DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 07/22/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “utilizing a recurrence prediction machine learning machine learning model” cannot be a mental process. Examiner concedes this point but respectfully notes that the limitation: “utilizing a recurrence prediction machine learning machine learning model,” is dealt with as an additional element that is an “apply it” step. Applicant further argues that the recited concept is integrated into a practical application and alternatively that the claims recite significantly more. However, Applicant does not point to specific claim language or address the elements as argued in the Office Action. That is, “computer-implemented” is merely an “apply it” step and “utilizing a recurrence prediction machine learning model” is as well. Accordingly, these rejections are hereby maintained.
Applicant's prior art arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, these rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed towards the statutory category of a process. Claims 9-14 are directed towards the statutory category of an article of manufacture. Claims 15-20 are directed towards the statutory category of a machine.
With respect to claim 1:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
A… method comprising (mental process):
determining that a target account qualifies for an account definition based on an account event occurring within a defined threshold time period, the account event being a periodic event of an unknown frequency (mental process);
based on determining the target account qualified for the account definition, identifying a set of features associated with the target account (mental process); and
based on the set of features,… generate a recurrence score that indicates a likelihood that the account event will repeat within the target account (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
computer-implemented (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
utilizing a recurrence prediction machine learning model trained using a dynamic prediction window based on an assumed value of the unknown frequency (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
computer-implemented (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
utilizing a recurrence prediction machine learning model trained using a dynamic prediction window based on an assumed value of the unknown frequency (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 2:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
training the recurrence prediction machine learning model utilizing historical data corresponding to a sample population of accounts by sampling the historical data according to one or more assumed values of the unknown frequency (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) – high level machine learning).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
training the recurrence prediction machine learning model utilizing historical data corresponding to a sample population of accounts by sampling the historical data according to one or more assumed values of the unknown frequency (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) – high level machine learning).
With respect to claim 3:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
the one or more assumed values comprise one or more of seven days, fourteen days, one month, 32 days, or 90 days (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 4:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
determining, from a sample account history of a sample account of the sample population, a sample set of features associated with the sample account at a time after occurrence of a past account event, the time after occurrence corresponding to an assumed value of the unknown frequency (mental process);
based on the sample set of features,… to generate a sample recurrence score for the sample account corresponding to the time after occurrence (mental process); and
based on a comparison of the sample recurrence score and the sample account history, adjusting one or more parameters of the recurrence prediction… (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
training the recurrence prediction machine learning model further comprises (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) – high level machine learning);
utilizing the recurrence prediction machine learning model (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
recurrence prediction machine learning model (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
training the recurrence prediction machine learning model further comprises (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) – high level machine learning);
utilizing the recurrence prediction machine learning model (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
recurrence prediction machine learning model (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 5:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
… generate recurrence scores for target accounts having experienced one occurrence of the periodic event (mental process); and
… generate recurrence scores for target accounts having experienced two or more occurrences of the periodic event (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
the recurrence prediction machine learning model comprises (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) – high level machine learning);
a first model configured to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
a second model configured to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
the recurrence prediction machine learning model comprises (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) – high level machine learning);
a first model configured to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
a second model configured to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 6:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
the set of features associated with the target account comprises one or more of: event data associated with the account event, availability of target account resources, target account activity data, security incidents associated with the target account, correspondence history of the target account, or target account age (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 7:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
determining that the recurrence score falls below a defined threshold score or within a defined range of scores (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
in response, notifying a user of the target account of one or more actions for increasing the likelihood that the account event will repeat within the target account (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
in response, notifying a user of the target account of one or more actions for increasing the likelihood that the account event will repeat within the target account (MPEP 2106.05(d) indicates that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” and/or "receiving or transmitting data over a network" are well‐understood, routine, conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer).
With respect to claim 8:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
determining that the recurrence score falls below a defined threshold score or within a defined range of scores (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
in response, performing one or more actions comprising at least one of: providing an incentive to a user of the target account, providing information associated with the account definition to the user of the target account, or activating one or more application features associated with the target account (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
in response, performing one or more actions comprising at least one of: providing an incentive to a user of the target account, providing information associated with the account definition to the user of the target account, or activating one or more application features associated with the target account (MPEP 2106.05(d) indicates that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” and/or "receiving or transmitting data over a network" are well‐understood, routine, conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer).
With respect to claim 9:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
determining that a target account qualifies for an account definition based on an account event occurring within a defined threshold time period, the account event being a periodic event of an unknown frequency (mental process);
based on determining the target account qualified for the account definition, identifying a set of features associated with the target account (mental process); and
based on the set of features,… generate a recurrence score that indicates a likelihood that the account event will repeat within the target account (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions, which when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
utilizing a recurrence prediction machine learning model trained using a dynamic prediction window based on an assumed value of the unknown frequency to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) – high level machine learning).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions, which when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
utilizing a recurrence prediction machine learning model trained using a dynamic prediction window based on an assumed value of the unknown frequency to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) – high level machine learning).
With respect to claim 10:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
determining, from a sample account history of a sample account, a sample set of features associated with the sample account at a time after occurrence of a past account event, the time after occurrence corresponding to an assumed value of the unknown frequency (mental process);
based on the sample set of features,… generate a sample recurrence score for the sample account corresponding to the time after occurrence (mental process); and
based on a comparison of the sample recurrence score and the sample account history, adjusting one or more parameters of the recurrence prediction machine learning model (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising training the recurrence prediction machine learning model by (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
utilizing the recurrence prediction machine learning model to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising training the recurrence prediction machine learning model by (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
utilizing the recurrence prediction machine learning model to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 11:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
training the recurrence prediction machine learning model is repeated for a plurality of assumed values of the unknown frequency (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) – high level machine learning).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
training the recurrence prediction machine learning model is repeated for a plurality of assumed values of the unknown frequency (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) – high level machine learning).
With respect to claim 12:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
the plurality of assumed values of the unknown frequency comprises two or more of seven days, fourteen days, one month, 32 days, or 90 days (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 13:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
… generate recurrence scores for target accounts having experienced one occurrence of the periodic event (mental process); and
… generate recurrence scores for target accounts having experienced two or more occurrences of the periodic event (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
a first model configured to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
a second model configured to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
a first model configured to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
a second model configured to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 14:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
the set of features associated with the target account comprises one or more of: event data associated with the account event, availability of target account resources, target account activity data, security incidents associated with the target account, correspondence history of the target account, or target account age (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 15:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
determine that a target account qualifies for an account definition based on an account event occurring within a defined threshold time period, the account event being a periodic event of an unknown frequency (mental process);
based on determining the target account qualified for the account definition, identify a set of features associated with the target account (mental process); and
based on the set of features,… to generate a recurrence score that indicates a likelihood that the account event will repeat within the target account (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
A system comprising: one or more memory devices comprising a recurrence prediction machine learning model; and one or more processors configured to cause the system to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
utilize a recurrence prediction machine learning model trained using a dynamic prediction window based on an assumed value of the unknown frequency (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
A system comprising: one or more memory devices comprising a recurrence prediction machine learning model; and one or more processors configured to cause the system to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
utilize a recurrence prediction machine learning model trained using a dynamic prediction window based on an assumed value of the unknown frequency (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 16:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
utilizing historical data corresponding to a sample population of accounts by sampling the historical data according to one or more assumed values of the unknown frequency (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
the one or more processors are further configured to cause the system to train the recurrence prediction machine learning model (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
the one or more processors are further configured to cause the system to train the recurrence prediction machine learning model (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 17:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
the one or more assumed values comprise one or more of seven days, fourteen days, one month, 32 days, or 90 days (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 18:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
the set of features associated with the target account comprises one or more of: event data associated with the account event, availability of target account resources, target account activity data, security incidents associated with the target account, correspondence history of the target account, or target account age (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 19:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
determine that the recurrence score falls below a defined threshold score or within a defined range of scores (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
the one or more processors are further configured to cause the system to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
in response, notify a user of the target account of one or more action for increasing the likelihood that the account event will repeat within the target account (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
the one or more processors are further configured to cause the system to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
in response, notify a user of the target account of one or more action for increasing the likelihood that the account event will repeat within the target account (MPEP 2106.05(d) indicates that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” and/or "receiving or transmitting data over a network" are well‐understood, routine, conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer).
With respect to claim 20:
2A Prong 1: This claim is directed to a judicial exception.
determine that the recurrence score falls below a defined threshold score or within a defined range of scores (mental process).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
the one or more processors are further configured to cause the system to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f));
in response, perform one or more actions comprising at least one of: providing an incentive to a user of the target account, providing information associated with the account definition to the user of the target account, or activating one or more application features associated with the target account (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g));
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
the one or more processors are further configured to cause the system to (merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
in response, perform one or more actions comprising at least one of: providing an incentive to a user of the target account, providing information associated with the account definition to the user of the target account, or activating one or more application features associated with the target account (MPEP 2106.05(d) indicates that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” and/or "receiving or transmitting data over a network" are well‐understood, routine, conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer).
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 Casey R. Garner whose telephone number is 571-272-2467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm, Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexey Shmatov can be reached on 571-270-3428. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Casey R. Garner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2123
