Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 11/11/2025. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination. Claims 1-20 have been canceled, and new claims 21-40 have been added. Claims 21-40 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 26-29 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 26-28 depend on a canceled claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 21 recites exposing a user to an instructional media, upon confirming the user’s completed exposure with the instructional media, granting access to the observatory and telescope.
The limitation of exposing a user to an instructional media, upon confirming the user’s completed exposure with the instructional media, granting access to the observatory and telescope, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with no recitation of any meaningful computer component. For example, a user can be given or told to watch instructional material and another person can confirm their exposure and then grant the user access to the observatory and telescope.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite any additional elements. The “observatory and telescope software application” does not constitute significant more and just a generic computer software used to execute the method. Accordingly, with no additional elements the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-30 respectively do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the respective components being applied to the abstract idea only amounts to conventional or no components carrying out the abstract idea.
Claims 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites exposing a user to an instructional media, upon confirming the user's completed exposure to the instructional media, granting access to the telescope.
The limitation of exposing a user to an instructional media, upon confirming the user's completed exposure to the instructional media, granting access to the telescope, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with no recitation of any meaningful computer component. For example, a user can be given or told to watch instructional material and another person can confirm their exposure and then grant the user access to the observatory and telescope.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite any additional elements. The “observatory and telescope software application” does not constitute significant more and just a generic computer software used to execute the method. Accordingly, with no additional elements the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 32-40 respectively do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the respective components being applied to the abstract idea only amounts to conventional or no components carrying out the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims, based solely on the amendments to the claims, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references including new prior art being used in the current new grounds of rejection for the newly added limitations to the claims.
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 CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685