SYNCHRONIZED PROCESSING OF DATA BY NETWORKED COMPUTING RESOURCES

DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE 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 . Status of the Application The Remarks and Terminal Disclaimer filed August 18, 2026 have been fully considered. Response to Terminal Disclaimer Applicant’s Terminal Disclaimer filed August 18, 2026 has overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Correspondence mailed May 18, 2026 (hereinafter “Non-Final Correspondence”). Therefore, the Office has withdrawn the double patenting rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Correspondence. 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 21-40 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. Claims 21-40 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 21 -: 21. coordinating transmission- of one or more data sets comprising market data to a plurality of subscribers, comprising at least one- configured to: parse source instructions to prepare signals- representing at least a portion of a data process to a plurality-, the data process including one or more data sets comprising information content and one or more parameters for communicating- the information content from one or more- associated with one or more of the subscribers associated with respective resources-; associate, with the signals- representing at least a portion of the data process, at least one timing parameter determined at least partly using one or more latencies associated with execution of exchanges- associated with at least one of the resources-; and route-, in accordance with a timing sequence, the signals- representing at least a portion of the data process to a networked computing resource, wherein the timing sequence is based on at least one associated timing parameter so as to cause synchronized arrival or processing of at least a portion of the data process at resources-; wherein parsing the source instructions includes identifying a size of the one or more data sets; and wherein the at least one timing parameter is determined at least partly on a length of time to route at least a portion of the one or more data sets. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 22 -: 22. claim 21, wherein the at least one timing parameter is determined based at least partly on at least one of: dynamically-monitored latency in execution of requests routed to at least one of the plurality of resources-; statistical latency in execution of requests routed to the at least one of the plurality of resources-; historical latency in execution of requests routed to the at least one of the plurality of resources-; and predictive latency in execution of requests routed to the at least one of the plurality of networked execution processors. Claim 23 -: 23. claim 21, wherein the information content includes market data. Claim 24 -: 24. claim 21, wherein each of the plurality of subscribers is associated with a tier of a plurality of tiers. Claim 25 -: 25. claim 21, wherein each of the plurality of subscribers is associated with a single tier. Claim 26 -: 26. claim 21, wherein the timing sequence is determined such that the prioritized arrival or processing of at least a portion of the data process is simultaneous; or is according to: a non-simultaneous sequence, or a determined relative timing. Claim 27 -: 27. claim 21, wherein the timing sequence is determined based on the at least one associated timing parameter so as to cause prioritized arrival or processing of: the start of the one or more data sets, the end of the one or more data sets, or a desired portion of the one or more data sets. Claim 28 -: 28. claim 21, wherein the source instructions are based on parameters defining at least one of: a time at which the signals- representing at least a portion of the data process to a resource- are routed-; and a frequency at which the signals- representing at least a portion of the data process to a resource- are routed-. Claim 29 -: 29. claim 21, wherein the at least one- is configured to receive- signals- from at least one of the plurality of resources- to detect whether the at least one of the plurality of resources- is manipulating network latency data. Claim 30 -: 30. claim 21, wherein the at... [id. at 22], communication delay, processing delay, or a latency probability model. Claim 31 -: 31. claim 21, wherein the information content is associated with financial interests including at least one of commodities, currency interests, equity interests, non-equity interests, or derivatives thereof. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 32 -: 32. A method performed by executing interpretable instructions configured to cause the at least one- to: parse source instructions... associate, with... route-, in accordance... wherein parsing... wherein the at... [id. at 21], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 33 -: 33. The method of claim 32, wherein the at... dynamically-monitored... statistical latency... historical latency... predictive latency... [id. at 22], Claim 34 -: 34. The method of claim 32, wherein the information... [id. at 23], Claim 35 -: 35. The method of claim 32, wherein each of... [id. at 24], Claim 36 -: 36. The method of claim 32, wherein the timing... [id. at 26], Claim 37 -: 37. The method of claim 32, wherein the timing... [id. at 27], Claim 38 -: 38. The method of claim 32, wherein the source... a time at which... a frequency at... [id. at 28], Claim 39 -: 39. The method of claim 32, wherein the information... [id. at 31], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 40 -: 40. A readable programming configured to cause at least one- to: parse source instructions... associate, with... route-, in accordance... wherein parsing... wherein the at... [id. at 21], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: synchronized processing of data by networked computing resources; such as, systems, methods, and machine-interpretable programming or other instruction products for the management of data transmission by multiple networked computing resources; wherein in particular, the disclosure relates to the synchronization of related requests for transmitting data using distributed network resources as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as fundamental economic principles or practices, (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Mental processes – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas. While independent claims 21, 32, and 40 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 21 and is described by the steps of independent claim 32 and is described by the steps of independent claim 40. Claim 21: Particularly regarding the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 21 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "system", "transmission", "at least one processor", "signals", "a plurality of networked computing resources", "networked computing resources", "networking", "communicating", "one or more computer systems", "signal exchanges", "route", and "networked computer resources". However, independent claim 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "system", "transmission", "at least one processor", "signals", "a plurality of networked computing resources", "networked computing resources", "networking", "communicating", "one or more computer systems", "signal exchanges", "route", and "networked computer resources" of independent claim 21 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A system for coordinating transmission … one processor configured to", "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources", "wherein parsing the source instructions … more data sets; and" and "wherein the at least one … or more data sets") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere 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(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (2016) (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), and electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (updating an activity log); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014), identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017), presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 21 is ineligible. Claim 32: Specifically with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 32 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "at least one data processor", "machine-interpretable", "at least one processor", "signals", "a plurality of networked computing resources", "networked computing resources", "networking", "communicating", "one or more computer systems", "signal exchanges", "route", and "networked computer resources". However, independent claim 32 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "at least one data processor", "machine-interpretable", "at least one processor", "signals", "a plurality of networked computing resources", "networked computing resources", "networking", "communicating", "one or more computer systems", "signal exchanges", "route", and "networked computer resources" of independent claim 32 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A method performed by at … least one processor to", "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources", "wherein parsing the source instructions … more data sets; and" and "wherein the at least one … or more data sets") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere 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(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. Additionally, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 21 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 32 is ineligible. Claim 40: Particularly with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 40 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computer-readable", "medium or media", "non-transient machine-readable programming structures", "at least one processor", "signals", "a plurality of networked computing resources", "networked computing resources", "networking", "communicating", "one or more computer systems", "signal exchanges", "route", and "networked computer resources". However, independent claim 40 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computer-readable", "medium or media", "non-transient machine-readable programming structures", "at least one processor", "signals", "a plurality of networked computing resources", "networked computing resources", "networking", "communicating", "one or more computer systems", "signal exchanges", "route", and "networked computer resources" of independent claim 40 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A computer-readable medium or media … least one processor to", "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources", "wherein parsing the source instructions … more data sets; and" and "wherein the at least one … or more data sets") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere 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(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. Furthermore, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 21 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 40 is ineligible. Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 21, 32, and 40 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. None of the dependent claims 22-31 and 33-39 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 22 and 33: Dependent claims 22 and 33 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "signal processing" of dependent claims 22 and 33 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 28 and 38: Dependent claims 28 and 38 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "networked computer resource are routed" of dependent claims 28 and 38 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 29: Dependent claim 29 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "receive" of dependent claim 29 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 22 and 33: Dependent claims 22 and 33 add an additional method step of "wherein the at least one timing parameter is determined based at least partly on at least one of", "dynamically-monitored latency in execution of signal processing requests routed to at least one of the plurality of networked computing resources", "statistical latency in execution of signal processing requests routed to the at least one of the plurality of networked computing resources", "historical latency in execution of signal processing requests routed to the at least one of the plurality of networked computing resources; and", "predictive latency in execution of signal processing requests routed to the at least one of the plurality of networked execution processors". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 22 and 33 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 22 and 33 are ineligible. Claims 23 and 34: Dependent claims 23 and 34 add an additional method step of "wherein the information content includes market data". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 23 and 34 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 22 and 33 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 22 and 33 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 23 and 34 are ineligible. Claims 24 and 35: Dependent claims 24 and 35 add an additional method step of "wherein each of the plurality of subscribers is associated with a tier of a plurality of tiers". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 24 and 35 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 22 and 33 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 22 and 33 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 24 and 35 are ineligible. Claim 25: Dependent claim 25 adds an additional method step of "wherein each of the plurality of subscribers is associated with a single tier". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 25 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 22 and 33 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 22 and 33 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 25 is ineligible. Claims 26 and 36: Dependent claims 26 and 36 add an additional method step of "wherein the timing sequence is determined such that the prioritized arrival or processing of … simultaneous; or is according to: a non-simultaneous sequence, or a determined relative timing". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 26 and 36 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 22 and 33 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 22 and 33 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 26 and 36 are ineligible. Claims 27 and 37: Dependent claims 27 and 37 add an additional method step of "wherein the timing sequence is determined based on the at least one associated timing … data sets, or a desired portion of the one or more data sets". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 27 and 37 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 22 and 33 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 22 and 33 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 27 and 37 are ineligible. Claims 28 and 38: Dependent claims 28 and 38 add an additional method step of "wherein the source instructions are based on parameters defining at least one of", "a time at which the signals representing at least a portion of the data process to a networked computer resource are routed; and", "a frequency at which the signals representing at least a portion of the data process to a networked computer resource are routed". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 28 and 38 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., (2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 21, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the "a time at which the signals representing at least a portion of the data process to a networked computer resource are routed; and", "a frequency at which the signals representing at least a portion of the data process to a networked computer resource are routed" steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 28 and 38 are ineligible. Claim 29: Dependent claim 29 adds an additional method step of "wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive signals from at least … one of the plurality of networked computing resources is manipulating network latency data". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 29 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 28 and 38 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) See discussion above regarding Claim 28 and 38 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 29 is ineligible. Claim 30: Dependent claim 30 adds an additional method step of "wherein the at least one timing parameter is determined based at least partly on at least one of", "communication delay, processing delay, or a latency probability model". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 30 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 22 and 33 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 22 and 33 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 30 is ineligible. Claims 31 and 39: Dependent claims 31 and 39 add an additional method step of "wherein the information content is associated with financial interests including at least one of commodities, currency interests, equity interests, non-equity interests, or derivatives thereof". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 31 and 39 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 22 and 33 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 22 and 33 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 31 and 39 are ineligible. PNG media_image1.png 930 645 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 200 400 media_image2.png Greyscale §101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes Response to Arguments • The Applicant argued: "Double Patenting - Terminal Disclaimer Filed "The Office Action rejects claims 21-40 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting having regard to claims of U.S. patents 9,940,670; 10,664,912; 11,308,554; and 11,823,269. "Without acquiescing to the objection or characterization of the claims, a terminal disclaimer has been filed without prejudice thereby obviating this rejection." (REMARKS, p. 2). The above-quoted arguments are persuasive. Regarding eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant's arguments submitted August 18, 2026 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed May 18, 2026 (hereinafter "Non-Final Correspondence") have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Further to the May 18, 2026 Non-Final Correspondence, the reiterated grounds of rejection are fully set forth above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading as applied to the herein examined current claims. • The Applicant argued: "Representative claim 21 recites a system comprising at least one processor for coordinating transmission of data to networked computing resources in a synchronized fashion. The processor prepares data processes including data sets and networking parameters for communicating content to respective networked computing resources, and associates timing parameters for routing the data processes to cause synchronized arrival or processing at the networked computing resources." (REMARKS, p. 2). However, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the rejected claim(s)). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, Claim 21 does not recite or require "communicating content to respective networked computing resources", however recites "one or more networking parameters for communicating the information content from one or more computer systems associated with one or more of the subscribers associated with respective networked computing resources". Moreover, Claim 21 does not recite or require "associates timing parameters" (plural), however recites "associate [] at least one timing parameter" (singular). In response to applicant's arguments, the recitation within the claim's preamble has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). For example, claim 21 recites "for coordinating transmission of one or more data sets comprising market data to a plurality of subscribers" in the preamble. In response to applicant's arguments, a recitation and/or description of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a difference in the claimed invention in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from ineligible subject matter. If an ineligible structure and/or method is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. For example, the claim 21 recites "so as to cause synchronized arrival or processing of at least a portion of the data process at networked computer resources" (plural) as intended use/result, but recites "route [] to a networked computing resource" (singular) as step performed in claim 21. The Applicant may please refer to and see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above. • The Applicant further argued: "As would be understood by the skilled person, the claimed embodiments are directed to the coordination and timing control of data processes arriving/processing at different computing resources which can be located at different locations on a network. As noted in claim 22, the timing parameters can be based on dynamically monitored latencies, historical latencies and/or the like." (REMARKS [as abridged], p. 2). Notwithstanding respectively the foregoing, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the rejected claim(s)). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, the Claims do not recite or require "different computing resources which can be located at different locations on a network". Moreover, Claim 22 does not recite or require "based on dynamically monitored latencies, historical latencies and/or the like", however recites "one timing parameter is determined based at least partly on at least one...". The Applicant is encouraged to please see and refer to the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above. • The Applicant further argued: "As would be understood by the skilled person, latencies for networked computing resources can be caused by physical network characteristics, traffic at network nodes, processor characteristics and loads, and the like. Additionally, the size of data sets being transmitted over the network as recited in claim 21 can also affect network transmission and processing timings due to the length of time required to route the data set." (REMARKS, p. 2). However, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the rejected claim(s)). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, the Claims do not recite or require "physical network characteristics, traffic at network nodes, processor characteristics and loads, and the like" or "affect network transmission and processing timings". The Office refers the Applicant to see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above. • The Applicant further argued: "As described throughout the specification, the coordination and deliberate association of different timing parameters for routing different data processes over the network to networked computing resources can address the problem of data processes being executed at undesired times which can cause failures in execution. In some Situations, these failures are related to network or execution latencies." (REMARKS, p. 2). Respectively nonetheless, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the rejected claim(s)). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, neither the Specification nor the Claims recite or require "the problem of data processes being executed at undesired times which can cause failures in execution" or "failures are related to network or execution latencies". The Office refers the Applicant to see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above. • The Applicant further argued: "These are physical computer/network characteristics and/or states which address challenges that arise only in the context of computer networks and in managing the execution of data processes at different processors." (REMARKS, p. 3). However, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the rejected claim(s)). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, neither the Specification nor the Claims recite or require "managing the execution of data processes at different processors". The Office refers the Applicant to see the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above. • The Applicant further argued: "[T]he claims are not direct to any abstract idea or method of organizing human activity. "[T]he Applicant notes that the claims as a whole integrate any purported judicial exception into a practical application. Rather than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a purported commercial practice interaction [], representative claim 21 involves the coordination of portions of a potentially large data process into smaller data process segments to be executed a networked computing resources. The timing of these data processing segments can be critical to the success in their execution and can be sensitive to network and execution latencies which are technical characteristics of physical computer and network hardware." (REMARKS [as abridged], p. 3). Notwithstanding respectively the foregoing, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the claim requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (i.e., are not required to present by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the rejected claim(s)). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, neither the Specification nor the Claims recite or require "a potentially large data process" or "smaller data process segments to be executed a networked computing resources" or "success in [] execution". The Applicant is encouraged to please see and refer to the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above. • The Applicant further argued: "The specifically claimed features related to the synchronization of times for routing the data processes for execution are tied to solving this technological challenge. [T]he claims integrate any purported judicial exception into a practical application in a particular way to achieve a desired outcome in the computational / networking world. "The combination of claimed features are not insignificant extra-solution activity, rather these steps reflect the improvement described in the application. [U]nder Step 2B, the claimed features related to the timing of execution of the data processing segments in view of network and execution latencies improves upon any conventional functionality of a computer and the specification is replete with examples of how the determination of timing parameters is conducted." (REMARKS [as abridged], p. 3). However, the above-quoted arguments are not persuasive. For example, the Specification describes and encompasses abstract subject matter as follows: "The timing of the release of market data, such as order confirmations and other information content data sets can be of significant, and even crucial importance. For example, even small differences in the timing of availability of information represented by such content can be used to advantage, fairly or unfairly, by those who are in a position to act upon it first. In such cases it can be advantageous to ensure that the availability or distribution of such information to various parties, such as market participants, is synchronized or otherwise controlled, so as, for example, to prevent unfair or unjust exploitation of the content." Specification, par. [0014] and "Thus, as will be apparent to those skilled in the relevant arts, it can be advantageous in many situations to synchronize or otherwise control routing of signals representing market data and/or other information content to pluralities of networked computing resources, so as to permit, or otherwise enable, such signal data sets to arrive, or otherwise be available for interpretation, execution, and or other processing, by such networked computing resources simultaneously, or according to other desired synchronization schemes, as described herein. [] For example, such synchronization can be used to control manual [] interpretation of such content in subsequent generation, routing, cancellation, and/or other execution or processing of data sets representing proposed transactions in financial interests." Specification, par. [0015]. Regarding the above-described and above-encompassed exemplary abstract subject matter, above-therein and within the Claims, it is generally linked to "networked computing resources". Moreover, regarding the abstract subject matter of the Claims, it is applied by "one processor". In response to Applicant's argument that the claimed subject matter provides any improvement to any technology or technical field, the alleged improvement(s) in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. Example(s) that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database's functionality," BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018); viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); iv. Delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level of generality, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016); v. A general method of screening emails on a generic computer, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1315-16, 120 USPQ2d at 1358-59; vi. An advance in the informational content of a download for streaming, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016); vii. Selecting one type of content (e.g., FM radio content) from within a range of existing broadcast content types, or selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content) from within a range of well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016); The Applicant is encouraged to please see and refer to the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above. • The Applicant further argued: "[T]he claims are patent eligible and comply with 35 USC 101 under the analyses of both Step 2A, Prong 1 and Prong 2; and Step 2B. "The application is [] in condition for immediate allowance[]." (REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 3-4). Respectively nonetheless, the above-quoted arguments submitted August 18, 2026 at REMARKS pp. 3-4 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Considerably, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. The certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping include concepts relating to: fundamental economic principles or practices (including, e.g., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including, e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including, e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). "Certain methods of organizing human activity" encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Fundamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). Examples of "fundamental economic principles or practices" include: hedging or protecting against risk, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 609, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1009 (2010); managing a stable value protected life insurance policy, [and then instruct the use of well-known calculations to help establish some of the inputs into the equation]; e.g., managing a life insurance policy on behalf of a policy holder, which comprised steps including generating a life insurance policy including a stable value protected investment with an initial value based on a value of underlying securities, calculating surrender value protected investment credits for the life insurance policy; determining an investment value and a value of the underlying securities for the current day; and calculating a policy value and a policy unit value for the current day, Bancorp Services., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 103 USPQ2d 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2012); mitigating settlement risk, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank,573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982 (2014); rules for conducting a wagering game, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); financial instruments that are designed to protect against the risk of investing in financial instruments, In re Chorna, 656 Fed. App'x 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); offer-based price optimization, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362GÇô63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017); using a marking affixed to the outside of a mail object to communicate information about the mail object, i.e., the sender, recipient, and contents of the mail object, Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 911, 124 USPQ2d 1502, 1506 (Fed. Cir. 2017); and placing an order based on displayed market information, Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Examples of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts include: a transaction performance guaranty, e.g. a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014); managing a stable value protected life insurance policy via performing calculations, Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012); and processing insurance claims for a covered loss or policy event under an insurance policy (i.e., an agreement in the form of a contract), Accenture Global Services v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1338-39, 108 USPQ2d 1173, 1175-76 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Examples of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is a legal obligation include: real estate investment tool designed to enable tax-free exchanges, e.g. aggregating real property into a real estate portfolio, dividing the interests in the portfolio into a number of deedshares, and subjecting those shares to a master agreement, Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease, LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 101 USPQ2d 1785 (Fed Cir. 2012); hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (2010); mitigating settlement risk, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1979 (2014); and arbitration, In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 981, 89 USPQ2d 1655, 1665 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Examples of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors include: using advertising as an exchange or currency, e.g. displaying an advertisement (ad) in exchange for access to copyrighted media, comprising steps of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014); structuring a sales force or marketing company, which pertains to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009); using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 485, 203 USPQ 812, 816 (CCPA 1979); and offer-based price optimization, which pertains to marketing, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Examples of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is business relations includes: processing an application for financing a loan, e.g. maintaining a database of information about the items in a dealer's inventory, obtaining financial information about a customer from a user, combining these two sources of information to create a financing package for each of the inventoried items, and presenting the financing packages to the user, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017); processing information through a clearing-house, where the business relation is the relationship between a party submitted a credit application (e.g., a car dealer) and funding sources (e.g., banks) when processing credit applications, Dealertrack v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1331, 101 USPQ2d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). "Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Examples of managing personal behavior recited in a claim include: tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting), e.g. storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015); filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis); considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982). Example of a claim reciting social activities include: voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation, e.g. presenting an election ballot for voting, accepting input of the votes, storing the votes, printing out the votes, comparing the printed votes to votes stored in the computer, and determining whether the printed ballot is acceptable, Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018); providing information to a person without interfering with the person's primary activity, e.g. providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information, (passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation), or an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content, Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Examples of following rules or instructions recited in a claim include: rules for playing games, e.g. a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up, In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018); assigning hair designs to balance head shape, In re Brown, 645 Fed. Appx. 1014, 1015-16 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and a series of instructions of how to hedge risk, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (2010). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Regarding the mental processes abstract idea grouping, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper."); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014); a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and a claim to identifying head shape and applying hair designs, which is a process that can be practically performed in the human mind, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). A Claim that encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with or without a physical aid recites a mental process. If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474 (holding that claims to the mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. For instance, in CyberSource, the court determined that the step of "constructing a map of credit card numbers" was a limitation that was able to be performed "by writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular IP address." In making this determination, the court looked to the specification, which explained that the claimed map was nothing more than a listing of several (e.g., four) credit card transactions. The court concluded that this step was able to be performed mentally with a pen and paper, and therefore, it qualified as a mental process. 654 F.3d at 1372-73, 99 USPQ2d at 1695. See also Flook, 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196 (claimed "computations can be made by pencil and paper calculations"); University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367, 129 USPQ2d 1409, 1411-12 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (relying on specification's description of the claimed analysis and manipulation of data as being performed mentally "'using pen and paper methodologies, such as flowsheets and patient charts'"); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 (although claimed as computer-implemented, steps of screening messages can be "performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper"). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer's shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). For instance, if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as "directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging." 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(1). An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that "with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper". 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient's personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2). An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower's credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). Both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes. For example, in Mortgage Grader, the patentee claimed a computer-implemented system and a method for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The Federal Circuit determined that both the computer-implemented system and method claims were directed to "anonymous loan shopping", which was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1318, 1324-25, 117 USPQ2d at 1695, 1699-1700. See also FairWarning IP, 839 F.3d at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294 (identifying both system and process claims for detecting improper access of a patient's protected health information in a health-care system computer environment as directed to abstract idea of detecting fraud); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1345, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (system and method claims of inputting information from a hard copy document into a computer program). Accordingly, the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. Examples of product claims reciting mental processes include: An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents - Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356; A computer-implemented system for enabling anonymous loan shopping - Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695; A computer readable medium containing program instructions for detecting fraud - CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d at 1692 n.1; A post office for receiving and redistributing email messages on a computer network - Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1359; A self-verifying voting system - Voter Verified, 887 F.3d at 1384-85, 126 USPQ2d at 1504; A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid - Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1; and Computer readable storage media comprising computer instructions to implement a method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization - Versata, 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 115 USPQ2d at 1685. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D). '[T]he "invention" is what is claimed'. Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1318, 102 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Contrary to the Applicant's above-quoted assertions, the Applicant's alleged invention as delineated by the currently pending claims appears to be deeply rooted in the abstract idea. The Applicant's claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field, rather "the focus of the claims is not on [] an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit has held that "communicating requests to a remote server and receiving communications from that server, i.e., communication over a network" is itself an abstract idea. See ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d at 108516: "It is clear from the language of claim 1 that the claim involves an abstract idea--namely, the abstract idea of communicating requests to a remote server and receiving communications from that server, i.e., communication over a network. [] We therefore continue our analysis to determine whether the focus of claim 1, as a whole, is the abstract idea. As explained below, we conclude that it is." ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d 108512 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358: 'Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it'" is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 182 L. Ed. 2d 321, 325. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment.'" Bilski, supra, at 610-611, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792.' Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For Step 2B, relying on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional, the claims in the present application are ineligible under Step 2B. For example, the courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). In consideration when determining that the claim(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recite(s) significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is that the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent [] to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n. 14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The Applicant is encouraged to please see and refer to the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPGPub No. US 20020138553 A1 by Binder, Garry C. discloses Apparatus and method for asymmetric electronic commerce transactions ; wherein: a networked computing apparatus having a business message sender component coupled to a network interface, the network interface not being coupled to an always-active listening component; and a processing component coupled to the sender component to process a business message or a polling request for transfer to another networked computing apparatus is disclosed. USPGPub No. US 20050050386 A1 by Reinhardt, Steven K. et al. discloses Hardware recovery in a multi-threaded architecture. USPGPub No. US 20090049443 A1 by Powers; John et al. discloses Multicore Distributed Processing System. USPGPub No. US 20080294332 A1 by LEVANON; Issac et al. discloses Method for Image Based Navigation Route Corridor For 3D View on Mobile Platforms for Mobile Users. USPGPub No. US 20090171950 A1 by Lunenfeld; Harvey discloses Metasearching A Client's Request For Displaying Different Order Books On The Client. USPGPub No. US 20100138688 A1 by Sykes; Edward A. et al. discloses MANAGING SERVICE LEVELS ON A SHARED NETWORK. USPGPub No. US 20040167840 A1 by Tully, Michael James et al. discloses System and method for the automated brokerage of financial instruments. USPGPub No. US 20040030611 A1 by Byrne, Patrick discloses Collaborative commerce hub. USPGPub No. US 20080127200 A1 by Richards; Andrew et al. discloses TECHNIQUES FOR PROGRAM EXECUTION. USPGPub No. US 20070156786 A1 by May; Dawn Marie et al. discloses Method and apparatus for managing event logs for processes in a digital data processing system. USPGPub No. US 20100050182 A1 by Mintz; Alexander et al. discloses PARALLEL PROCESSING SYSTEM. USPGPub No. US 20010051910 A1 by Snelgrove, William Martin et al. discloses System and method for conducting an auction over a communications network. USPGPub No. US 20090119729 A1 by Periman; Stephen G. et al. discloses Method for multicasting views of real-time streaming interactive video. USPGPub No. US 20060047591 A1 by Snouffer; Bradley D. discloses Method of capitalizing a distributed business entity and allocating profits thereof. USPGPub No. US 20040085898 A1 by Gass, Raymond discloses Method for evaluating the quality of service of a telecommunication link via a network. USPGPub No. US 20060268934 A1 by Shimizu; Takao et al. discloses Multicast control technique using MPLS. USPGPub No. US 20070226135 A1 by Yamada; Kazuki et al. discloses Monetary Terminal Processing Server, Monetary Terminal Processing Method, Monetary Terminal, Arithmetic Instruction Input and Amount Change Information Input Unit. USPGPub No. US 20030151619 A1 by McBride, Edmund Joseph discloses System for analyzing network load and other characteristics of an executable application. USPGPub No. US 20070204137 A1 by Tran; Thang discloses Multi-threading processors, integrated circuit devices, systems, and processes of operation and manufacture. USPGPub No. US 20040025161 A1 by Chauvel, Gerard et al. discloses Concurrent task execution in a multi-processor, single operating system environment. USPGPub No. US 20060080389 A1 by Powers; John T. et al. discloses Distributed processing system. USPGPub No. US 20040268354 A1 by Kanai, Tatsunori et al. discloses Method and system for performing real-time operation using processors. USPGPub No. US 20070240160 A1 by Paterson-Jones; Roland et al. discloses Managing execution of programs by multiple computing systems. USPGPub No. US 20030177187 A1 by Levine, David A. et al. discloses Computing grid for massively multi-player online games and other multi-user immersive persistent-state and session-based applications. USPGPub No. US 20130159021 A1 by Felsher; David Paul discloses INFORMATION RECORD INFRASTRUCTURE, SYSTEM AND METHOD. USPAT No. US 7487125 B2 to Littlewood; Margaret G. discloses Method for providing aggregation of trading on multiple alternative trading systems. USPAT No. US 7392218 B2 to Saliba; Anthony J. discloses Method and apparatus for stock and index option price improvement, participation, and internalization. USPAT No. US 7822728 B1 to Chandler; Richard G. et al. discloses Metadata pipelining and optimization in a file server. 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 SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST and Friday 10:00 AM to 2:00 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, Matthew S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. Sincerely, /SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 09/28/2026