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 December 22, 2025 were received and fully considered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 were amended. The current action is FINAL. Please see corresponding rejection headings and response to arguments section below for more detail.
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 1-9 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
996
622
media_image1.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…”
These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and/or recite significantly more than the identified judicial exception. Moreover, 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).
Independent claims 4 and 7 are also not patent eligible for substantially similar reasons.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 also 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.
Therefore, claims 1-9 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.
US PG Pub. No. 20240188874 A1, see par.69, 87, 95, 112, 114 (cited previously)
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, 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) 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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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).