CTFR 18/432,174 CTFR 82506 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 and claims 1, 19 and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 11 applicant argues Applicants respectfully submit that the mental calculation and cross-referencing of continuous, time-stamped spatial geometries across overlapping fields of view from multiple synchronized devices to verify micro-level temporal consistency is an action that the human mind is not equipped to perform. Because this limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind, claim 1 does not recite a mental process under the USPTO's 35 U.S.C. § 101 patent eligibility analysis, particularly under the August 4, 2025 Memo The examiner disagrees the claim merely requires determine features which are “spatial representations” across at least two images from each camera with time stamps; then compare these features for spatial and temporal consistency. There are no “micro-level temporal consistency” or spatial geometries claimed. Applicant appears to be attributing a level of specificity which has not been claimed. Further the examiner cannot find a reference to “micro-level temporal consistency” in the specification and it is unclear what applicant means by that. The examiner disagrees that these features cannot be performed in the mind. Applicant further argues Furthermore, under Step 2A Prong Two, the August 4, 2025 Memo at page 4 states that claims reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology integrate the exception into a practical application. The claimed subject matter provides a specific, multi- camera spatial-temporal consistency verification system that improves image processing authentication technology, overcoming the vulnerabilities of conventional authentication (see, e.g., Specification at paragraphs [0029] and [0030]. Here applicant appears to be arguing an improvement to a technology but applicant failed to identify which additional elements integrate the claim as a whole in to a practical application. In fact, the only additional elements for claims 1 and 19 are generic computer components. This amounts to no more that implementing an abstract idea on generic computer components. Claim 11 recites no additional elements at all. Applicants’ arguments that the dependent claims overcome 101 due to the arguments with respect to the independent claims are unpersuasive because the arguments for the independent claims are unpersuasive. Applicant’s arguments, see page 11 and 12 , filed 3/18/20, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 and 2, 12 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 2, 12 and 20 has been withdrawn because the amendments have overcome the rejection. However the examiner notes that the mere use of lidar does not correspond to “wherein the one or more first object features and the one or more second object features extracted during the movement of the object are not visible to a user.” This element is unsupported by the specification and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 below . 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 and claims 4 and 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues: “computing a "first hash" and a "second hash" of the object features. The Examiner alleges this covers a user "mentally computing the hash" (Office Action at page 4). However, an image hash is a compact numeric or alphanumeric value derived from an image's data. It acts like a fingerprint for the image and is used to identify, compare, or index images efficiently. Generating such an image hash involves using complex mathematical or cryptographic transformations, and therefore cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The rejection of claims 4 and 14 is therefore improper, and claims 4 and 14 are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least this additional reasons” The examiner notes that the “features” could merely be two features and the hash functions while potentially being very complex are not necessarily complex. A simple hash function for a few feature values could be performed mentally. Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, filed 3/18/20, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112b have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 5,9,15 and 17 has been withdrawn because the amendments have overcome the rejection . 07-38-01 AIA Applicant’s arguments, see page 14-16 , filed 3/18/20 , with respect to the prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 2, 3,12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Re claim 2 the specification does not disclose “wherein the one or more first object features include a first sequence of features and the one or more second object features include a second sequence of features extracted during a movement of the object and/or of the first camera device and the second camera device in relation to the object while the first image data and the second image data are captured, and wherein the one or more first object features and the one or more second object features extracted during the movement of the object are not visible to a user” The examiner is unable to fine disclosure of the specification for extracting features that are not visible to the user from the first image data and second image data. The examiner notes that using a lidar to generate a depth map is not the same as identifying features of an object which are not visible to the user. Re claim 3 claim 3 depends from claim 2 Re claim 12 and 20 these claims contain similar features as those to claim 2 and has similar issues. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 4-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Re claim 1 The limitations of receive first image data captured by a first camera device, wherein the first image data depicts an object positioned at a location; receive second image data captured by a second camera device, wherein the second image data depicts the object at the location and wherein the second image data is captured within a time threshold of the first image data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, receiving images in the context of this claim encompasses the user merely looking at the specified image to receive it in the mind. The limitations of process the first image data to extract one or more first object features comprising a first sequence of time-stamped spatial representations; process the second image data to extract one or more second object features comprising a second sequence of time-stamped spatial representations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, processing to extract features in the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at the image to extract the features mentally and noting the capture time associated with the features. The limitation of determine a match between the one or more first object features and the one or more second object features by verifying a spatial consistency and a temporal consistency between the first sequence of time-stamped spatial representations and the second sequence of time-stamped spatial representations based on an overlapping portion of the object viewed by the first camera device and the second camera device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determine a match in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally comparing the features to determine a match. The limitation of provide an authentication output indicating that the first camera device and the second camera device are or were at the location of the object within the time threshold based on the match, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, providing an output in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making a decision to authenticate or speaking that the images are authenticated. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using a processor and a memory to perform the steps. The processor and memory in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements 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 element of using a processor and memory to perform the function amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Re claim 4 The limitation of compute a first hash of the one or more first object features, and a second hash of the one or more second object features, and wherein the match between the one or more first images features and the one or more second object features is based on the first hash and the second hash are at least partly similar, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, computing and matching in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing the hash and mentally determining if the hashes are similar. The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not significantly different from the claim which this claim depends. Re claim 5 claim 5 contains the same abstract idea as claim 1. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using a processor and a memory to perform the steps and synchronize a capturing of the first image data and the second image data over a wireless connection between the first camera device and the second camera device. The processor and memory in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitation of synchronize a capturing of the first image data and the second image data over a wireless connection between the first camera device and the second camera device is a well-known step of data gathering which is extra solution activity. The limitation of “capturing of the first image data and the second image data over a wireless connection between the first camera device and the second camera device” is known in several examples across the prior art, See Park US 20240078903 A1 paragraph 281, Wataru US 20230412918 A1 paragraph 138, Kim US 20230206470 A1 see paragraph 43, Gordaychik US 20190363843 A1 (see paragraph 195). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements 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 element of using a processor and memory to perform the function amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitation of synchronize a capturing of the first image data and the second image data over a wireless connection between the first camera device and the second camera device is a well-known step of data gathering which is extra solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components combined with insignificant extra solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Re claim 6 The limitation of wherein the one or more first object features comprise at least in part of the first three-dimensional point cloud representation and the one or more second object features comprise at least in part of the second three-dimensional point cloud representation; and wherein the match between the one or more first object features and the one or more second object features is further based on at least partly matching the first three-dimensional point cloud representation and the second three-dimensional point cloud representation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, extracting and matching in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally extracting features from the point cloud and mentally matching the extracted frames. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using a processor and a memory to perform the steps and process the first image data to create a first three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object; process the second image data to extract a second three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object The processor and memory in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Generating point cloud data from images is merely a well known process See for Example Yan US 2020/0317194. Techniques for generating 3D point cloud data sets based on stereoscopic image data are well known. The combination of a generic and a well known image processing technique not sufficient to limit the claim to any specific application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements 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 element of using a processor and memory to perform the function amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Generating point cloud data from images is merely a well known process See for Example Yan US 2020/0317194. Techniques for generating 3D point cloud data sets based on stereoscopic image data are well known Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components combined with a well known image processing technique cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Re claim 7 claim 7 recites the same abstract idea as in claim 1. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using a processor and a memory to perform the steps incorporated into either a first or second camera. The processor and memory in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components incorporated into a generic camera. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements 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 element of using a processor and memory to perform the function amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components incorporated into a generic camera. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components in a generic camera cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Re claim 8 The limitation of “authenticate, based on the authentication output, a transaction associated with the object, between the first camera device and the second camera device, between a first user/owner of the first camera device and a second user/owner the second camera device, or a combination thereof”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, authenticating a transaction in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally approving the transactions. The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not significantly different from the claim which this claim depends. Re claim 9 The limitation of attach the authentication output data record indicating the transaction, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, attaching a authentication output to a record in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally recoding the authentication in a mental record of the transaction. The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not significantly different from the claim which this claim depends. Re claim 10 The limitation of Create based on the authentication output, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, attaching a authentication output to a record in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally deciding to do something based on the authentication output. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using a processor and a memory to perform the steps and a wireless communication connection between the first camera device and the second camera device, between a first user/owner of the first camera device and a second user/owner the second camera device, or a combination thereof. The processor and memory in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. regarding “a wireless communication connection between the first camera device and the second camera device, between a first user/owner of the first camera device and a second user/owner the second camera device, or a combination thereof ” wireless connections between cameras are a merely well known computer component. See Park US 20240078903 A1 paragraph 281, Wataru US 20230412918 A1 paragraph 138, Kim US 20230206470 A1 see paragraph 43, Gordaychik US 20190363843 A1 (see paragraph 195). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements 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 element of using a processor and memory and the wireless connection to perform the function amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components combined with insignificant extra solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible Re claim 11 The limitations of receiving first image data captured by a first camera device, wherein the first image data depicts an object positioned at a location; receiving second image data captured by a second camera device, wherein the second image data depicts the object at the location and wherein the second image data is captured within a time threshold of the first image data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, receiving images in the context of this claim encompasses the user merely looking at the specified image to receive it in the mind. The limitations of processing the first image data to extract one or more first object features comprising a first sequence of time-stamped spatial representations; processing the second image data to extract one or more second object features comprising a second sequence of time-stamped spatial representations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, processing to extract features in the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at the image to extract the features mentally and mentally attaching a time stamp. The limitation of determining a match between the one or more first object features and the one or more second object features by verifying a spatial consistency and a temporal consistency between the first sequence of time-stamped spatial representations and the second sequence of time- stamped spatial representations based on an overlapping portion of the object viewed by the first camera device and the second camera device as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining a match in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally comparing the features to determine a match. The limitation of providing an authentication output indicating that the first camera device and the second camera device are or were at the location of the object within the time threshold based on the match, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, providing an output in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making a decision to authenticate or speaking that the images are authenticated. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The method does not contain additional features which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because the claim does not include additional features. Re claim 13 The limitation of wherein the match between the one or more first object features and the one or more second object features is further based on matching at least partly the first sequence of features and the second sequence of features, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining a match in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining the match. The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not significantly different from the claim which this claim depends. Re claim 14 The limitation of computing a first hash of the one or more first object features, and a second hash of the one or more second object features, and wherein the match between the one or more first images features and the one or more second object features is based on the first hash and the second hash are at least partly similar, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, computing and matching in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing the hash and mentally determining if the hashes are similar. The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not significantly different from the claim which this claim depends. Re claim 15 claim 15 contains the same abstract idea as claim 11. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – synchronize a capturing of the first image data and the second image data over a wireless connection between the first camera device and the second camera device. The limitation of synchronize a capturing of the first image data and the second image data over a wireless connection between the first camera device and the second camera device is a well-known step of data gathering which is extra solution activity. The limitation of “capturing of the first image data and the second image data over a wireless connection between the first camera device and the second camera device” is known in several examples across the prior art, See Park US 20240078903 A1 paragraph 281, Wataru US 20230412918 A1 paragraph 138, Kim US 20230206470 A1 see paragraph 43, Gordaychik US 20190363843 A1 (see paragraph 195). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements 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 limitation of synchronize a capturing of the first image data and the second image data over a wireless connection between the first camera device and the second camera device is a well-known step of data gathering which is extra solution activity. Mere insignificant extra solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Re claim 16 The limitation of wherein the one or more first object features comprise at least in part of the first three-dimensional point cloud representation and the one or more second object features comprise at least in part of the second three-dimensional point cloud representation; and wherein the match between the one or more first object features and the one or more second object features is further based on at least partly matching the first three-dimensional point cloud representation and the second three-dimensional point cloud representation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, extracting and matching in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally extracting features from the point cloud and mentally matching the extracted frames. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – and process the first image data to create a first three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object; process the second image data to extract a second three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object Generating point cloud data from images is merely a well known process See for Example Yan US 2020/0317194. Techniques for generating 3D point cloud data sets based on stereoscopic image data are well known. The combination a well known image processing technique not sufficient to limit the claim to any specific application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements 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, generating point cloud data from images is merely a well known process See for Example Yan US 2020/0317194. Techniques for generating 3D point cloud data sets based on stereoscopic image data are well known. A well known image processing technique cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Re claim 17 claim 17 recites the same abstract idea as in claim 11. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – steps incorporated into either a first or second camera. The first or second camera is merely described as a generic camera. A generic camera is does not meaningfully limit the claim. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements 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 generic camera. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic camera cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Re claim 18 The limitation of authenticating, based on the authentication output, a transaction associated with the object, between the first camera device and the second camera device, between a first user/owner of the first camera device and a second user/owner the second camera device, or a combination thereof, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, authenticating a transaction in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally approving the transactions. The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more is not significantly different from the claim which this claim depends. Re claim 19 The limitations of receiving first image data captured by a first camera device, wherein the first image data depicts an object positioned at a location; receiving second image data captured by a second camera device, wherein the second image data depicts the object at the location and wherein the second image data is captured within a time threshold of the first image data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, receiving images in the context of this claim encompasses the user merely looking at the specified image to receive it in the mind. The limitations of processing the first image data to extract one or more first object features comprising a first sequence of time-stamped spatial representations; processing the second image data to extract one or more second object features comprising a second sequence of time-stamped spatial representations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, processing to extract features in the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at the image to extract the features mentally and mentally attaching a time stamp. The limitation of determining a match between the one or more first object features and the one or more second object features by verifying a spatial consistency and a temporal consistency between the first sequence of time-stamped spatial representations and the second sequence of time- stamped spatial representations based on an overlapping portion of the object viewed by the first camera device and the second camera device as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining a match in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally comparing the features to determine a match. The limitation of providing an authentication output indicating that the first camera device and the second camera device are or were at the location of the object within the time threshold based on the match, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, providing an output in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making a decision to authenticate or speaking that the images are authenticated. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions that, when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus. The medium storing instructions is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer readable medium storing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements 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 element of using a computer readable medium to store instructions to perform the function amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN T MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1237. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM. 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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. /SEAN T MOTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 2 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 3 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 4 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 5 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 6 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 7 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 8 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 9 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 10 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 11 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 12 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 13 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 14 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 15 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 16 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 17 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 18 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 19 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/432,174 Page 20 Art Unit: 2673
Prosecution Insights