DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on 03/05/2026.
Claim 13 has been added.
Claims 1-13 have been examined and are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the Double Patenting rejection, the rejection is maintained because claim 1 of the Patent No. ‘076 anticipates claim 1 of the current application. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The use of a specialized mortgage constant calculator is directed to an abstract idea. Calculating a mortgage constant is directed to commercial interactions, which belongs to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Furthermore, the Applicant discussed in length and asserted in page 10 that “by providing each mode with its own tailored graphical user interface, the likelihood of receiving incorrect inputs maybe limited, even eliminated . . .” & “neither do the claims merely say ‘apply it’ to a computer. Instead the claims recite a particular selection of inputs and user interface to bring about a technical solution to a technical problem.” However, the use of an existing technology or software based product, recited on certain computing hardware, does not automatically render an abstract idea a practical application. The limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application: 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). Under Step 2B Prong Two, The limitations are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”): 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). Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-12 of Patent No. 11854076 (reference application). The claims are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to specialized calculator with graphical element and user interfaces.
Current Application – 18/507526
Patent No. 11854076
1 (previously presented). A specialized mortgage constant calculator comprising: an electronic display; at least one processor coupled to the electronic display; and at least one input coupled to the processor to provide one or more user inputs; the at least one processor being programmed to provide at least three different modes, each mode associated with a separate graphical user interface tailored to the mode and displayed on the electronic display, including: a first mode for calculation of a mortgage constant, the graphical user interface comprising an interest rate input and an amortization period input, and a mortgage constant output; a second mode for calculation of an interest rate, the graphical user interface comprising an amortization period input and a mortgage constant input, and an interest rate output; and a third mode for calculation of a period, the graphical user interface comprising an interest rate input and a mortgage constant input, and an amortization period output, and wherein the at least one processor is programmed to provide a further graphical user interface to permit the user to select among at least the first, second, and third modes, to receive an input from the user associated with the selection of one of the first, second, and third modes, to display only the graphical user interface tailored to the mode associated with the input, and to change to only the graphical user interface of another of the first, second, and third modes if another input from the user associated with the selection of another of the first, second, and third modes is received, and to store state information to ensure the user will return to the mode selected upon subsequent activation.(original). The specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 1, wherein each of the modes comprises a first calculation mode on a 30/360 basis and a second calculation mode on an actual days/360 basis, and each of the graphical user interfaces comprises a calculation mode input to select between the first and second calculation modes.(original). The specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 1, the at least one processor being programmed to provide a further mode for calculation of a payment, the graphical user interface comprising a loan amount input, an amortization period input, and an interest rate input and a payment output; the graphical user interface of the further mode includes a graphical element in tabular form that displays one or more of a payment amount, a portion of the payment attributable to interest, a portion of the payment attributable to principal repayment, a total interest paid to a specific point in time, a total principal paid to a specific point in time, and a total payment made to a specific point in time.
4 (original). The specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 3, wherein the graphical element of the graphical user interface of the further mode is divided into a plurality of time increments, each time increment associated with a header row, and one of the header rows having a highlighting relative to the other header rows.
5 (original). The specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 4, wherein the highlighting varies with movement of the header rows.
6 (original). The specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is programmed: to provide a chart mode, the chart mode including a graphical element comprising a plurality of cells arranged in a plurality of rows and columns, each of the cells containing a numeric or alphanumeric character; and to provide a graphical user interface comprising a first control to select a range of the rows and a range of the columns of the graphical element to define a subset with a subset area smaller than a total area of the graphical element; and to display a portion of the graphical element or the subset on the electronic display during the chart mode.
7 (original). The specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 6, wherein each row is associated with a different amortization period and each column is associated with a different interest rate.
8 (original). The specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 6, wherein the electronic display comprises a display area, the display area being smaller than the total area of the graphical element.
9 (original). The specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 8, further comprising: a moveable window in which an area of the graphical element is visible, the window being moveable relative to the rows and columns of the graphical element to display a different range of rows, a different range of columns or a different range of rows and a different range of columns on the electronic display in response to a first user input, and the processor programmed to display the subset on the electronic display during the chart mode and to discontinue the moveable window if the subset area is smaller than the moveable window.
10 (original). The specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 1, wherein the electronic display, at least one of the at least one processor and the at least one input are disposed in on mounted on a hand-held device.
11 (original). The specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 10, wherein the hand-held device is a mobile or cellular device.
12 (original). The specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 10, wherein at least one of the at least one processor is disposed external to the hand- held device.
13 (new). The specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 1, wherein: in the first mode, the graphical user interface consists of the interest rate input and the amortization period input, and the mortgage constant output; in the second mode, the graphical user interface consists of the amortization period input and the mortgage constant input, and the interest rate output; and in the third mode, the graphical user interface consists of the interest rate input and the mortgage constant input, and the amortization period output.
Claim 1: (currently amended). A portable specialized mortgage constant calculator comprising: an electronic display; at least one processor coupled to the electronic display; and at least one input coupled to the processor to provide one or more user inputs; the at least one processor being programmed to provide at least three different modes, each mode associated with a separate graphical user interface tailored to the mode and displayed on the electronic display, including: a first mode for calculation of a mortgage constant, the graphical user interface consisting essentially of comprising an interest rate input and an amortization period input, and a mortgage constant output; a second mode for calculation of an interest rate, the graphical user interface consisting essentially of comprising an amortization period input and a mortgage constant input, and an interest rate output; and a third mode for calculation of a period, the graphical user interface consisting essentially of comprising an interest rate input and a mortgage constant input, and an amortization period output, and wherein the at least one processor is programmed to provide a further graphical user interface to permit the user to select among at least the first, second, and third modes, to receive an input from the user associated with the selection of one of the first, second, and third modes, to display only the graphical user interface tailored to the mode associated with the input, and to change to only the graphical user interface of another of the first, second, and third modes if another input from the user associated with the selection of another of the first, second, and third modes is received, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to control the electronic display to display an adjustable table with an adjustable, persistent frame of reference, the adjustable table and adjustable frame of reference comprising: a graphical element comprising a plurality of cells arranged in a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns, each of the cells containing a numeric or alphanumeric character; a moveable window in which an area of the graphical element is visible, the window being moveable relative to the rows and columns of the graphical element to display a different range of rows, a different range of columns or a different range of rows and a different range of columns on the electronic display in response to a first user input; a first graphical user interface comprising a first control to select only a cell of interest from the plurality of cells, a row highlight responsive to the first control to maintain selection of a first row from the plurality of rows, the row comprising the cell, and a column highlight responsive to the first control to maintain selection of a first column from the plurality of columns, the column comprising the cell, the row highlight and column highlight being visible and moveable in two dimensions in the moveable window when any cell in the first row or the first column is visible within the moveable window and the row highlight and column highlight not being visible in the moveable window when cells in the first row or the first column are not visible within the moveable window; and a second graphical user interface comprising a second control to select a range of the rows and a range of the columns of the graphical element to define a subset with a subset area smaller than a total area of the graphical element, the processor programmed to display only the subset on the electronic display and to discontinue the moveable window if the subset area is smaller than the moveable window.
2 (original). The portable specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 1, wherein each of the modes comprises a first calculation mode on a 30/360 basis and a second calculation mode on an actual days/360 basis, and each of the graphical user interfaces comprises a calculation mode input to select between the first and second calculation modes.
3 (previously presented). The portable specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 1, the at least one processor being programmed to provide a further mode for calculation of a payment, the graphical user interface comprising a loan amount input, an amortization period input, and an interest rate input and a payment output; wherein the graphical user interface of the further mode includes a graphical element in tabular form that displays one or more of a payment amount, a portion of the payment attributable to interest, a portion of the payment attributable to principal repayment, a total interest paid to a specific point in time, a total principal paid to a specific point in time, and a total payment made to a specific point in time.(previously presented). The portable specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 3, wherein the graphical element of the graphical user interface of the further mode is divided into a plurality of time increments, each time increment associated with a header row, and one of the header rows having a highlighting relative to the other header rows.(original). The portable specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 4, wherein the highlighting varies with movement of the header rows.6 (canceled).(currently amended). The portable specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim [[6]]1, wherein each row is associated with a different amortization period and each column is associated with a different interest rate.(currently amended). The portable specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim [[6]]1, wherein the electronic display comprises a display area, the display area being smaller than the total area of the graphical element.Amendment Dated July 31, 2023 Reply to Office Action of July 6, 2023
Claim 9 (canceled).
10 (currently amended). The portable specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 1, wherein the electronic display, at least one of the at least one processor and the at least one input are disposed in [[on]]or mounted on a hand-held device.
11 (original). The portable specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 10, wherein the hand-held device is a mobile or cellular device.
12 (original). The portable specialized mortgage constant calculator according to claim 10, wherein at least one of the at least one processor is disposed external to the hand-held device.
The independent claim in the Patent No. 11854076 is narrower in scope than the current application, and hence, the issued patent anticipates the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are directed to a product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1-13 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. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 for instance , recite in part, A specialized mortgage constant calculator comprising: an electronic display; at least one processor coupled to the electronic display; and at least one input coupled to the processor to provide one or more user inputs; the at least one processor being programmed to provide at least three different modes, each mode associated with a separate graphical user interface tailored to the mode and displayed on the electronic display, including: a first mode for calculation of a mortgage constant, the graphical user interface comprising an interest rate input and an amortization period input, and a mortgage constant output; a second mode for calculation of an interest rate, the graphical user interface comprising an amortization period input and a mortgage constant input, and an interest rate output; and a third mode for calculation of a period, the graphical user interface comprising an interest rate input and a mortgage constant input, and an amortization period output, and wherein the at least one processor is programmed to provide a further graphical user interface to permit the user to select among at least the first, second, and third modes, to receive an input from the user associated with the selection of one of the first, second, and third modes, to display only the graphical user interface tailored to the mode associated with the input, and to change to only the graphical user interface of another of the first, second, and third modes if another input from the user associated with the selection of another of the first, second, and third modes is received, and to store state information to ensure the user will return to the mode selected upon subsequent activation. The limitations are directed to a mortgage calculator– business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a specialized mortgage constant calculator, an electronic display, one processor, a graphical user interface, at least one processor and other generic computer components to perform receiving, authenticating, translating, and transmitting. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (providing, calculating) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least a computing device to perform receiving, adding and communicating data are merely additional elements performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. See MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) see MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they are merely adding the words “apply it” to a judicial exception on a generic computing device. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device associated with the receiving a transaction update associated with a transaction request, authenticating the transaction update, translating the transaction update into a format, receiving transaction data associated with the transaction update, transmitting the transaction update to a transaction requestor is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a calculation mode. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mortgage constant calculator) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) comprising loan amount inputs and displaying portion of attribute interest. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mortgage constant calculator) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) dividing into a plurality of time increments. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mortgage constant calculator) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) highlighting headline row. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mortgage constant calculator) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) providing chart mode for calculation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mortgage constant calculator) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) different amortization period. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mortgage constant calculator) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) displaying area smaller than the total area. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mortgage constant calculator) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) displaying the subset on the electronic display. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mortgage constant calculator) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) disposing input. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mortgage constant calculator) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a cellular device . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mortgage constant calculator, a cellular device) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) disposing a handheld device. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mortgage constant calculator) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) constant inputs. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a mortgage constant calculator) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are 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).
Therefore, Claims 1-13 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike W. Anderson, can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights