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 .
Application Status
Present office action is in response to amendment filed 11/06/2025. Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
In regard to independent Claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
Step 1: Statutory Category?
The preamble of independent Claim 1 recites “A processor implemented method for dynamically generating an item for an assessment in a candidate console, comprising:”. Independent Claim 1 falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
The Revised 2019 Memorandum is applied as shown in the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table below to identify in italics the specific claim limitations found to recite an abstract idea and in bold the additional (non-abstract) claim limitations.
Independent Claim 1
Revised 2019 Guidance
A processor implemented method for dynamically generating an item for an assessment in a candidate console, comprising:
A method falls under the statutory subject matter class of a process. See
35 U.S.C. § 101 (“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.”).
[L1] receiving, via one or more hardware processors, a generator function, and a plurality of placeholder variables as an input;
Receiving an input is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The one or more hardware processors is a generic computer component.
[L2] creating, via the one or more hardware processors, at least one template for at least one item based on the generator function and the plurality of placeholder variables;
Creating at least one template for at least one item is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
The one or more hardware processors is a generic computer component.
[L3] dynamically generating, via the one or more hardware processors, a plurality of placeholder values based on at least one replacement value corresponding to each placeholder variable from the plurality of placeholder variables;
Generating a plurality of placeholder values based on at least one replacement value … is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[L4] obtaining, via the one or more hardware processors, at least one generated item associated with at least one required option based on the plurality of placeholder values upon dynamically receiving at least one call from the generator function,
Obtaining at least one generated item … is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Alternatively, obtaining at least one generated item … is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
The one or more hardware processors is a generic computer component.
[L5] wherein the at least one replacement value is generated by the generator function to replace the plurality of placeholder variables in the at least one generated item;
Generating at least one replacement value … is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[L6] wherein the generator function is invoked during an item generation, proof reading of the generated item, and delivery of the generated item in the candidate console
Invoking the generator function during an item generation … is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Delivery of the generated item in the candidate console … is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data presentation). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Proof reading of the generated item … is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
The candidate console is a generic computer component.
[L7] and obtaining, via the one or more hardware processors, at least one validated item by mapping the at least one generated item associated with the at least one required option to the at least one template for the at least one item.
Obtaining at least one validated item … is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Alternatively, obtaining at least one generated item by mapping the at least one generated item … is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
The one or more hardware processors is a generic computer component.
[L8] generating, via the one or more hardware processors, a question paper based on the at least one generated item with the generator function, followed by
Generating a question paper based on the at least one generated item with the generator function is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
The one or more hardware processors is a generic computer component.
[L9] reviewing the generated question paper corresponding to (a) if there is no need of modification, then the generated question paper is sealed in an assessment; and
Reviewing the generated question paper … is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
[L10] (b) if there is a need of modification, then the generated question paper is sent back to a creator for modification
Sending back the generated question paper … is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data transmission). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
[L11] displaying the generated question paper on a screen of the candidate console during the assessment upon reviewing the generated question paper; and
Displaying the generated question paper on a screen … is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data presentation). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The candidate console is a generic computer component.
[L12] automatically invoking the generator function and replacing placeholder values associated with the generated question paper upon receiving a click on an item panel or a number panel in the candidate console followed by
Invoking the generator function upon receiving a click … is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). See 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Replacing placeholder values associated with the generated question paper … is an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 Memorandum 52.
The item panel and number panel are generic computer components.
Humans have long generated items for assessments (paper) using desired processes. It is also common for a paper generation process to involve proofreading which commonly entails making decisions about whether or not to modify the paper. It is apparent that, other than reciting the additional non-abstract limitations of the “one or more hardware processors”, “candidate console”, “item panel” and “number panel” noted in the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table above, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human, in the mind, and/or using pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of the “one or more hardware processors”, “candidate console”, “item panel” and “number panel” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
The body of the claim, as noted in bold in the Independent Claim 1/Revised 2019 Guidance Table above, recites the additional limitations of the “one or more hardware processors”, “candidate console”, “item panel” and “number panel” which are recited at a high level of generality. The originally filed disclosure as reproduced in the published Specification provides supporting exemplary descriptions of generic computer components: at least ¶ 19: “the system 100 includes one or more processor(s) 102, communication interface device(s) or input/output (I/O) interface(s) 106, and one or more data storage devices or memory 104 operatively coupled to the one or more processors 102. The memory 104 includes a database. The one or more processor(s) processor 102, the memory 104, and the I/O interface(s) 106 may be coupled by a system bus such as a system bus 108 or a similar mechanism. The one or more processor(s) 102 that are hardware processors can be implemented as one or more microprocessors, microcomputers, microcontrollers, digital signal processors, central processing units, state machines, logic circuitries, and/or any devices that manipulate signals based on operational instructions. Among other capabilities, the one or more processor(s) 102 is configured to fetch and execute computer-readable instructions stored in the memory 104. In an embodiment, the system 100 can be implemented in a variety of computing systems, such as laptop computers, notebooks, hand-held devices, workstations, mainframe computers, servers, a network cloud, and the like”; ¶ 20: “The I/O interface device(s) 106 can include a variety of software and hardware interfaces, for example, a web interface, a graphical user interface, and the like. The I/O interface device(s) 106 may include a variety of software and hardware interfaces, for example, interfaces for peripheral device(s), such as a keyboard, a mouse, an external memory, a camera device, and a printer. Further, the I/O interface device(s) 106 may enable the system 100 to communicate with other devices, such as web servers and external databases. The I/O interface device(s) 106 can facilitate multiple communications within a wide variety of networks and protocol types, including wired networks, for example, local area network (LAN), cable, etc., and wireless networks, such as Wireless LAN (WLAN), cellular, or satellite. In an embodiment, the I/O interface device(s) 106 can include one or more ports for connecting number of devices to one another or to another server”; ¶ 21: “The memory 104 may include any computer-readable medium known in the art including, for example, volatile memory, such as static random-access memory (SRAM) and dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), and/or non-volatile memory. such as read only memory (ROM), erasable programmable ROM, flash memories, hard disks, optical disks, and magnetic tapes”; ¶ 67: “The hardware device can be any kind of device which can be programmed including e.g., any kind of computer like a server or a personal computer, or the like, or any combination thereof. The device may also include means which could be e.g., hardware means like e.g., an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), or a combination of hardware and software means, e.g., an ASIC and an FPGA, or at least one microprocessor and at least one memory with software processing components located therein. Thus, the means can include both hardware means, and software means. The method embodiments described herein could be implemented in hardware and software. The device may also include software means. Alternatively, the embodiments may be implemented on different hardware devices, e.g., using a plurality of CPUs”; ¶ 70: “A computer- readable storage medium refers to any type of physical memory on which information or data readable by a processor may be stored. Thus, a computer-readable storage medium may store instructions for execution by one or more processors, including instructions for causing the processor(s) to perform steps or stages consistent with the embodiments described herein. The term “computer-readable medium” should be understood to include tangible items and exclude carrier waves and transient signals, i.e., be non-transitory. Examples include random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), volatile memory, nonvolatile memory, hard drives, CD ROMs, DVDs, flash drives, disks, and any other known physical storage media”. The lack of details about the “one or more hardware processors”, “candidate console”, “item panel” and “number panel” indicates that these additional elements are generic, or part of generic computer elements performing or being used in performing the generic functions of receiving and obtaining data. Any improvements provided by the claim are in the abstract realm, and they are insufficient to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.”). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 90 (2012) (holding that a novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless patent-ineligible). Also see also Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151 (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”) (Emphasis omitted). The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The claimed invention merely implements the abstract idea using instructions executed on generic computer components, as shown in bold type in Table One, and as supported in the above noted pertinent portions of the Specification. Thus, the instant claim merely uses a programmed computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Step [L1] “receiving an input” (i.e., data gathering), [L4] “obtaining at least one generated item” (i.e., data gathering), Step [L6] “invoking the generator function during an item generation” (i.e., data gathering)”, “delivery of the generated item in the candidate console” (i.e., data presentation), Step [L7] “obtaining at least one validated item” (data gathering) , Step [L10] “sending back the generated question paper” (data transmission), Step [L11] “displaying the generated question paper on a screen” (i.e., data presentation), and Step [L12] “invoking the generator function … upon receiving a click ” (i.e., data gathering), as shown in Table One, reflects the type of extra-solution activity (i.e., in addition to the judicial exception) the courts have determined insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); see also In re Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963 (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353 (holding that collecting information is an abstract idea). The instant claim as a whole merely uses computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Hence, the claim limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment (a computer) in which to apply a judicial exception and, as such, cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Hence, as per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), the additional elements in representative claim 1, namely the “one or more hardware processors”, “candidate console”, “item panel” and “number panel” do not, either individually or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the Specification, as noted above (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 67, 70) describes the “one or more hardware processors”, “candidate console”, “item panel” and “number panel” in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of the published Specification sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. Furthermore, the Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III (A)(1) explains that a specification that describes additional elements “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.” The generic description of “one or more hardware processors”, “candidate console”, “item panel” and “number panel” indicates the steps are well-known enough that no further description is required for a skilled artisan to understand the process. That is, the recited data gathering (i.e., [L1] “receiving an input”, [L4] “obtaining at least one generated item” (data gathering) and [L6] “invoking the generator function during an item generation”, [L7] “obtaining at least one validated item” and [L12] “invoking the generator function … upon receiving a click ”), data presentation (i.e., [L6] “delivery of the generated item in the candidate console” and [L11] “displaying the generated question paper on a screen”) and data transmission (i.e., [L10] “sending back the generated question paper”), were nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because they are not distinguished from the generic receiving, and obtaining of information with a computer. See buySAFE, “[t]hat a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.” 765 F.3d at 1355. Hence, the additional elements are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. The use of the additional elements either alone or in combination amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are patent ineligible. (Step 2B: NO).
In regard to independent Claim 6:
Independent claim 6 recites “a system”, which falls within the “machine” category
of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claim recites “a system for dynamically generating an item for an assessment in a candidate console, comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to:”. The “memory”, “one or more communication interfaces” and “one or more hardware processors”, “candidate console”, “item panel” and “number panel” similarly to representative independent Claim 1, are additional elements that are generic, well-understood, routine, and conventional computing elements (see published Specification ¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 67, 70) performing steps similar to those of representative independent Claim 1. As a result, independent claim 6 is rejected similarly to representative independent Claim 1.
In regard to independent Claim 11:
Independent claim 11 recites “one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums”, which falls within the “manufacture” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claim recites “one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause: The “one or more hardware processors”, “candidate console”, “item panel” and “number panel”, similarly to representative independent Claim 1, is an additional element that is generic, well-understood, routine, and conventional computing element (see published Specification ¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 67, 70) performing steps similar to those of representative independent Claim 1. As a result, independent claim 11 is rejected similarly to representative independent Claim 1.
In regard to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 include all the limitations of respective independent claims 1, 6 and 11 from which they depend and, as such, recite the same abstract idea(s) noted above for respective claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15. Any additional claim element is recited as being used according to its conventional purpose in a conventional manner. The Examiner fails to see any claim activity used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. An invocation to use known technology in the manner it is intended to be used for its ordinary purpose is both generic and conventional. As per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), none of the limitations of claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. While dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 may have a narrower scope than the representative claims, no claim contains an “inventive concept” that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of Claims under §101
Applicant first argues that “Claims are not directed to law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea”, that “the claimed subject matter integrates a judicial exception in terms of implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine” and that “the claimed subject matter integrates a judicial exception in terms of improvement in functionality of the computer”. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as shown below.
As noted in the rejections above, humans have long generated items for assessments (paper) using desired processes. By definition, proofreading is “the process of finding and correcting mistakes in text before it is printed or put online”. Like the risk hedging in Bilski, the concept of proofreading is a fundamental business and legal practice long prevalent in system of commerce. The use of proofreading is also a building block of making contractual arrangements and publishing documents. Thus, proofreading, like hedging, is an “abstract idea” beyond the scope of §101. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. at 2356. As noted in the rejections above, the originally filed disclosure as reproduced in the published Specification supports the finding that the additional claim elements, namely the “one or more hardware processors”, “candidate console”, “item panel” and “number panel” are generic computer components, each operating in its normal, expected manner. The instant claims simply recite the concept of proofreading as performed by a generic computer. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of proofreading using some unspecified, generic computer. Under Court precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent eligible invention. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. at 2360.
Applicant’s hypothetical claim 1 of Example 37 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Example 37 notes that “traditional software does not automatically organize icons so that the most used icons are located near the ‘start’ or ‘home’ icon, where they can be easily accessed. Therefore, what is needed is a method that allows for such non-traditional arrangements to be performed automatically.” (Example 37 at 1.) Example 37 provides “a method for rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the method moves the most used icons to a position on the GUI, specifically, closest to the ‘start’ icon of the computer system, based on a determined amount of use.” (Id.) As a result, hypothetical claim 1 of Example 37 provides a technological improvement to the user interface itself. (Id. at 2–3.) In the instant claims, Applicant does not persuasively argue why “determining, by a processor, the amount of use of each icon over a predetermined period of time; and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use,” as recited in hypothetical claim 1, is analogous to the claim limitations, for example Applicant referenced “presents different or new questions in response to click on the item panel or number panel in the candidate console”. The performing of a function in response to a click simply illustrates a computer element performing in an expected manner. Applicant does not persuasively argue why the technique recited in representative claim 1 achieves a specific technological improvement to the field of art to which the present application pertains and to computer-related technology in general and that the features recited in representative claim 1 when considered "as a whole" is directed to a particular improvement in “dynamically generating an item for an assessment in a candidate console”, and is thus not "directed to" a judicial exception itself, in a manner analogous to claim 1 of Example 37 of the USPTO 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG).
Applicant does not persuasively argue why “taking all the claim elements individually, or in combination, the claim as a whole amounts to "significantly more" than an abstract idea of itself (Step 2B: Yes)”. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. All of the claimed computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. None of the claim activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. Applicant does not contend to have invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Applying generic computer techniques to document generation and editing does not provide an inventive concept. Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (dynamically generating an online application by merging a template file and database in response to activation of a hyperlink represent generic data collection steps in a particular environment).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of representative claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of receiving, creating, generating, obtaining, replacing, proofreading, delivering, obtaining, generating, reviewing, displaying, replacing and presenting is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715; Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring); Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, 107 F.4th 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (sequence of receiving, storing, transmitting, 22 determining, selecting, and generating information). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. Representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
In light of the foregoing, the Examiner maintains that each of Applicant’s pending claims 1-15 considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102 and 35 USC§ 103
The prior art rejections of the claims are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and remarks.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO
Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights