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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 10/20/25 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1-23 are pending.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system and a method; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of asset distribution for deceased individuals. The claims are reciting a process whereby digital asset content is/are being distributed upon the death of an assets content owner.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 8, 15, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
enabling the custodian to receive access to digital asset content and distribution instructions from the digital asset owner;
enabling the custodian to receive an authenticated agreement advising the custodian of identifying information for a designated recipient to receive the digital asset content upon death or incapacitation of a corresponding digital asset owner, the authenticated agreement also advising the custodian of identifying information for a death reporting entity;
enabling the custodian to receive an indication of the death or incapacitation of the digital asset owner from the death reporting entity;
enabling the custodian to distribute the digital asset content to the designated recipient in response to receiving the indication of the death or incapacitation of the digital asset owner from the death reporting entity;
enabling the custodian to receive a first integrity check or authenticated receipt verifying that the designated recipient received the distributed digital asset content;
enabling the designated recipient to distribute the digital asset content to at least one ultimate recipient;
enabling the designated recipient to receive a second integrity check or authenticated receipt verifying that the at least one ultimate recipient received the distributed digital asset content;
enabling the custodian to receive the second integrity check or authenticated receipt verifying that the at least one ultimate recipient received the distributed digital asset content; and
(claims 8 and 15) prepare a final arrangements event schedule using the final arrangements information
The abstract idea also includes the following from claim 1:
causing at least a portion of the digital asset content to be expunged from data storage in response to receiving the second integrity check or authenticated receipt
The above limitations are reciting a process whereby digital assets (digital asset content) is/are being distributed upon the death of the owner of the assets/content. The claimed authenticated agreement that includes identifying information for disbursement of the asset content reads on the use of a last will and testament from a deceased person that is received by a custodian (an executor to a will) who ensures that the wishes of the deceased is fulfilled. A will of a deceased person is a legal document and the distribution of assets upon the death of a person is a legal process. The claimed elements are reciting the execution of a legal obligation in the form of a last will and testament, that sets forth distribution of assets to beneficiaries or persons who will be inheriting assets from the deceased. This represents a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea. Upon receiving of a notification that a person is deceased, an executor is known as being a person that makes sure that the instructions of the will are followed, and ensures that those who are inheriting assets will receive the assets. The claimed invention can also be considered as a system and method of following instructions, where the will sets forth the instructions that are to be followed by the custodian (executor). This is also a concept that falls into the category of being a certain method of organizing human activities. For these reasons the claims are found to be reciting an abstract idea.
For claims 1, 8, 15, the additional elements are:
a data processor;
a network interface, in data communication with the data processor, for communication on a data network; and
a digital asset distribution system, executable by the data processor, to:
establish, by use of the data processor and the data network, a data connection with a digital asset owner platform;
establish, by use of the data processor and the data network, a data connection between the digital asset owner platform and an authenticated custodian;
establish, by use of a data processor and a data network, a data connection with a designated recipient platform;
an owner platform
recipient platform
Claim 15, additionally recites:
a non-transitory machine-usable storage medium that embodies instructions to cause the claimed process to occur
a machine that executes the instructions
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination as a whole, amount to the use of connected computing devices (with a processor and memory) that are being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computer that has digital connections between a data processor and a recipient platform and an owner platform. This is reciting the use of computers that are connected to a network such as the Internet so that the computers can communicate with each other. These elements are taken as an instruction for one to practice the invention using computers such that the steps that define the abstract idea are computer implemented. This is nothing more than a link to computer implementation for the abstract idea. This is indicative of the fact that the claims have not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claims is/are found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by the use of connected computing devices (with a processor and memory) that are being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computer that has digital connections between a data processor and a recipient platform and an owner platform. This is reciting the use of computers that are connected to a network such as the Internet. These elements are taken as an instruction for one to practice the invention using computers such that the steps that define the abstract idea are computer implemented. This is an instruction for one to use computer implementation for the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible because it does not amount to reciting significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard.
For claims 2, 9, 16, the claimed cryptographically encrypted data is reciting more about the abstract idea. Encrypted data is just coded data and the data itself is part of the abstract idea. The data processor has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1 to which applicant is referred. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 3, 10, 17, the claimed receiving of a decryption key is part of the abstract idea. A code requires key that allows for decryption of the code. This is part of the abstract idea itself. The data processor has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1 to which applicant is referred. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 4, 11, 18, the claimed asset content includes information related to estate planning documents, financial assets, taxes, insurance, obituary, etc., are all elements that serve to further define the abstract idea of the claims. The digital assets and the fact that they may be documents is something that is part of the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 5, 12, 19, the abstract idea is being further defined by the language of:
the digital asset owner to provide authenticated or authenticating credentials or other information empowering the custodian to act on behalf of the digital asset owner with regard to the disclosure or distribution of the digital asset content upon death of the digital asset owner
This lanague has a scope that includes a document such as a power of attorney, and is part of the abstract idea. The data processor as an additional element has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1 to which applicant is referred. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 6, 13, claiming that the authenticated receipt includes hashing information is reciting information per se. This is part of the abstract idea. The information used is part of the abstract idea. The use of blockchain technology is considered to be an additional element. The use of blockchain is recited at a high level of generality and does not amount to more than a general link to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(f),(h). The claim is simply using blockchain for what it is used for, namely for the storage of data in a verifiable and accurate manner. The general link to blockchain does not provide for integration into a practical application at the 2nd prong and is not reciting significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 7, 14, 20, the enabling of the user to generate final arrangements information and store the final arrangements information with the custodian as final arrangement asset content is reciting more about the same abstract idea of claims 1, 8, and 15. A person can perform the recited function. The additional elements are the recitation to the use of software and a general link to artificial intelligence and Internet data extraction systems, and the recitation to a cloud based storage. These elements are reciting the use of a computer, the use of artificial intelligence in a broad and non-limiting manner, and the storage of information in the cloud (distributed computers). These elements are taken as an instruction for one to practice the abstract idea by using artificial intelligence and software apps. This is a general link to computers and AI and use of computers to store data remotely (the cloud). This does not provide for integration or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 21, the abstract idea is being further defined by the elements of:
wherein the digital asset content includes a first content and a second content;
wherein enable, the custodian to distribute the copy of the digital asset content to the designated recipient platform in response to receiving the indication of the death or incapacitation of the digital asset owner from the death reporting entity is further configured to:
concatenate the first content and the second content, and
perform a first homomorphic hash on the concatenated first and second content;
wherein distribute the copy of the digital asset content to the designated recipient includes distribute the concatenated first and second content;
wherein enable, the designated recipient platform to distribute the copy of the digital asset content to at least one ultimate recipient includes distribute the first content to a first ultimate recipient and the second content to a second ultimate recipient;
wherein the second integrity check or authenticated receipt includes verifying that the first ultimate recipient received the first content and the second ultimate recipient received the second content;
wherein enable, the designated recipient platform to receive the second integrity check or authenticated receipt verifying that the at least one ultimate recipient received the distributed digital asset content is further configured to perform a first content homomorphic hash by the first ultimate recipient on the first content and perform a second content homomorphic hash by the second ultimate recipient on the second content
wherein the second integrity check or authenticated receipt includes the first content homomorphic hash and the second content homomorphic hash; and
wherein enable, the custodian to receive the second integrity check or authenticated receipt verifying that the at least one ultimate recipient received the distributed digital asset content is further configured to confirm the first and second content homomorphic hashes aggregate to the first homomorphic hash
For claims 22, 23, the abstract idea is being further defined by the elements of:
distribute a copy of the digital asset content;
including causing at least a portion of the digital asset content to be expunged from data storage in response to receiving the second integrity check or authenticated receipt;
wherein the digital asset content includes a first content and a second content;
wherein enabling, the custodian to distribute the copy of the digital asset content to the designated recipient in response to receiving the indication of the death or incapacitation of the digital asset owner from the death reporting entity includes:
concatenate the first content and the second content, and
perform a first homomorphic hash on the concatenated first and second content;
wherein distribute the copy of the digital asset content to the designated recipient platform includes distribute the concatenated first and second content;
wherein enabling the designated recipient platform to distribute the copy of the digital asset content to at least one ultimate recipient includes distribute the first content to a first ultimate recipient and the second content to a second ultimate recipient;
wherein the second integrity check or authenticated receipt includes verifying that the first ultimate recipient received the first content and the second ultimate recipient received the second content;
wherein enabling, the designated recipient platform to receive the second integrity check or authenticated receipt verifying that the at least one ultimate recipient received the distributed digital asset content is further configured to perform a first content homomorphic hash by the first ultimate recipient on the first content and performing a second content homomorphic hash by the second ultimate recipient on the second content;
wherein the second integrity check or authenticated receipt includes the first content homomorphic hash and the second content homomorphic hash; and
wherein enabling, the custodian to receive the second integrity check or authenticated receipt verifying that the at least one ultimate recipient received the distributed digital asset content is further configured to confirm the first and second content homomorphic hashes aggregate to the first homomorphic hash
For claims 21-23, they recite more about the abstract idea and how the digital asset content is being distributed and how the integrity checks are received, etc.. The above noted elements set forth by the examiner are those that further define the abstract idea. The homomorphic hash is part of the abstract idea because this is claiming a cryptographic technique that is recited at a high level of generality and that is a form of encryption that allows data to be processed prior to decrypting it. A person can perform homomorphic hashing manually with no technology. The additional elements claimed are the data processor and the recipient platform. These elements have been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 1 to which the applicant is referred and do not provide for integration or significantly more for the same reasons. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 112b rejection of claim 1 in view of the amendment is persuasive to overcome the rejection. The rejection has been withdrawn for claim 1. The applicant has argued that claims 8 and 15 do not contain the same language as claim 1 and should have not been rejected. This is persuasive and the 112b rejection has been withdrawn in total.
The argument on pages 20 and 25 that the claims are eligible when viewed with the streamlined analysis is not persuasive. The fully eligibility analysis has been undertaken due to the claims reciting a judicial exception in the claim scope. The streamlined analysis is not appropriate for a claim of this type that is clearly reciting a certain method of organizing human activity in the claim scope.
On pages 20-21 the applicant argues that the disclosure (not the claims) teaches an advancement in digital asset content distribution. The applicant alleges that the claims provide for a more improved manner by which asset content delivery is being verified. The applicant goes on to discuss homomorphic hashing for the confirmation of delivery of the asset content. The applicant cites to the specification for information about how the homomorphic hashing occurs. The applicant argues that this provides for an improvement to technology based on the disclosure. This is not persuasive. Claims 1, 8, 15, do not recite homomorphic hashing and do not recite the subject matter from the specification that is being argued. Absent a recitation to homomorphic hashing in the independent claims, the applicant cannot argue that homomorphic hashing as set forth in the disclosure renders the claims an improvement to technology. This is not persuasive for claims 1, 8, 15.
For new claims 21-23, homomorphic hashing is claimed and has been found to be part of the abstract idea. The use of homomorphic hashing does not result in any technology of the claims being improved. The argument is not persuasive.
On pages 22-25 the applicant argues that the claims improve computer functionality. The applicant argues that this is due to the expunging of data from storage. The applicant argues that this saves storage space. The deletion of data from a computer such as a song, does not serve to improve the operation of the computer in any manner. The expunging of the data is part of the abstract idea. The expunging of data is clearly going to free up space for other data to be stored, but this is not itself an improvement to technology. Assuming that it was considered to be an improvement to technology, all an applicant would have to do is make a statement in a specification that data can be deleted to free up space so that it can be claimed so that it would render the claim eligible. Deleting data is not something that serves to improve technology such that the claims are eligible. The argument is not persuasive. The argument on page 23 that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the listed benefits of reducing storage space by expunging data is not persuasive. Deletion of data from a computer occurs every day and is not itself responsible for an improvement to technology. This is just deleting data from storage which is part of the abstract idea and does not serve to improve technology. This does not render the claim 1 eligible. The same is noted for claims 22 and 23 that also recite the expunging of data. The argument is not persuasive.
On page 26, the applicant argues that the examiner has not identified the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 1-20 and fails to provide a proper eligibility analysis. This is not persuasive. It is not clear what the applicant is asking for here. Claims are given their plain and ordinary meaning that is consistent with the specification. The applicant does not identify any limitation that is at issue and is just generally alleging that the rejection is not proper. This is not persuasive and is more of a statement of disagreement with the examiner than a reasoned argument.
On page 26 the applicant argues that the analysis of claim 8 is flawed. This is not persuasive. Claim 8 has been properly examined and evaluated for its eligibility. Claim 8 was the example claim that was used to identify the abstract idea and the elements that the applicant argues are missing from the analysis have been considered. The distribution of the digital asset content is part of the abstract idea as the rejection of record states. All limitations have been considered and have been addressed. The argument is not persuasive.
On page 26-27 the applicant argues that the examiner has included elements with the abstract idea that are not abstract because the abstract idea is limited to the use of a last will and testament. This is not persuasive. The abstract idea is defined by the elements set forth in the rejection of record and is not just limited to an authenticated agreement. The actual distribution of the assets and confirmation of their delivery is also part of the abstract idea, as the rejection of record states. The argument is not persuasive.
On page 27 the applicant argues that the examiner has not analyzed claims 1 or 15. This is not persuasive as all claims and all limitations have been considered. A claim by claim analysis is set forth in the rejection of record, contrary to what has been argued. The applicant seems to be taking issue with the examiner not copying and pasting each claim into the office action when they are essentially mirroring each other and are claiming the same or very similar elements. The “representative example” approach that the applicant finds improper is one that the instant examiner has used for many years. The “representative example” approach is how examiners are trained to write 101 rejections when claims directed to a method, system and a CRM mirror each other. This is the same approach taken by the PTAB when they address claim eligibility where an examiner also used the “representative example” approach. There is nothing wrong with using one of the independent claims as an example to convey an abstract idea to an applicant when the claims are reciting the same invention. If the claims differ to an extent that requires further clarification, then the examiner would provide a separate listing of the claim, however, that is not the case with the pending claims. The rejection of record sets forth a prime facie case of claim ineligibility and the rejection clear as far as identifying the claim elements that define the abstract idea and addressing additional elements. The applicant also argues that each claim has to be analyzed separately and failing to do so is improper and argues that the office has not met its burden of showing why the claims are not eligible. In reply the examiner notes that all claims have been examined and all limitations have been considered, and the claims are evaluated on a claim by claim basis as is evident from the 101 rejection of record. The argument is not persuasive.
On page 28 the applicant argues that distribution of digital asset content is not a will. While that might be true, the distribution of the digital asset content in accordance with a will of a deceased is what defines the abstract idea. The examiner did not equate the distribution of digital asset content to just being a will. When a person dies and they own digital assets, those assets can be given to another via a last will and testament. The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activities in this regard. The applicant also argues that the totality of the entire disclosure has been ignored by the examiner. This is not persuasive as the examiner has considered the disclosure in full. As to arguing that the disclosure has to be evaluated as a whole to determine eligibility, the examiner reminds the applicant that it is the claims that are analyzed for eligibility, not the entire disclosure where limitations are imported into the claims from the disclosure. The argument is not persuasive.
On page 28-29 the applicant argues that the claims are not directed to following instructions. The applicant argues that the examiner has not provided evidence that the claims are reciting instructions for one to follow and that this is an abstract idea. In reply, the examiner notes that the category of a certain method of organizing human activities includes things such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. When person dies, their will sets forth how their assets are to be distributed and is an instruction on how to distribute their assets. An examiner does not have to provide evidence via a court case or via other evidence to make an argument that the claims recite an abstract idea. This is actually prohibited in the eligibility guidance that was issued in 2019 and remains the same today. While an examiner has to articulate why an abstract idea is recited in the claims and must clearly identify the limitations that defines the abstract idea, there is no requirement that an examiner produce evidence as the applicant argues is required. The argument is not persuasive.
Claims 1-23 are clearly reciting a certain method of organizing human activities, and after performing the 2nd prong analysis the claims have been found to be “directed to the abstract idea” set forth by the examiner. Also, the applicant should notes that as stated in the July 2024 update to the 101 guidelines, courts do not rely upon evidence that a claimed concept is a judicial exception and in most cases the ultimate legal conclusion on eligibility is made without making any factual findings at all. Even in Bilski and Alice, no evidence was used to establish that the claimed contained a judicial exception. For example, in Alice, the court affirmed the decision of the Federal Circuits en banc judgement that the claims were ineligible, which was not an evidence based decision. Regardless, the examiner has clearly set forth the reasoning as to why the claims contain an abstract idea so the argument is a moot point. Arguing that evidence is needed to establish that an abstract idea is present in a claim is not persuasive because none is needed.
The applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea on page 30-31. The applicant argues that the rejection does not address all of the claimed elements. This is not persuasive. The limitations that the applicant argues have not been considered are the same limitations that are identified by the examiner as defining the abstract idea. The allegation that claims 1 and 15 have not been analyzed is not persuasive because all of the claims have been examined. Using claim 8 as an example, the examiner has set forth what the abstract idea is by identifying the elements that define the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 15 have been examined fully on the merits. The argument to the contrary is not persuasive.
On pages 31-32 the applicant argues hat the claims improve computer functionality. The applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claims provide for better analytics and capacity prediction (unclear what this is referring to as there is no capacity prediction claimed) and greater customer trust (this is not an improvement to technology). The argument amounts to a general allegation, which is not persuasive and do not seem to be commensurate with the scope of the claims.
On page 32 the applicant argues that the claims are not attempting to monopolize the abstract idea of wills and trusts and this weights towards the claims being eligible. This appears to be an argument of pre-emption. With respect to the issue of pre-emption and an argument that the claims are not pre-empting wills and trusts, in OIP Technologies v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed Cir. 2015) it was stated “And that the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make then any less abstract.” Reference was made to buySAFE in OIP for this finding. Pre-emption is not a standalone test for eligibility and the question of pre-emption is resolved by the two part framework from Alice and Mayo, as has been set forth by the CAFC in OIP and Sequenom. The guidelines also specifically make the point that a lack of complete pre-emption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. The argument is not persuasive for these reasons.
On page 33 the applicant argues that the claims are not a mere instruction for one to apply an exception. The applicant argues that the owner platform (generically recited) and the recipient platform (generically recited) is not using a computer in its ordinary capacity and argues that the examiner has failed to meet the burden of proof that claims 1-23 are mere instructions to apply an exception. In reply the examiner notes that the claimed owner and recipient platforms are generically recited and that they read on computers connected to each other via a network. That is an example of a claim doing nothing more than instructing one to practice the abstract idea using connected computers as a tool. This is not something that renders the claims eligible and is the rationale set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f). The argument is not persuasive.
On pages 33-34 the applicant again argues that the claimed invention is improving technology. This is not persuasive for reasons already addressed by the examiner in response to the same argument that is found on pages 20-25, and page 32. This argument is not persuasive and is nothing more than a general allegation.
On pages 34-44 the applicant discusses the disclosure and elaborates on various aspects of the invention. The applicant argues that the invention has real world benefits of allowing a custodian of assets to delete data. This is not persuasive and is not something that renders the claim as eligible as has already been addressed by the examiner. Deletion of data is part of the abstract idea and does not result in integration at the 2nd prong or at step 2B. The applicant agues that storage requirements are reduced and that the claims make a computer system more efficient. This is not persuasive and is just a general allegation that the invention has benefits. As was previously stated by the examiner, deleting data is not an improvement to technology and does not render the claims eligible.
On page 35 to page 44 the applicant argues that the specification teaches homomorphic hashing is being used in a very different way to provide a business advantage. The applicant discusses a partition and gives examples to explain the technology to the examiner. The applicant summarizes how the invention works and is arguing that a specific use of homomorphic hashing allows for data to be distributed in a thin file. All of the comments are noted but they are not clear as far as how they are showing that the claimed invention is eligible. The applicant is addressing the disclosure and not the claims. For claims 1, 8, 15, there is no homomorphic hash claimed in the claim scope and many of the arguments are relying upon subject matter from the disclosure that is not in the claims. It is not clear how the comments are applicable to the independent claims. The comments are not commensurate with the scope of claims 1, 8, 15. The examiner has read the comments but is not clear on what they are trying to argue other than alleging that the use of homomorphic hashing has not been used in the same manner. Again, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite homomorphic hashing. The argument is not persuasive.
For claims 22-23, the use of homomorphic hashing has been found to be part of the abstract idea. It is recited at a high level of generality and does not result in an improvement to technology. The comments that are found on pages 35-44 are not commensurate with the scope of the claims because what is argued is very specific and long in content, which is not reflected in the claims. It is hard to understand what it is that is claimed that is providing for an improvement to technology based on the arguments that are more directed to the specification than the claims.
The argument on page 41 that nobody has ever used homomorphic hashing for digital asset content distribution is noted, but is an argument about prior art and not claim eligibility. Novelty or non-obviousness over prior art does not equate to claim eligibility. It is not clear what the comments about Facebook are about and how this relates to the claims. The applicant appears to argue that the invention is not combining two sets into an aggregate but that the invention is taking apart an aggregate. This is not persuasive. What does this have to do with claims 1, 8, and 15? The argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Also, the claims are reciting the concatenation of the fist and second content which is the act of aggregating content into an aggregate so the argument that the invention does the opposite is not persuasive.
The example A on pages 42-44 is noted but is not an argument that the examiner can respond to. There is no actual argument to consider.
On page 44 the applicant argues that the claims are eligible because they are integrated into a practical application and because they recite significantly more. The applicant again argues that the claims improve computer functionality, improves technology or a technical field, contains other meaningful limitations, provides for a practical application, is not a mere instruction for one to use a computer, and is claiming something that is not well understood, routine, or conventional. For reasons already addressed, these allegations are not persuasive.
On pages 46-47 the applicant argues that the examiner is not considering the claims as a whole. This is not persuasive as all limitations have been considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole. The examiner did not just find that a computer with a digital connection was the only additional element as has been argued. The applicant is referred to the rejection of record where the additional elements have been considered fully. The argument is not persuasive.
On page 47 the applicant argues that the examiner has oversimplified the claimed invention and the applicant cites 3 lines from the rejection as if that was the totality of the rejection. In response the examiner disagrees and does not feel that the claims have been oversimplified. The examiner refers the applicant to the rejection of record where all claims and all limitations have been considered. The allegation to the contrary is not persuasive.
On page 48 the applicant argues that the preponderance of the evidence and the arguments show that the claims are eligible. This is not persuasive for the reasons set forth above and is a general allegation. Claims 1-23 are not considered to be eligible.
The applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more on page 48 with no further reasoning given. This is a general allegation that is not persuasive. The claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons set forth in the rejection of record and in the response to arguments.
With respect to the provisional double patenting rejection, it has been withdrawn due to the co-pending application 18/119,141 being in an abandoned status. This is the sole reason that the double patenting rejection has been withdrawn. The arguments are moot for this reason.
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 DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626