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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to amendment received on 1/15/2026. Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 16 and 17 are amended. Claims 3 and 13 are cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending 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 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims are directed to a process (method claims 9-16), and a machine/manufacture (system claim 1 and media claims 17-20), which fall withing
statutory categories of § 101.
Step 2A, Prong one: the claims are directed to abstract idea collecting and analyzing information about user presence and service load, comparing the information to thresholds, and routing service requests to available personnel or locations, which is a fundamental economic practice and method of organizing human activity. The claims recite: monitoring customer traffic at multiple location (load data collection); comparing load levels to capacity threshold; matching customers to service providers based on parameters, which is similar to Alice Corp v CLS Bank and buySafe, Inc. V. Google, Inc (managing relationships in business). The concept of load balancing and routing customers or requests to available service providers is a commercial practice that could be performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Step 2A, prong Two: The claims recite generic computing elements such as processor, memory, communication interface, computing devices, performing conventional functions at high level of generality. Data gathering techniques such as method of identifying load data of GPS coordinates, manual identification, image data or facial recognition, are merely routine data gathering steps and do not impose meaningful limits. The conventional communication such as establishing a communication session, including video, between locations is well understood, routine and conventional activity. The claims do not improve computer functionality, improve another technology or apply the abstract idea with a particular machine or transformation. They simply use computers and tools to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2B: the claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not contain an inventive concept enough to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. The additional limitations amount to no more than generic computer implementation of the abstract idea; conventional data collection (GPS, facial recognition, manual entry), well understood communication technology and routine and conventional activities previously knows in the technology elements or combination of elements provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1- The applicant asserts that, when considered under the January 2019 Patent eligibility guidance and October 2019 Update, the amended claims recite patent eligible subject matter.
Response: The examiner has considered applicants argument in view of the January 2019 Patent eligibility Guidance and October 2019 Update. The claims have ben evaluated in accordance with the Guidance. However, the evaluation does not change the examiners’ position, because when viewed as a whole, the current claims are understood as being directed to monitoring workload condition, applying threshold, and assigning service execution accordingly. These concepts are identified in the Guidance as falling within abstract ideas such as organizing human activity and resource allocation.
Argument 2- The applicant asserts that the amended claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response: Even though the claims recite various computing components and data sources, including geolocation data, image data, facial recognition, and communication sessions. Hoverer, these elements are understood to function in their ordinary and expected capacity and are used to implement the concept rather than improve the operation of a computer or another technical field. The currently amended claims do not appear to recite a specific technical improvement or a particular technological solution to a computer centric problem.
Argument 3- The applicant argues that the rejection does not establish that the additional elements are well understood, or conventional, and that the claims include inventive concept.
Response: The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are described in functional terms. The claims do not specify particular implementations, architectures or processing method that would distinguish the claims system from conventional computing systems performing similar tasks. When the additional elements are considered individually and in combination, they appear to show the routine use of generic computer components to collect information, evaluate condition and route service requests. The claims as amended are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the abstract idea.
Argument 4- The applicant cites BASCOM Global Internet Service, Inc, V. AT&T Mobility LLC.
Response: The examiner has considered applicant’s reliance on BASCOM. In that case, eligibility was found based on a particular, non-conventional arrangement of components that provided technical solution withing the network architecture itself. In contrast, the current claims do not recite a similarly specific or non-conventional technical arrangement, rather the current claims broadly describe functional steps carried out using conventional components. Therefore, the present claims are not sufficiently analogous to the claims found I eligible in BASCOM.
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 SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights