DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed November 19, 2025. Applicant’s November 19th amendment amended claims 1, 6, 8, 13; canceled claims 3, 10, 15, 16; and added new claims 17 and 18. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-14, 17, and 18 are pending. Claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 19, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Objection to claims 15 and 16 in the previous office action are withdrawn in response to Applicant's cancellation of claims 15 and 16.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 11-14 in the previous office action is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. simulation model continuously updated with obtained information resulting in changes to the real-time operation rate of a facility to product the product based on the production plan; Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 10; Paragraphs 1-3, Page 11)
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims remain directed to the well-known, well-understood and routine economic practice of production planning (Title: Apparatus and method for establishing a production plan – i.e. organizing human activity), more specifically the claims recite simulating a production plan using a simulation model in order to verify and optimize the production plan wherein the simulation (verification/optimization) of the production plan is performed repeatedly and generates and changes a ratio of production volume of work in progress and defect quantity in real-time based on an updated production plan ‘to produce the product’ based on the production plan generated.
As made clear in Applicant’s disclosure (see at least Specification Paragraphs 8, 9, 23) the repeated simulation, verification and optimization of a production plan at best represents an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a more efficient production plan or a more reliable production plan or a lower cost production plan, etc.) and does not represent an improvement in the underlying technology (e.g. improvement in the processor, memory, etc.), does not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field (production planning is not a technology or technical field), and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem (e.g. a lower cost production plan is a wished for business benefit not a technical solution to a technical problem). Repeatedly generating a production plan that provides at least ONE of lower cost or higher efficiency or higher reliability or shorting amount of work in progress or shorter waiting time or lower quality defect occurrence after each repeated generation is merely a list of wished-for business benefits of the production plan. While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of production planning they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application.
That the simulation model continuously updated with obtained information is merely directed to insignificant pre-solution activity – data gathering – and does not represent a technical solution to a technical problem inherent in computers or computer networks; does not improve the functioning of the underlying technology (e.g. progressor) nor does obtaining and updating data in real-time represent an improvement in another technology or technical field. Real-time simulations and real-time data gathering are both old and well-known.
That the ratio of work in progress volume to defective quantity, as part of the generated/’optimized’ production plan, is changed in real-time based on continuously updated received information does not improve the underlying technology (e.g. processor), does not represent an improvement in another technology or another technical field. The updated ratio as part of an updated production plan remains a plan. The computer is merely instructed to perform the method steps to generate/update the production plan. The computer/processor is not improved in any way. Applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose any improvement in any technology or technical field of any kind. At best the improvement lies in an improvement in the abstract idea itself (i.e. production planning).
That the intended use of the production plan is ‘to produce the product’ is merely non-functional descriptive material and/or is directed to insignificant post solution activity and/or or at best a necessary application of the abstract idea. New claims 17 and 18 make clear that at best the generated/updated production plan is merely transmitted (i.e. mere data output, insignificant post-solution activity) wherein the plan may or may not be received or implemented (i.e. the product may or may not actually be produced).
The claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
One must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the generic memory, processor and apparatus. These generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, processing and providing data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s production planning in the general field of business planning and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
Regarding the recited digital twin (“…generate a simulation model to which digital twin technology is applied”) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic digital twin on a generic computer/processor, also recited at a high level of generality. The digital twin is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the digital twin functions. The digital twin is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic digital twin to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of business metric forecasting. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memories, digital twin, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in independent claims 1 and 8 through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (apparatus, processor, memory, digital twin, etc.) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea are a generic processor, memory, apparatus and digital twin technology” i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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, 2, 4-9, 11-14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 8, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of production planning (preamble “A production planning system in a retail environment…having a plurality of product displays”). This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, production planning (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to verifying and optimize a production plan based on the analysis of simulation result data, wherein production planning is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. Further all of the steps of “store”, “obtain”, “generate”, “establish”, “perform”, “determine”, “determine”, “determine”, “determine”, “obtain”, “repeatedly performs”, “generates”, and “changes” recite functions of the product production planning are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The intended purpose of independent claims 1 and 8 appears to be generate/update, in real-time, a ratio of production volume of work in progress and a defective quantity of work in progress that satisfy a set value as part of a production plan. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the additional limitations of generic computer elements: memory, processor and apparatus.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: memory, processor and apparatus. These generic computing components are merely used to store, obtain and process data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Figure 3). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's production planning in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Regarding the recited digital twin technology (“…generate a simulation model to which digital twin technology is applied”) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic digital twin technology on a generic computer/processor, also recited at a high level of generality. The digital twin technology is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the digital twin technology functions. digital twin technology is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic digital twin to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
That the ratio of work in progress volume to defective quantity, as part of the generated/’optimized’ production plan, is changed in real-time based on continuously updated received information does not improve the underlying technology (e.g. processor), does not represent an improvement in another technology or another technical field. The updated ratio as part of an updated production plan remains a plan. The computer is merely instructed to perform the method steps to generate/update the production plan. The computer/processor is not improved in any way. Applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose any improvement in any technology or technical field of any kind. At best the improvement lies in an improvement in the abstract idea itself (i.e. production planning).
That the intended use of the production plan is ‘to produce the product’ is merely non-functional descriptive material and/or is directed to insignificant post solution activity and/or or at best a necessary application of the abstract idea. New claims 17 and 18 make clear that at best the generated/updated production plan is merely transmitted (i.e. mere data output, insignificant post-solution activity) wherein the plan may or may not be received or implemented (i.e. the product may or may not actually be produced).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-14, 17, and 18 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited memory, processor and apparatus," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of generate a simulation model, establish a product plan, perform a simulation, determine simulation result data to verify/optimize the production plan, determine a trend of amount of work in progress, determine a real-time operation rate, determine a logistics flow, repeatedly perform steps a-c, generates a ratio, and changes the ratio repeatedly, all describe the abstract idea. The claimed steps of obtain at least one piece of information and obtain an optimized production plan recite insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The steps of determine a trend of amount of work in progress and defective quantity, generate a ratio and changes the ratio are also directed to mathematical operations/concepts. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a memory, processor and apparatus nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
As for the recited application of digital twin technology, by a generic computer, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer/processor. The digital twin technology is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the digital twin technology functions. The digital twin technology is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a computer with a generic digital twin technology to apply the abstract idea. The limitations only recite outcomes without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps of obtain at least one piece of information related to production of the product are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Claims 8-14 fail to recite any technological elements, the claims fail to recite in the body of the claim who or what entity performs the method steps. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic memory, processor and apparatus are recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of obtaining and processing data. The generic processor merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the obtaining steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applications specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 4-7, 11-14, 17, 18, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of production planning and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1 and 8.
Claims 2 and 9 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the piece of information to at least ONE of production data obtained from a production system (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4 and 11 re-executing the method steps (obtain, establish, perform and analyze) based on changed information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5 and 12 further limit the abstract idea by receiving updates and changes in real-time (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6 and 13 further limit the abstract idea by obtaining the optimized production plan that minimizes an amount of work in progress required (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 7 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the product production plan to a battery production plan (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 17 and 18 further limit the abstract idea by transmitting the updated production plan (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea, insignificant post-solution activity).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-14, 17, and 18, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a memory, processor and apparatus best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 3). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of obtaining or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a system, processor, interface, component and memory merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 3). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625