DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines. Claim 11-19 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. Claim 20 is a computer-readable medium and falls within the statutory category of articles of manufacture.
Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 11, and 20: The limitation of “generate the API mapping…,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can examine a set of criteria and from that draw up an association between varying elements or an indication of whether or not the criteria can be satisfied.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 11, and 20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “one or more processors,” “one or more memories,” “an API database,” “a mapping engine,” “a user device,” “one or more processors from a user device,” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the following additional elements – “receive… an API mapping request…” and “provide… the API mapping,” which are merely recitations of insignificant pre-and post-solution data gathering and sharing activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 11, and 20 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 11, and 20: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, to the extent that “receive… an API mapping request…” and “provide…the API mapping” are positively recited steps of receiving and transmitting data, this would be insignificant extra-solution data gathering and sharing, which are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,”).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 11, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of Claim 1. Specifically, each claim simply clarifies details of the various claimed elements or adds further mental processes that are similar to the steps in claim 1. Claims 2-10 do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter. Similarly, claims 12-19 do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of claim 11.
Therefore, claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to prior art rejections, applicant argues the following in the remarks:
a. On page 9, applicant argues that the amended claims involve the actual generation and consolidation of API code, creating a single function that replaces two or more functions, which cannot be done in the human mind.
b. On page 9, applicant further argues that the specification shows an improvement provided by the above-argued consolidation which integrates the claimed invention into a practical application.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant:
a. The examiner would point out that the claim, as currently written, does not require the argued limitation. Specifically, the claimed invention requires the mapping to include “one or more of” a set of elements that includes the consolidation element. Thus, the invention can exist without the consolidation, which means that even if applicant’s arguments about whether or not it can be a mental process are correct, the claimed invention can still exist without them. Thus, the rejection stands.
b. The examiner would point out that the same response to arguments as presented in element (a) apply here. If the claimed consolidation does not occur, clearly it cannot be solely relied upon to create the necessary improvement. Thus, the rejection stands.
Conclusion
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 Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is (571)270-7762. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571)272-3338. 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.
/GREGORY A KESSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights