DETAILED ACTION
Note: 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 arguments filed in the reply on April 21, 2026 were received and fully considered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 were amended. Claims 6 and 9 were cancelled. Claims 10 and 11 are new. Please see corresponding rejection headings and response to arguments section below for more detail.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 *** has been entered.
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, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a processor implemented method. Thus, the claim is directed to a method/process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception.
The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
PNG
media_image1.png
628
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
816
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
514
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
These limitations describe a mathematical calculation. Furthermore, the limitations also describe a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human, or using simple pen/paper.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“… one or more hardware processors…and providing an output”
These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the following reasons. A general-purpose processor that merely executes the judicial exception is not a particular machine. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 706-17 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cited in MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I). Moreover, the “providing an output” limitation merely amounts to extra-solution activity and does not integrate the claims into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Independent claims 4 and 7 recite mirrored limitation and are also not patent eligible for substantially similar reasons.
Dependent claims 2, 5, and 8 fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
New dependent claims 10 and 11 fail to add significantly something more to the abstract independent claims for the following reasons. While these claims recite “monitoring aid” (akin to a treatment step), this does not amount to a particular treatment step. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), “One way to demonstrate such integration is when the additional elements apply or use the recited judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition… a claim that recites the same abstract idea and "administering a suitable medication to a patient."… is not particular, and is instead merely instructions to "apply" the exception in a generic way. Thus, the administration step does not integrate the mental analysis step into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Previously cited:
US PG Pub. No. 20240188874 A1, see par.69, 87, 95, 112, 114
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections raised in the previous office action have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. While the current amendment is appreciated, Examiner maintains that the claims, even as amended, continue to recite a judicial exception (math and/or mental process) that is not integrated into a practical application; and the additional limitations (one or more hardware processors and providing an output) are recited at a high level of generality such that they do not equate to significantly more. Moreover, any purported improvement to the claimed invention lies within the abstract idea itself. Examiner argues that an alleged better calculation is still a calculation and would not be patent eligible1. For at least these reasons, the 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained. Please see corresponding rejection heading above for more detail.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PUYA AGAHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1906. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 5712724233. 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.
/PUYA AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
1 “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981).
Prosecution Insights