DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Nov. 12, 2025, and is made Non-Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Examiner interviews are available by telephone or, preferably, by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Interviews conducted solely for the purpose of “sounding out” the examiner, including by local counsel acting only as a conduit for another practitioner, are not permitted under MPEP § 713.03. The Office is strictly enforcing established interview practice, and applicants should ensure that every interview request is directed toward advancing prosecution on the merits in compliance with MPEP §§ 713 and 713.03.
For after-final Interview requests, supervisory approval is required before an interview may be granted. Each AIR should specifically explain how the After-Final Interview request will advance prosecution—for example, by identifying targeted arguments responsive to the rejection of record, alleged defects in the examiner’s analysis, proposed claim amendments, or another concrete basis for discussion. See MPEP § 713. If the AIR form’s character limits prevent inclusion of all pertinent details, Applicants may send a contemporaneous email to the examiner at James.Miller1@uspto.gov.
The examiner is generally available Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST.
For any GRANTED Interview Request, Applicant can expect an email within 24 hours confirming an interview slot from the dates/times proposed and providing collaboration tool access instructions. For any DENIED Interview Request, the record will include a communication explaining the reason for the denial.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Nov. 12, 2025, has been entered.
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1–20 remain pending and examined with Claims 1, 10, and 16 in independent form.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 16 are presently amended.
No Claims are presently cancelled or added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Aug. 18, 2023, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Argument
Applicant argues that Claim 10 does not fall under the “commercial or legal interactions” because the recited steps are performed between a processor and servers—not between people—and thus are not the types of agreements or business relations listed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Applicant also distinguishes from such categories by framing the flow as server-side decisions about reusing authentication data based on prior data sets. Applicant’s Reply at 11.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The “certain methods of organizing human activity” category in the 2019 PEG is not limited to human-to-human interactions; computer implemented processes that manage financial account data and authorize operations between customer devices and third-party servers are routinely treated as commercial interactions or fundamental economic practices. Claim 10 manages access to “user account data” for operations with third party servers, which is squarely within financial/commercial activity even if automated by servers.
Applicant argues the claims differ from Alice because they do not mitigate settlement risk or price/match contracts. Instead, the pending claims reduce the number of steps and time needed to complete a second transaction when an access token already exists, citing Spec. ¶ 54. Applicant’s Reply at 12.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the claims do not price contracts as in Alice, they still govern when and how financial account data is accessed and used to perform operations between an electronic device and third-party servers, which falls within commercial/financial interactions. The fact that the system also reduces user steps (Spec. ¶ 54) does not change the core focus from authorization and data sharing around financial accounts.
Applicant argues that a claim recites a mental process only when limitations can practically be performed in the human mind, citing MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and the 2024 SME Update. Here, establishing an access token linked to account data at a second server and the subsequent distributed processing cannot be done mentally. Applicant also argues that the later steps—comparing sets of account data, making subset determinations, and conditionally reusing tokens or prompting for authentication—are processor mediated network operations that are not mere “an extension of human cognitive ability.” Applicant’s Reply at 12–3.
Examiner agrees.
The step of “establishing…an access token…linked to user account data at the second server” and the subsequent server to server protocol are not practically performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the mental process characterization is withdrawn. However, the removal of the mental process exception does not alter the finding that the clams recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The high-level focus of the independent claims is an authorization workflow around account data, which fits within recognized abstract idea groupings. The proper place to consider the multi-server structure and token logic is under Prong Two and Step 2B, rather than treating the claims as wholly outside any judicial exception.
Applicant analogizes the claims to SRI Int’l v. Cisco, where detecting suspicious activity using network monitors and analyzing packets was found not to be a mental process. Applicant asserts that determining when to selectively require authentication data in a multi-server environment is a technical problem that would not exist but for computer networks and thus constitutes a technical solution rather than an abstract mental process. Applicant’s Reply at 13–4.
SRI is inapposite.
In SRI, the claims addressed a specific network security technique (using network monitors and packet analysis) that changed how the network operated at a technical level. Here, the pending claims control when to reuse a token or request credentials based on business level data field relationships. The asserted problem—avoiding repeated logins and controlling access to account data—is closely tied to user experience and business security policy, rather than a concrete improvement in underlying network mechanisms. Accordingly, while SRI supports the idea that not all data processing is mental, the facts here do not support a comparable technical improvement.
Applicant argues that the “determining” steps (subset comparison and rules) are surrounded by additional operations that integrate any abstract idea into a concrete implementation, i.e., using an access token from a first operation to provide access for a second operation without re-authentication, or else prompting the user to re-authenticate. Applicant asserts this yields an improvement to computer functioning by eliminating redundant authentication steps, making the second operation more efficient and reducing exposure of authentication data online, which is support by the Specification, ¶¶ 38–47, 54. Applicant’s Reply at 15.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The “improvement” is in application-level business and usability improvements (UX) rather than a change in the way computers or networks operate at a technical level—no new token structure, protocol, or cryptographic mechanism is recited. The claim does not “improve the functioning of a computer.” MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant argues that the steps of providing access via the token or requesting authentication are not post solution activity but central to the invention, like the immunization step in Classen that integrated an otherwise abstract analysis into a tangible medical protocol. Applicant contends that the additional recitations meaningfully limit the judicial exception by confining it to the specific application of using a first operation access token as a substitute for credentials when subsequent data fields are equal or fewer. Applicant’s Reply at 15–6.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument is somewhat persuasive in showing that the “provide access” and “request authentication” steps are integral rather than mere reporting, but the analogy to Classen is inapposite. In Classen, the immunization step constituted a real-world medical action transforming the abstract analysis into a concrete application. Here, the “action” is still a computer-mediated exchange of account data conditioned on business rules. The claim does meaningfully limit use of the abstract idea to a particular token-reuse workflow. The overall flow remains an information-processing scheme implementing authorization policy, rather than a transformation or technical effect on par with Classen.
Applicant cites the August 4 Memorandum’s emphasis on “particular solutions” and argues the problem is repeated entry of authentication data for each transaction, while the particular solution is comparing data sets from first and second operations to decide whether the second can proceed without re-authentication. Applicant frames the claims as a specific way to achieve a desired outcome, not merely the idea of streamlining transactions. Applicant’s Reply at 16.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
This argument is somewhat persuasive in framing the claim as a concrete pattern (subset comparison + conditional token reuse) rather than a generic “do it faster” idea.
The “improvement” is in application-level business and usability improvements (UX)—designing when to reuse credentials—rather than at a technical level comparable to, e.g., novel caching, protocol, or encryption strategies or a change in the way computers or networks operate at a technical level—no new token structure, protocol, or cryptographic mechanism is recited. The claim does not “improve the functioning of a computer.” MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant argues that when viewed as an ordered combination, the steps of establishing an access token based on first operation data, receiving a second operation request, comparing first and second data sets, determining subset relationships, conditionally granting access via the token, or requesting authentication constitute significantly more than any abstract idea. Applicant emphasizes that this process reduces steps, reduces credential sharing, and is not performed in the cited prior art. Applicant’s Reply at 17.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Servers, tokens, data field comparisons, and conditional prompting are themselves conventional elements arranged in an expected manner. The benefits of fewer steps and reduced credential exposure appear to be natural consequences of automating the authorization logic, rather than indicating an unconventional technical arrangement.
Applicant relies on CosmoKey, where an improved two-factor authentication method was found eligible, arguing that claim 10 similarly improves security and user experience by establishing an access token with a first operation and then reusing it for a second operation when the required data fields are a subset, thereby avoiding redundant login prompts. Applicant points to Spec. ¶ 54 for reduced steps and time. Applicant’s Reply at 18.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. CosmoKey is distinguished.
CosmoKey involved a very specific activation/deactivation scheme for an authentication function that directly addressed hacking at the protocol level. Here, the claims conditionally reuse an existing token based on data field relationships, but do not recite a concrete change to authentication mechanisms themselves (e.g., activation timing, cryptographic operations). The security and usability benefits are a design choice in an otherwise conventional token-based access architecture.
Applicant cites USPTO Example 47, where using detection information to remediate malicious packets was found to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and analogizes the claimed steps to analyzing data fields and reducing the number of steps by avoiding additional credential prompts. Applicant argues that, as in Example 47, the claimed steps improve the functioning of a computer or technical field (multi server operations) and thus integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s Reply at 18–9.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. USPTO Example 47 is distinguished.
Example 47’s claim involved proactive network remediation in real time, changing how network traffic is handled. However, the present claims primarily decide when to reuse an existing authorization token or prompt the user, which remains closer to application-level control flow than to low-level network or system behavior. The specification discusses reduced complexity and improved operation across multiple servers (e.g., ¶ 54), but not in terms of a new network or OS-level mechanism.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1–20 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.
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 (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 1–20 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1–9 recite a “method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “process.” Claims 10–15 recite a “system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.” Claims 16–20 recite a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of an "article of manufacture.”
Representative Claim
Claim 10 is representative [“Rep. Claim 10”] of the subject matter under examination and recites, in part, emphasis added by Examiner to identify limitations with normal font indicating the abstract idea exception, bold limitations indicating additional elements. Each limitation is identified by a letter for later use as a shorthand notation in referencing/describing each limitation. Portions of the claim use italics to identify intended use limitations1 and underline, as needed, in further describing the abstract idea exception:
[A] 10. A system comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to:
[B] receive, from an electronic device, a request to perform a first operation between the electronic device and a first third party server;
[C] request, based on the first operation: a first set of one or more data fields required from the first third party server to perform the first operation; authentication data from the electronic device, the authentication data associated with a user account managed by a second server;
[D] establish, with the second server, an access token in response to the first operation, the access token linked to user account data at the second server, wherein the user account data comprises the first set of one or more data fields, and the access token provides the first set of one or more data fields;
[E] receive from a second third party server, a server request to perform a second operation involving the second third party server and the electronic device;
[F] in response to receipt of a second set of one or more data fields, perform a comparison between the first set of one or more data fields and the second set of one or more data fields;
[G] determine, based on the comparison, whether the second set of one or more data fields is a subset of the first set of one or more data fields;
[H] in response to determining, based on the comparison, that the second set of one or more data fields is in the subset of the first set of one or more data fields, provide, via the access token, access to the user account data to the second third party server, without requesting that the electronic device provide the authentication data, and allow the second third party server to access the user account data via the access token and perform the second operation with the electronic device without the authentication data; and
[I] in response to determining, based on the comparison, that the second set of one or more data fields is not in the subset of the first set of one or more data fields, provide a request for the authentication data to a user of the user account to obtain user authorization for providing the access to the user account data to the second third party server to allow the second third party server to access the user account data and perform the second operation without utilizing the access token.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 10 recites “in response to determining, based on the comparison, that the second set of one or more data fields is in the subset of the first set of one or more data fields, provide, via the access token, access to the user account data … without requesting … authentication data,” in Limitation H and “in response to determining, based on the comparison, that the second set of one or more data fields is not in the subset of the first set of one or more data fields, provide a request for the authentication data to a user of the user account to obtain user authorization for providing the access to the user account data … to access the user account data and perform the second operation without utilizing the access token” in Limitation I, which recites commercial or legal interactions under the organizing human activity exception because “provide, via the access token, access to the user account data … without requesting … authentication data” or “provide a request for the authentication data to a user of the user account to obtain user authorization for providing the access to the user account data” recites “sales activities or behaviors, and business relations” between two people. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Alternatively, Limitations H and I recite fundamental economic principles under the organizing human activity exception because providing access to the user account data with or without a authentication data describes mitigating risk of fraud, a concept relating to the economy and commerce. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). Limitations B–G are the required steps for providing access to the user account data with or without authentication data and therefore, recite the same exception. Id.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Rep. Claim 10 does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. The additional elements are: A system comprising: a memory; a processor; electronic device, a first third party server, a second server, and a second third party server2.
Regarding the system comprising: a memory; a processor; electronic device, a first third party server, a second server, and a second third party server, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them or describes them using exemplary language as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., Spec. ¶ 76 (“a general purpose or special purpose computing device”); ¶ 15 (the network environment 100 may include any number of electronic devices and/or any number of servers”); ¶ 16 (“any other appropriate device that includes, for example, one or more wireless interfaces”); ¶ 18 (“the financial institution server 106 may include any entity that holds an account”); ¶ 20 (“The electronic device 102 may include any features and/or functions described herein for the electronic device 102 (shown in FIG. 1). Further, the electronic device 102 shown in FIG. 2 may be implemented in any other electronic device for use with the subject technology.”); ¶ 22 (“the electronic device 102 shown in FIG. 2 may be implemented in any other electronic device for use with the subject technology”); ¶ 25 (“generally any communication interface”); ¶ 26 (“the one or more processors 212, the memory 214, the one or more input-output devices 216, the one or more sensors 218, the communication interface 220, and/or one or more portions thereof may be implemented in software …, may be implemented in hardware … any other suitable devices) and/or a combination of both”); ¶ 27 (“link 322 may correspond to any of the one or more data fields 324”); ¶ 46 (“The link data and one or more data fields may include any one or more of the data fields 324 (shown in FIG. 3)”); ¶ 67 (“The electronic system 800 can be, and/or can be a part of, any server for generating the features and processes described in reference to FIGS. 1-7, including but not limited to a server”); ¶ 70 (“The system memory 804 may store any of the instructions and data that one or more processing unit(s) 814 may need at runtime”); ¶ 71 (“any other device for outputting information”); ¶ 72 (“feedback provided to the user can be any form of sensory feedback … input from the user can be received in any form”); ¶ 73 (“Any or all components of the electronic system 800 can be used in conjunction with the subject disclosure”); ¶ 74 (“The captured data may be used for enrolling in a credential, validating a credential, accessing a service, and/or any other process for establishing the identity of the user”); ¶ 76 (“The computer-readable storage medium can be any storage medium … including any processing electronics and/or processing circuitry capable of executing instructions”); ¶ 77 (same, any medium); ¶ 78 (“Computer-executable instructions also can be organized in any format”); ¶ 81 (process performed in any order or “simultaneously”); ¶ 87 (“All structural and functional equivalents to the elements of the various aspects described throughout this disclosure that are known or later come to be known to those of ordinary skill in the art are expressly incorporated herein by reference and are intended to be encompassed by the claims”); ¶ 78 (“As recognized by those of skill in the art, details including, but not limited to, the number, structure, sequence, and organization of instructions can vary significantly without varying the underlying logic, function, processing, and output”); ¶ 80 (“Those of skill in the art would appreciate that the various illustrative blocks, modules, elements, components, methods, and algorithms described herein may be implemented as electronic hardware, computer software, or combinations of both”). The generic processor, here, appears to perform calculations (functions) that are programmed by software. Spec. ¶¶ 76, 84. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow.
Limitation A describes the and processor “configured to” perform the steps of the claimed invention, Limitations B–I, which represents the abstract idea exception itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception itself simply adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2), or generically recites an effect of the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea.
Rep. Claim 10 is not substantially different than Independent Claims 1 and 16 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 10. Independent Claims 1 and 16 contain no additional elements. Therefore, Independent Claims 1 and 16 are also directed to the same abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 10 fails Step 2B because the claim as whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
The pending claims in their combination of additional elements is not inventive. First, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Second, each additional element represents a currently available generic computer technology, used in the way in which it is commonly used (individually generic). Last, Applicant’s Specification discloses that the combination of additional elements is not inventive. Spec., ¶ 80 (steps/functions may be performed in any order); ¶¶ 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 46, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 84, 87, Figs. 1–7 (known and generic (exemplary) computer equipment as explained and cited supra.)
Thus, Examiner finds the additional elements of Rep. Claim 10 are elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activity in the particular field of this invention based on Applicant’s own disclosure3. Spec. ¶¶ 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 46, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 84, 87, Figs. 1–7; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Specifically, Applicant’s Specification discloses the recited additional elements (i.e., system comprising: a memory; a processor; electronic device, a first third party server, a second server, and a second third party server) are limited to generic computer components. These elements do no more than “apply” the recited abstract idea(s) on a known computer (e.g., processor) and computer-related components (e.g., memory). Further, the “link” was well-understood and merely operates on the generic components. Descope, “A Guide to Authentication Protocols,” May 2023 [“NPL Descope”], p. 2–3 (“Open Authorization (OAuth)” and “OpenID Connect (OIDC)” are “common authentication protocols” that use “magic links”) (cited herein on PTO-892). The Examiner also finds the functions of receiving, requesting, establishing, receiving, comparing, determining, proving, and processing (e.g., performing mathematical operations on) data, described in Limitations A–I are all normal functions of a generic computer.
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements in combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea at a high level of generality. Thus, Rep. Claim 10 does not provide an inventive concept.
Rep. Claim 10 is not substantially different than Independent Claims 1 and 16 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 10. Independent Claims 1 and 16 contain no additional elements. Therefore, Independent Claims 1 and 16 also do not recite an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims are dependent on Independent Claims and include all the limitations of the Independent Claims. Therefore, all dependent claims recite the same Abstract Idea. Dependent claims do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application or recite an inventive concept because the additional elements: (1) are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; and/or (2) further limit the abstract idea exception of the Independent Claims. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 2–7, 11–15, and 17–20 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims and contain no additional elements. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 8 and 9 recites additional limitations that form part of the same abstract idea exception as recited in Independent Claims and contain no additional elements. MPEP § 2106.05(f) (data pull is transmitting and receiving data, providing the user request is transmitting data). An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Conclusion
Claims 1–20 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 10 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.
Examiner Statement of Prior Art—No Prior Art Rejections
Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application. While some individual features of Claims 1–20 may be shown in the prior art of record—no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of Claims 1–20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/JAMES H MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
2 Three servers total.
3 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").