data among first stage data has a first Stage Data Format (SDF), the first stage data comprising data associated with a first stage among the plurality of application stages (abstract idea mental process);
determining, by the IDC engine, responsive to the detecting the stage transition, that a first processing unit, among the plurality of processing units, can process stage data having a second SDF, the second SDF based on a type of the first processing unit (abstract idea mental process);
determining, by the IDC engine, responsive to the IDC engine determining that the first processing unit can process stage data having the second SDF, a first data conversion to convert the data among the first stage data having the first SDF to have the second SDF (abstract idea mental process);
determining, by the IDC engine, a second processing unit, among the plurality of processing units, to perform the first data conversion (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
detecting, by an Intelligent Data Conversion Engine (IDC engine) (generic computing components), a stage transition of a dataflow application executing on a dataflow computing system, the dataflow application comprising a plurality of application stages, the IDC engine included in the dataflow computing system, the dataflow computing system comprising a plurality of heterogeneous processing units (generic computing components);
dispatching, by the IDC engine, the second processing unit to perform the first data conversion during continued runtime execution of the dataflow application on the dataflow computing system and in parallel with one or more of the plurality of processing units executing operations of the plurality of application stages, wherein the dispatching causes the second processing unit to execute the first data conversion without requiring a halt or restart of the dataflow application (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
dispatching, by the IDC engine, the second processing unit to perform the first data conversion during continued runtime execution of the dataflow application on the dataflow computing system and in parallel with one or more of the plurality of processing units executing operations of the plurality of application stages, wherein the dispatching causes the second processing unit to execute the first data conversion without requiring a halt or restart of the dataflow application (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, the method further comprising:
determining, by the IDC engine, responsive to the detecting the stage transition, that the first processing unit can process stage data having a third SDF (abstract idea mental process);
determining, by the IDC engine, responsive to the IDC engine determining that the first processing unit can process stage data having the third SDF, a second data conversion to convert the data among the first stage data having the first SDF to have the third SDF (abstract idea mental process);
determining, by the IDC engine, a third processing unit, among the plurality of processing units, to convert the data among the first stage data having the first SDF to have the third SDF (abstract idea mental process); and,
comparing, by the IDC engine, a first conversion optimization metric, associated with the second processing unit performing the first data conversion, and a second conversion optimization metric, associated with the third processing unit performing the second data conversion (abstract idea mental process); and,
wherein the method of the IDC engine dispatching the second processing unit to perform the first data conversion comprises the IDC engine dispatching the second processing unit to perform the first data conversion based on the comparing the first conversion optimization metric and the second conversion optimization metric (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, the method further comprising:
determining, by the IDC engine, that the first data conversion comprises a sequence of intermediate data conversions (abstract idea mental process);
determining, by the IDC engine, a third processing unit, among the plurality of processing units, to perform a first intermediate data conversion included in the sequence of intermediate data conversions (abstract idea mental process);
determining, by the IDC engine, a fourth processing unit, among the plurality of processing units, to perform a second intermediate data conversion included in the sequence of intermediate data conversions (abstract idea mental process);
determining, by the IDC engine, a conversion order, the conversion order comprising an order, within the sequence of intermediate data conversions, for the third processing unit to perform the first intermediate data conversion and the fourth processing unit to perform the second intermediate data conversion; and (abstract idea mental process),
dispatching, by the IDC engine, the third processing unit to perform the first intermediate data conversion and the fourth processing unit to perform the second intermediate data conversion according to the conversion order (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the IDC engine determining the conversion order comprises the IDC engine applying a conversion cost model to determine the third processing unit, the fourth processing unit, and the conversion order (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the stage transition is selected from a group consisting of: a transfer of data included among the first stage data; input of the first stage data for processing by the first processing unit; initiating execution of the first stage; initiating execution of a second stage of the dataflow application; initiating execution of the dataflow application by the first processing unit; and, initiating execution of the dataflow application by a second processing unit included in the dataflow computing system (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of processing units comprises heterogeneous processing units (generic computing components); and, wherein the second SDF is based on a type of the first processing unit (generic computing components).
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the IDC engine determining the first data conversion comprises the IDC engine determining the first data conversion based on a conversion optimization metric (abstract idea mental process).
As per claim 8, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 18. The computing system of claim 11, wherein the first processing unit is selected from a group consisting of: a general purpose central processing unit (CPU); a graphic processing unit (GPU); and, a coarse grain reconfigurable processor (CGRP) (generic computing components).
Claim 19. The computing system of claim 11, the computing system further comprising a runtime processor configured to execute the dataflow application on the computing system (generic computing components); wherein the IDC engine is communicatively coupled to the runtime processor (generic computing components); and, wherein the IDC engine is further configured to interact with the runtime processor perform at least one of the detecting the stage transition (abstract idea mental process) and the dispatching the second processing unit to perform the first data conversion (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 20. The computing system of claim 19, wherein the IDC engine is included in the runtime processor (generic computing components).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 10-11, Applicant argues that “during continued runtime execution of the dataflow application on the dataflow computing system, wherein the dispatching causes the second processing unit to execute the first data conversion without requiring a halt or restart of the dataflow application” recited in the claims is fully supported by the instant disclosure and that the new matter rejection should be withdrawn. The examiner respectfully traverses. Applicant cites various passages of the instant disclosure for support of parallel execution and argues that parallel execution does not require halting or restarting the dataflow application. However, there is nothing in the instant disclosure that would suggest such a conclusion. More specifically, the US PG PUB (20230385103) of the instant specification states: “dependencies between the operations/expressions” ([0053]), “interdependent computation threads (pipelines) exchange data” ([0072]), “simultaneously execute multiple independent and interdependent operations” ([0074]), and “parallelize transfers…independently and concurrently”. Furthermore, [0110] teaches “data conversion boundaries between application stages—and associated execution latencies—that can inhibit, or degrade performance of, executing the application stages as a hardware pipeline among processing units of the system (e.g., processing units of a CGRS)”, [0192] discloses “Utilization of these preferred resources can conflict with other CGR hardware specified, based on the CGR hardware abstraction, in the application”, and [0233], [0236], and [0292] all teach interrupts to transfer stage data/channels. Hence, merely because portions of the system may be executed in parallel does not preclude any halting/restarting of the system. The sections of the disclosure presented above indicate that there exist interdependencies/dependencies in the system and the possibility of inhibiting/degrading stage execution, conflicts, and interrupts all during parallel execution. In other words, it cannot be rightly understood that merely stating parallel execution even provides implicit support for the recited “during continued runtime execution of the dataflow application on the dataflow computing system, wherein the dispatching causes the second processing unit to execute the first data conversion without requiring a halt or restart of the dataflow application” in the claims. That the system can run in parallel does not mean that all halting/restarting is avoided. On the contrary, the disclosure indicates that although parallel execution can occur, interruptions can also exist within the system. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 12 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the claims do not recite a mental process under Step 2A Prong One. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claims do not recite that the IDC engine “monitors an execution state of a dataflow computing system during runtime execution of a plurality of heterogeneous processing units”. A human can indeed via a mental process of observation, evaluation, and/or judgment determine a format of data. For example, at least [0086] and [0088] of the US PG PUB of the disclosure state that the data can be integer data or floating point data which the examiner contends that a human can readily distinguish between and also determine a conversion between the two different data formats. The examiner is not interpreting the “dispatching…” limitation to be a mental process limitation, but rather extra-solution activity. Merely reciting that the processing units are heterogeneous does nothing to support Applicant’s allegation that the claims do not recite a mental process because they merely further define the generic processing units (i.e., that a first processing unit and a second processing unit are different). The same can be said for the second SDF being based on the type of the first processing unit and that the conversion is dispatched in parallel with ongoing execution. In other words, a human can mentally determine stage data having a particular format based on a type of a processing unit in a similar manner as explained above, while conversion being dispatched in parallel with ongoing execution is not being interpreted as a mental process. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 12-14, Applicant argues that the claims integrate any judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two. The examiner respectfully traverses. Applicant alleges that the improvement is shown in the dispatching of the data conversion in parallel. However, converting data into different formats as explained above can be performed mentally and the alleged improvement cannot be found in an abstract idea limitation itself. Here, the supposed improvement in the data conversion. Hence, Applicant is alleging that the supposed improvement is directed to an abstract idea of converting data. Applicant’s attempt to show that the recited abstract idea is the improvement is not persuasive. An “improved” abstract idea of converting data is still an abstract idea nonetheless and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim. The examiner respectfully submits that an improvement in computer functionality is a reason for supporting the significance of the additional elements in a claim (Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, and not Step 1 or Step 2A Prong One). In other words, the “improvement” rationale is reserved for evaluating whether the additional elements and not the abstract idea itself amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05). Applicant is reminded that the abstract idea itself cannot be directed to an improvement in computer functionality (Step 2A Prong One). Rather only the additional elements can qualify as significantly more (i.e., the improvement) than the abstract idea itself (Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B). Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claims are not directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities because no capability of the computer is being improved in any way. Moreover, a human can separately and independently mentally convert data “without requiring a halt or restart of the dataflow application”. Merely dispatching a processing unit to perform said data conversion is equivalent to stating the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP 2106.05(f) states that: Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The instant claims fail to provide any details about or any restrictions on how the data conversion is actually performed or accomplished (i.e., a description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result of the converted data). Instead, the claims simply and generally state executing data conversion which can be performed mentally (i.e., converting integer data into floating point data or vice versa). Finally, the claims do not actually recite any “monitoring the execution state during runtime execution” Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 14 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the claims are eligible under Step 2B. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the examiner interprets the “dispatching…” limitation to be extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The factual support for this conclusion can be found in MPEP § 2106.05(f). As per MPEP § 2106.05(f), the examiner contends that the claimed “dispatching…” limitation (1) recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see previous explanation above), (2) invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process (the processing unit merely performs insignificant extra-solution data conversion which is commonly performed on generic computers), and (3) generally applies the judicial exception via a generic computer (merely executing a generic data conversion with a generic computer in parallel with other generic processing units executing does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself). Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 15-16, Applicant argues that the recited dependent claims are also eligible. The examiner respectfully traverses. As per claims 2, 9, and 12, a hardware resource selection can indeed be performed mentally because it is based on comparing two different optimization metrics i.e., numbers which can also be performed mentally. As per claims 3, 10, and 13, the claims do not recite any “scheduling” as argued by Applicant. Rather, they merely perform similar steps as recited in the independent claims and are therefore rejected using the same rationale. As per claims 4 and 14, applying a conversion cost model is not a specific computational technique tied to the hardware and can indeed be performed mentally by a human. As per claims 5 and 15, they are directed to selecting a stage transition from a group of options (mental process) comprising options merely directed to sending/receiving data which can be interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity. As per claims 6, and 16, they merely duplicate language found in the independent claims. As per claims 7 and 17, they merely further recite additional abstract idea limitations of determining a conversion and conversion optimization metric. As per claim 18, it merely recites generic computing components. As per claims 19-20, they also recite generic computing components. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. For example, [0057] of the US PG PUB of the instant disclosure states: “For the purposes of this document, the term integrated circuit also includes packaged circuits that include multiple semiconductor dies, stacked dies, or multiple-die substrates. Such constructions are now common in the industry, produced by the same supply chains, and for the average user often indistinguishable from monolithic circuits”. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014)). A claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry does not qualify as significantly more. The use of generic computer components to transmit information through an unspecified interface does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide for a conventional computer implementation. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
Finally, the examiner contacted Applicant’s representative on 06/26/2026 to schedule Applicant’s requested interview, but no reply was received.
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 Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached on 571-272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 July 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights