DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to amendment filed 1/5/2026.
2. Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-22 are pending.
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 .
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 1-6, 8-16, 18-22
Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-22 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: Claims 1-10, 21 are directed to a system, 11-19, 22 are directed to a method, 20 to non-transitory computer readable medium – each of which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 recite the limitations – receive a first request for transfer of funds into a first account through an intermediary; route first request through account management to a payment service; populate, via payment service, a second request to the intermediary to initiate the transfer; monitor events generated by payment service using machine learning mode of the account management service trained to detect transfer errors and generate diagnostic actions based on detected transfer errors; in response to the machine learning model detecting a transfer error, generate and implement one or more diagnostic actions with the machine learning model including user-initiated diagnostic actions and automated diagnostic actions; route a transmission comprising the one or more user-initiated diagnostic actions and results of the one or more automated diagnostic actions to a device having authentication necessary to implement the one or more user-initiated diagnostic actions; detect, at the payment service, by listening for events related to the second request, confirmation of transfer from the intermediary for received funds to be routed by the payment service to a multi-tenant account; generate, using the event architecture of the payment service, an event for the account management service that represents at least in part that the confirmation has been received; and in response to receiving the event, have the account management service: complete the transfer to the first account by request to the multi-tenant account; generate, with the account management service, an update of the completed transfer; and send, by a distribution subsystem, the update to the user device – that constitute Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles or Commercial/Legal Interactions and hence fall under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to – type of account, registration request to open first account, determining event status, determine discrepancies, provide error events to a machine learning model, generate diagnostic actions, determine recipient with privileges to remediate error, error being visible to customer service representative with privileges to implement diagnostic actions; generate and provide remediation actions – that also constitute Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claims recite a judicial exception.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e)
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Additional elements recited by the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: a system comprising a processor and memory; a device associated with a customer services representative; non-transitory computer readable medium; event architecture; distribution subsystem; and machine learning model. Examiner thus finds that any additional element(s), beyond the judicial exception, has been recited at a high level of generality such that the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The combination of additional elements does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than use the computer as a tool and/or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas – transferring funds from a sender to a recipient via an intermediary, detecting errors and implementing diagnostic actions – that merely uses generic computers and machine learning models as tools. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019] ((1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”.)
Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. Indeed, nothing in claim 1 improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Hence, under Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B: In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components, which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept. When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – transferring funds from a sender to a recipient via an intermediary, detecting errors and implementing diagnostic actions – into significantly more.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019].
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 11-14, 20
Claims 1-4, 11-15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecht et al. (US 2024/0281777 A1) in view of Hendry et al. (US11625772B1) further in view of Kavali et al. (US20220276919A1).
Claim 1:
A system for accelerating transfers via intermediaries, the system comprising:
a processor;
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the system to:
receive, from a user device, a first request to perform a transfer of funds held by a cooperating party into a first account, the first request requiring the transfer occur through an intermediary;
(See Hecht: Para [0005] (“receiving, by an intermediary computing system, a first message including a data payload and an identity token from an originator computing system associated with the originator. The method includes cross-referencing, by the intermediary computing system, the identity token with a routing directory to identify a financial institution associated with the recipient and to identify the recipient.”)
route the first request through an account management service to a payment service, the payment service being for completing payments using an event architecture configured to listen to events generated by the intermediary and generate events internally for an enterprise system;
(See Hecht: Para [0045] (“This ACH entry is then sent to an ACH Operator (i.e., central clearing facilities through which financial institutions transmit or receive ACH entries, e.g., the Federal Reserve or the Electronic Payments Network) and is passed on to the Receiving Depository Financial Institution (RDFI), where the Receiver's account is issued either a credit or debit, depending on the ACH transaction.”)
(See Hendry:
Col. 8 lines 30-35 (“generate transaction events 504 that are published to an event stream”)
Col. 9 lines 5-10 (“Transaction service 602 includes an event listener 610 for listening to events published on an event”)
Claim 1 (“listening, using a first event listener of a transaction service, for financial transaction events on an event stream, wherein the transaction service manages financial transactions that have not yet been posted to financial accounts;”)
populate, via the payment service, a second request to the intermediary to initiate the transfer;
(See Hecht: Para [0114] (“The intermediary forwards the credit transaction information to the RDFI. The RDFI responds with a confirmation of receipt, and the transfer proceeds in a similar manner as discussed above with respect to the non-third-party initiated P2P transfers.”)
…
route a transmission comprising the one or more user-initiated diagnostic actions and results of the one or more user-initiated automated diagnostic actions to a device having authentication necessary to implement the one or more diagnostic actions;
(See Hecht: Para [0052] (“The reversal message is processed via the real-time data channel 138. Hence, at 502, the reversal message is forwarded to the paying bank computer system 120 by the verification service computer system 130. At 503, a message confirming the reversal is received by the verification service computer system 130 from the paying bank computer system 120. At 504, the message confirming the reversal is forwarded by the verification service computer system 130 to the depository computer system 110.”)
detect, at the payment service, by listening for events related to the second request, confirmation of transfer from the intermediary for received funds to be routed by the payment service to a multi-tenant account;
(See Hendry: Claim 1 (“detecting, using the first event listener of the transaction service, transaction events for pending financial transactions;”)
(See Hecht: Para [0115] (“The transaction confirmation includes an indication that the transaction initiated by the customer via the third-party was successful.”)
generate, using the event architecture of the payment service, an event for the account management service that represents at least in part that the confirmation has been received; and
(See Hecht: Para [0102] (“The account verification service 130 sends the transaction complete message to the paying bank computer system”)
in response to receiving the event, have the account management service:
complete the transfer to the first account by request to the multi-tenant account;
(See Hecht: Para [0120] (“At this point, the depository bank computer system 110 credits the account of the depositor at 2814.”)
generate, with the account management service, an update of the completed transfer; and
(See Hecht: Para [0101] (“update the customer's account in real-time to reflect the payment”)
send, by a distribution subsystem, the update to the user device.
(See Hecht: Para [0091] (“The biller and/or the intermediary can update the information in real-time, allowing the customer to access real-time information concerning their account”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above noted disclosure of Hecht as it relates to real-time interbank transfer to include Hendry as it relates to listening to financial transction events. The motivation for combining the references would have been to enrich transaction data for fraud detection purposes.
The combination of Hecht and Hendry does not specifically disclose:
monitor the events generated by the payment service using a machine learning model of the account management service, the machine learning model having been trained to (i) detect transfer errors from the monitored events, and (ii) generate diagnostic actions based on the detected transfer errors;
(See Kavali: Para [0103] (“As shown in block 316, the process flow 300 may include determining, based on the state of the plurality of data processing requests corresponding to an error state and using an event state decision machine learning model, one or more remedial actions to resolve the error state. For example, a batch process monitoring system may determine, based on the state of the plurality of data processing requests corresponding to an error state and using an event state decision machine learning model, one or more remedial actions to resolve the error state.”)
in response to the machine learning model detecting an error with the transfer, generate one or more diagnostic actions with the machine learning model, wherein the one or more diagnostic actions include one or more user-initiated diagnostic actions and one or more automated diagnostic actions;
(See Kavali: Para
[0103] (“As shown in block 316, the process flow 300 may include determining, based on the state of the plurality of data processing requests corresponding to an error state and using an event state decision machine learning model, one or more remedial actions to resolve the error state. For example, a batch process monitoring system may determine, based on the state of the plurality of data processing requests corresponding to an error state and using an event state decision machine learning model, one or more remedial actions to resolve the error state.”)
[0115] (“In a tenth embodiment alone or in combination with any of the first through ninth embodiments, the one or more remedial actions to resolve the error state may include continuing performing the actions to complete the plurality of data processing requests, restarting performance of the actions to complete the plurality of data processing requests, pausing, for a time period, performance of the actions to complete the plurality of data processing requests and resuming, after the time period, the performance of the actions to complete the plurality of data processing requests, skipping performance of one or more of the actions to complete the plurality of data processing requests, fixing performance of the actions to complete the plurality of data processing requests, escalating, to a support user, the plurality of data processing requests, stopping performance of the actions to complete the plurality of data processing requests, and/or the like.”)
automatically implement the one or more automated diagnostic actions;
(See Kavali: Para [0016] (“In some embodiments, the one or more remedial actions to resolve the error state may include at least one of …”)
However, Kavali teaches the above limitations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above noted combination of Hecht and Hendry to include Kavali as it relates to monitoring and controlling batch processing. The motivation for combining the references would have been to use historical data associated with data processing requests to predict estimated ETA.
Claims 11, 20 are similar to claim 1 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 2:
determine that the account management service is associated with a type of the first account prior to routing the first request.
(See Hecht: Para [0066])
Claim 12 is similar to claim 2 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 3:
wherein the first request comprises a registration request to open the first account.
(See Hecht: Para [0073])
Claim 13 is similar to claim 3 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 4:
wherein the transfer occurs in real time.
(See Hecht: Para [0067])
Claim 14 is similar to claim 4 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 5:
in response to detecting the error with the transfer, determine a status of the events; generate a notification that includes the determined status; and
automatically provide the notification to the user device that rectifies transfer errors.
(See Kavali: Para [0103])
Claim 15 is similar to claim 5 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 6:
compare, with the account management service, the events to determine discrepancies.
(See Kavali: Para [0080])
Claim 16 is similar to claim 6 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 8:
wherein the machine learning model determines a recipient of the transmission, the recipient being an entity with privileges to remediate the error or a user associated with the first request.
(See Kavali: Para [0009])
Claim 18 is similar to claim 8 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 9:
wherein the one or more user-initiated diagnostic actions generated by the machine learning model are or used to populate a set of tasks.
(See Kavali: Para [0103])
Claim 19 is similar to claim 9 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 10:
wherein the one or more diagnostic actions generated by the machine learning model comprise generating an error event consumed by the account management service, the error event being visible to a device associated with a customer service representative and a device associated with a representative having privileges to implement other of the one or more diagnostic actions.
(See Kavali: Para [0082])
Claim 21:
use the events and the machine learning model to generate one or more remediation actions; and
(See Kavali: Para [0016])
provide the remediation actions to one or more individuals with authentication to perform the actions.
(See Kavali: Para [0040])
Claim 22 is similar to claim 21 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant attempts to distinguish between “automated diagnostic actions” and “user-initiated diagnostic actions” citing para [0092], [0095], [00115] - [00118].
Examiner finds this unpersuasive because whether a diagnostic action is carried out by a user or automated does not change the analysis that performing diagnostic actions constitutes Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“But merely ‘configur[ing]’ generic computers in order to ‘supplant and enhance’ an otherwise abstract manual process is precisely the sort of invention that the Alice Court deemed ineligible for patenting.”) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”);
Applicant argues, citing para [0018] - [0020] that reduction of delays associated with fund transfers is one of the key technical challenges identified in the present application.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive because, as addressed in previous rejection, relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. Moreover, any alleged reduction of delay in fund transfer a) merely reflects an effect or result, b) represents speculative relative reduction over a hypothetical situation that may never materialize, and c) does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely applies the abstract idea to aim for an aspirational result. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (1) (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”), (3) (“describes “the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished” and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result”).
Computing system and machine learning are merely used as tools in order to monitor fund transfer, detect any errors associated with fund transfer, generate diagnostic actions, and implement automated or user-initiated diagnostic actions to route funds to account via intermediary. Merely using machine learning model to carry out certain methods of organizing human activity is insufficient to confer eligibility. See Recentive Analytics v Fox (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“Today, we hold only that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.”). Just as the claims in Recentive Analytics were directed to using a machine learning model to schedule events, similarly in the present invention, neural networks are used to determine a transaction data transfer routine path.
Unlike Ex parte Desjardins, the present invention is not directed to any particular method of training machine learning models or achieve any improvement akin to preserve performance on earlier task while learning new ones. The pending claims do not describe an improvement in how the ML itself operates. Rather the claims, at most, improve fund transfer from one account to another by using ML as a tool to monitor, detect, and rectify any errors associated with the fund transfer. This is not an improvement in machine learning but instead an improvement to the Fundamental Economic Practice or Commercial/Legal Interaction of fund transfer.
For the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Previously Addressed
Applicant argues that the Examiner is suggesting that the claimed operations merely uses generic computers as tools that ignores the interoperability of the claimed computer elements that would require receipt of a request and processing that request using a unique combination of computing elements to not only effect a transfer but to notify a user device of same, in a way that is effectively real-time rather than waiting for slow batch processes as would be currently done. Applicant cites several paragraphs [0072] – [0075], [0092], [0093] from the specification to argue that the claimed invention is a practical application of the abstract idea in leveraging an event architecture listening for and detecting errors.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive.
Applicant cannot reasonably deny that transferring funds from a first account to a second account via an intermediary constitutes Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles or Commercial/Legal Interactions and is therefore directed to an abstract idea and that the additional elements listed in Prong 2, do no more than merely implement the aforementioned abstract idea on generic components.
The combination of additional elements do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field; (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation. See MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e)-(h). Hence, the additional elements, individually or in combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (“Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more.”).
MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field
II. IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD
Consideration of improvements is relevant to the integration analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining that the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
Here, the focus of the claims is not on any improvement in computer capabilities but on the abstract idea of risk management. The problem being solved here is commercial and not technological. Transferring funds from a one account to a second account via an intermediary may mitigate risk but has nothing to do with improving computers or technology.
With respect to the applicant’s reliance on para [0072] – [0075] of the specification, Examiner notes that the alleged advantages of instantaneous reconciliation, ability to see funds processing in real-time, performing diagnostic operations to determine technical errors – are the natural consequences of using computers over manual work. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”). To the extent that the Applicant asserts that the some of the claimed operations cannot efficiently be done manually, Examiner notes that the courts have consistently held that any increase in processing speed in the claimed method (as compared to without using computers) comes from the capabilities of the generic computer components, and not the recited process itself. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the speed increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method itself”). “[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 225). See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer [is] insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality.”).
Furthermore, as acknowledged by para [0017] of the specification, batch processing which causes time gap between initiation and settlement is often imposed in fund transfer by regulatory or risk considerations. There is no doubt that real-time processing would settlement funds faster than batch processing but this has nothing to do with inherent superiority of real-time processing but has to do with risk management. Applicant’s assertion – that the claimed invention enables effectively real-time transfer or error handling rather than waiting for slow batch processing – is not persuasive because the decision relating to batch vs real-time is dictated by regulatory and/or risk management considerations and not based on technological grounds.
With respect to the applicant’s invocation of para [0092] - [0095], Examiner notes that machine learning model has used in the invention as a tool to train to detect errors and remediation actions. This is not much different from training human analysts with remedial actions in connection with errors in fund transfer processing. This is merely automating Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity using machine learning as opposed to improving machine learning or computing technology.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other. The claimed method may improve the process of fund transfer from one account to another by using a processor and event listener architecture to effectuate such transfer. But this is not an improvement to the computer itself but instead to the financial state of parties. Any improvement described in the claims lies in the abstract idea itself and not in computer or other technology. “Indeed, nothing in the claims improves the functioning of a computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem.” See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2019).
For the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692