Status of Claims
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, Applicant's filed response has been entered.
This is a Non-Final office action in response to communication received on March 30, 2026. Claims 16, 20-29, and 32-35 are pending and examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 16, 20-29, and 32-35 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. Next using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidances (hereinafter 2019 PEG) the rejection as follows has been applied.
Under step 1, analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, claims 16, 20-28 are a method; claims 29 and 32-34 are an apparatus; and claims 35 is a non-transitory CRM. Thus, each claim 16, 20-29, and 32-35, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Under Step 2A Prong One, per MPEP 2106.04, prong one asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
Next, per 2019 PEG, to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (I) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (II) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
(I) An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 16, 20-29, and 32-35 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements, which are first considered under step 2A prong two when claim(s) is/are reconsidered as a whole and exclusively under step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of selecting an algorithm based on search request attribute, and whether amount of historical geographical data and available resources meet threshold requirements to provide search results based on appropriately selected data set that meet required criteria which is certain methods of organizing human activity (but for its implementation in network based environment - which is considered further under prong two and step 2B analysis as set forth below).
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), see at least as-filed spec. paras. [0042]-[0048] and [0063]. Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C and for instance note claims 26-28.
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, per MPEP 2106.04, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’).
Next, per 2019 PEG, Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (I) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (II) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Accordingly, the examiner will evaluate whether the claims recite one or more additional element(s) that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception by considering them both individually and as a whole.
The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 16, 20-29, and 32-35 at least are server, client device (claim 16), machine-learning (claims 24, 33), display and GUI (claim 26), computing apparatus comprising: one or more processors; at least one memory device coupled with the one or more processors; and a data communications interface operably associated with the one or more processors, wherein the at least one memory device contains a plurality of program instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing apparatus, client device (claim 29), and non-transitory computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the computer program comprising a plurality of program instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations, client device (claim 35). Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figs. 1, 6, and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device merely sending/receiving data over a network, note 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) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Gathered data is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the processor analyzes the request data to select an algorithm and provide results based on the selected algorithm (Electric Power Group) - certain result here is a tailored content based on information in the user request (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 patent). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to provide search results to users, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, 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 as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of selecting an algorithm based on search request attribute, and whether amount of historical geographical data and available resources meet threshold requirements to provide search results based on appropriately selected data set that meet required criteria which is certain methods of organizing human activity (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 16, 20-29, and 32-35, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of selecting an algorithm based on search request attribute, and whether amount of historical geographical data and available resources meet threshold requirements to provide search results based on appropriately selected data set that meet required criteria which is certain methods of organizing human activity - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) 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) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) [similarly here user's request is transmitted over a network];
(ii) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 [similarly here historical data associated with location is retrieved]; and
(iii) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)." [similarly here results are displayed on a GUI].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Reason(s) for Withdrawal of Prior Art
3. Previously claims 16, 20-29, and 32-35 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Parker (Pub. No.: US2021/0019639).
Previously claims 19-22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Parker, in view of Yu et al. (WO2019/153889) referred to hereinafter as Yu.
Previously claims 27-28 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Parker, in view of Martino (Pub. No.: US 2017/0330074).
Also the Examiner had noted - Pub. No.: US2022/0253722 see Abstract note “recommendation system (RS) for processing an input dataset that identifies a set of users, a set of items, and user-item interaction data about historic interactions between users in the set of users and items in the set of items. The RS is configured to: generate, based on a user-item interaction dataset, a user-user similarity dataset and an item-item similarity dataset, filter the user-user similarity dataset based on a user similarity threshold vector that includes a respective user similarity threshold value for each user, filter the item-item similarity dataset based on an item similarity threshold vector including a respective item similarity threshold value for each item generate a set of user neighbour embeddings based on the filtered user-user similarity dataset, and generating a set of item neighbour embeddings based on the filtered item-item similarity dataset. The RS is also configured to generate a set of relevance scores based on the user neighbour embeddings and the item neighbour embeddings and generating a list of one or more recommended items for each user”
- Pub. No.: US2023/0066933 see [0024] “The processing system may use a query (e.g., a database query) to identify the nearest target location that is within the threshold distance of the entity location. For example, the query may include a search parameter that indicates a particular location type, which may limit the search results to only target locations of the particular location type. In some implementations, the processing system may use user profile data to determine a location type to be searched for a particular user. For example, the user profile data may indicate that coffee shops are relevant to the user, and/or may indicate that banks are not relevant to the user, and the processing system may narrow the search accordingly to only search for relevant location types. Additionally, or alternatively, the processing system may use historical exchange data to determine location types that are relevant to the user. For example, if a user has used one or more credentials to perform a threshold quantity of transactions at a particular location type within a time period, then the processing system may determine that the particular location type is relevant to the user. In some implementations, this determination may be performed periodically and relevant location types may be stored in the user profile data. Thus, the processing system may identify a target location or a type of target location based on the credential (or a user profile associated with the credential), and different credentials (or different user profiles) may be associated with different types of target locations. Additionally, or alternatively, the query may indicate the entity location (e.g., address, zip code, or the like), which may be used to return a target location that is located nearest to the entity location.”
Although, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments against the references as relied upon previously as the scope of the claims has changed based on the claim amendments filed 10/07/2025, the Examiner has withdrawn prior art based rejection as the claims now define that there is an imbalance in historical geographical location and amount of historical data associated with geographical location is compared with a threshold and based on the result of such comparison, i.e. whether amount of historical geographical location data exceeds a threshold, a first or a second algorithm is selected, which is not contemplated by the closest prior art references noted above and updating the search did not yield result(s) sufficient to establish a prima facie case oof obviousness, as such, the Examiner hereby withdraws prior art based rejection.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
4. Regarding 101, the Applicant is correct in stating that the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation based upon which the Examiner determined under prong one that claims recite selection of an algorithm to fulfill a request by evaluating amount of historical geographical data and computational resource available to service said request, which is evaluation of data, for the purposes of providing recommendations or results based on geographical attribute which the Examiner noted as certain methods of organizing human activity, not mental processes, i.e. “abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 16, 20-29, and 32-35 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements, which are first considered under step 2A prong two when claim(s) is/are reconsidered as a whole and exclusively under step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of selecting an algorithm based on search request attribute, and whether amount of historical geographical data and available resources meet threshold requirements to provide search results based on appropriately selected data set that meet required criteria which is certain methods of organizing human activity (but for its implementation in network based environment - which is considered further under prong two and step 2B analysis as set forth below).
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), see at least as-filed spec. paras. [0042]-[0048] and [0063]. Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C and for instance note claims 26-28.
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application”
Furthermore, under prong one the Examiner has invoked certain methods of organizing human activity NOT mental processes, and under prong one analysis is based on evaluation of abstract recitation NOT additional elements such as “an on-server.”
Next, the Applicant argues “Prong Two of revised step 2A: Integration into a Practical Application” and also notes that “facilitate a specific improvement for implementing an
on-server, per-request control policy that integrates data-sufficiency thresholds per geographic
partition with real-time resource-aware selection between distinct algorithm classes. For
example, an algorithm selection process may be used to improve system latency/compute
efficiency under imbalanced datasets” however the Examiner notes concept of selecting algorithm based on evaluation of arbitrarily set thresholds via a server executing such evaluation as “apply it” instructions fails to integrate the abstract idea into practical application because as explained “claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 16, 20-29, and 32-35 at least are server, client device (claim 16), machine-learning (claims 24, 33), display and GUI (claim 26), computing apparatus comprising: one or more processors; at least one memory device coupled with the one or more processors; and a data communications interface operably associated with the one or more processors, wherein the at least one memory device contains a plurality of program instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing apparatus, client device (claim 29), and non-transitory computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the computer program comprising a plurality of program instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations, client device (claim 35). Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figs. 1, 6, and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device merely sending/receiving data over a network, note 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) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Gathered data is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the processor analyzes the request data to select an algorithm and provide results based on the selected algorithm (Electric Power Group) - certain result here is a tailored content based on information in the user request (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 patent). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to provide search results to users, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, 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 as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of selecting an algorithm based on search request attribute, and whether amount of historical geographical data and available resources meet threshold requirements to provide search results based on appropriately selected data set that meet required criteria which is certain methods of organizing human activity (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).”
Further, well-understood, routine, or conventional analysis is limited to additional element(s) and carried-out under step 2B, not under prong two.
“Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.”
Next, the Examiner notes that under step 2B the analysis is limited to considering additional element(s) singularly and in-combination, not abstract recitation, but the Applicant has argued in view of “(i) per-location data sufficiency thresholds, (ii) explicit handling of imbalanced data, (iii) resource-aware selection between distinct algorithm classes, and (iv) multi-tier fallback logic (local, group, global) for algorithm selection is not conventional or routine” however execution of logic that evaluates whether amount of geographical data and computational resource availability by comparing it with arbitrarily set thresholds is indeed execution of instructions or logic by a server to service a search request. Therefore the examiner maintains merely executing an abstract idea using a server or a computing apparatus fails to set forth any additional or combination of additional elements, unlike BASCOM, that can be considered significantly more because as explained note “as it applies to claims 16, 20-29, and 32-35, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of selecting an algorithm based on search request attribute, and whether amount of historical geographical data and available resources meet threshold requirements to provide search results based on appropriately selected data set that meet required criteria which is certain methods of organizing human activity - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) 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) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) [similarly here user's request is transmitted over a network];
(ii) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 [similarly here historical data associated with location is retrieved]; and
(iii) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)." [similarly here results are displayed on a GUI].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.”
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and all the references on PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited should be duly noted by the Applicant as they can be subsequently used during prosecution, at least note the following:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIPEN M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 08:30-17:00 EST.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571)270-3948. 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.
/DIPEN M PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights