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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/24/2025 has been entered.
Claims 18, 24, 27, 33 have been amended.
Claims 1-17 have been canceled.
Claims 18-35 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 10/24/2025 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to “non-statutory double patenting” rejection of claims 18-35, Applicant has acknowledged the Double Patenting rejection and requested that this rejection be held in obeyance until the claims are otherwise in condition for allowance. However, the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection will be maintained in the Office Action until such time as the conflicting claims are amended or terminal disclaimer is filed or abandoned of the application.
With regard to claims 18-35 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Step 2A - Prong 1:
Applicant argues that “As amended, the claims are directed to a communications routing system and method in a telecommunications environment, in which a routing engine dynamically controls how requests are resolved between endpoint devices. The system determines whether the cost metric is below the threshold, and if so, applies a restriction and resolves the request by rejecting the request or processing it. These are technical control functions that affect the routing and connectivity of VoIP communications at the network level, not methods of organizing human activity such as business relations or advertising, marketing or sales activities or behavior (page 2/7)”.
Examiner disagrees. Determines whether the cost metric is below the threshold, and if so, applies a restriction and resolves the request by rejecting the request or processing it is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis. Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract. As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
Furthermore, the recitation of the additional elements of using “routing engine and devices within telecommunication environments” does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use.
As thus, the use of “routing engine and devices” fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (dynamically controls how requests are resolved between endpoint devices ( and/ or determines whether the cost metric is below the threshold, and if so, applies a restriction and resolves the request by rejecting the request or processing it) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 18-35 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “the independent claims are not directed to a mathematical concept. The present claims do not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols. Applicant directs the Examiner's attention to the USPTO's subject matter eligibility examples 38 ad 39, where the claims were determined to be eligible. These examples state: "While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims." The same can be said for the present claims. MPEP 2106.4(a)(2) also provides: A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept... For example, a limitation that is merely based on or involves a mathematical concept described in the specification may not be sufficient to fall into this grouping, provided the mathematical concept itself is not recited in the claim. As noted in the USPTO ‘s reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 USC 101dated August 4, 2025, claims that recite an exception(which require further eligibility analysis) should be distinguished from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis). Applicant submits that the claims of the present application, at most, merely involve an exception, and are therefore eligible (page 2/7)”.
Examiner disagrees. Independent claims here are unlike example 38 and 39. For instance, independent claim 1 recites the limitation of “ determine whether the cost metric is below a threshold”, which falls within mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas as it relates to (relations, equations and/or calculations). The Office Action did not indicate that the entire independent claim falls within mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas as it relates to (relations, equations and/or calculations). The Office Action stated only the limitation of “determine whether the cost metric is below a threshold”, which falls within mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas as it relates to (relations, equations and/or calculations), which aligns with MPEP 2106. 04 (a) (2) . as thus, the limitation of “ determine whether the cost metric is below a threshold”, falls within mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas as it relates to (relations, equations and/or calculations) of claims 18 and 27. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 18-35 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Step 2A - Prong 2:
Applicant argues that “The claims are directed to a communications routing system that automatically restricts user accounts, stores the indication of restriction status in user data databases, enforces restrictions at the network level, and periodically re-evaluates those restrictions, thereby improving the functioning of the communications routing system by resolving communications requests on a targeted, per-account basis, and dynamically updating account status. The restrictions directly affect the state of endpoint connectivity, as communications requests may be rejected or processed under restricted conditions. Put another way, the claims demonstrate integration into a practical telecommunications application by (i) storing restricted account status so that it can be carried forward across future requests; (ii) resolving each request by either rejecting the request or processing it under restricted conditions; and (iii) after a predetermined interval, obtaining an updated cost metric and account status and reapplying the restrictions where necessary, which creates a continuous control loop that dynamically adapts to changing cost metric and account status conditions. Thus, any alleged abstract idea is integrated into the control of communications events within the system. Step 2B: Claim Provides an Inventive Concept? As a whole, when viewed as an ordered combination, the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The inventive concept is reflected in the way these elements work together to provide a non-conventional improvement in communications routing. The communications routing system uses the cost metric as the basis for controlling the handling of communications requests. Depending on the account status, the system actively enforces restrictions by preventing connections from being established, or by allowing connections under restricted conditions. The claims also enable per-account control that goes beyond the capabilities of prior communications routing systems. By storing the restricted account status in user data databases and revisiting the status after predetermined intervals using updated cost metrics, the system dynamically adapts in real time, creating a control loop that improves the functioning of communications routing systems. In other words, the combination of steps (e.g., receiving a request for a VoIP communications event, obtaining a cost metric from the prediction engine, storing an indication of restricted account status when the cost metric is below a threshold, resolving the request by either rejecting or processing it under restricted conditions, and automatically re-evaluating updated metrics and status after a predetermined time interval) ensures that communications requests are resolved automatically and dynamically on a per-account basis, which is an improvement over previous communications routing systems. The additional elements in the claims therefore provide significantly more than an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to eligible subject matter and Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 be withdrawn (page 4/7)”.
Examiner disagrees. (i) storing restricted account status so that it can be carried forward across future requests; (ii) resolving each request by either rejecting the request or processing it under restricted conditions; and (iii) after a predetermined interval, obtaining an updated cost metric and account status and reapplying the restrictions where necessary, which creates a continuous control loop that dynamically adapts to changing cost metric and account status conditions is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis. Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract. As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
Furthermore, the recitation of the additional elements of using “routing engine and network, VOIP within telecommunication environment ” does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use.
As thus, the use of the additional elements of “routing engine and VOIP” fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (uses the cost metric as the basis for controlling the handling of communications requests and/ or receiving a request for a VoIP communications event, obtaining a cost metric from the prediction engine, storing an indication of restricted account status when the cost metric is below a threshold, resolving the request by either rejecting or processing it under restricted conditions, and automatically re-evaluating updated metrics and status after a predetermined time interval, ensures that communications requests are resolved automatically and dynamically on a per-account basis,) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
The use of “routing engine and VOIP” fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements argued by Applicant are “VOIP, network, routing engine”, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract). Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 18-35 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 18-35 rejection under 35 USC §112 first paragraph for failing to comply with the written description: Applicant has amended and/ or clarified the claims. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 18-35 under 35 USC §112 first paragraph for failing to comply with the written description is withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 § 2146 et seq. 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.
Claims 18-35 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of Patent Application No: 11,144,851. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because they merely recite obvious variants of claims 1-16 in U.S. Patent No. 11,144,851.
The only difference in scope are that the claims of the instant application do not recite: determine an upper revenue confidence bound representing a revenue threshold percentile of an inverse gamma revenue distribution; determine a lower cost confidence bound representing a cost threshold percentile of an inverse gamma cost distribution, a difference between the upper revenue confidence bound and the 2lower cost confidence bound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include in the instant application : determine an upper revenue confidence bound representing a revenue threshold percentile of an inverse gamma revenue distribution; determine a lower cost confidence bound representing a cost threshold percentile of an inverse gamma cost distribution, a difference between the upper revenue confidence bound and the 2lower cost confidence bound in order to provide advertisers with more accurate and secure advertising system to target consumers.
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 18-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, claim(s) 18-26 are directed to a system (i.e. an apparatus); claim (s) 27-35 are directed to a method (i.e. a process)).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The analysis is as follows: Claim 18, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea limitations of: “ storing a plurality of unique associations between user accounts of users and telephone numbers; receive a request for a communications event for a given user account; obtain a cost metric for the given user account, the cost metric comprising a predicted margin; determine, whether the cost metric is below a threshold; when the cost metric is below the threshold, store an indication of a restricted status of the given user account in a user data and, apply a restriction to the given user account; after applying the restriction, resolve the request for the communications event by rejecting the request for the communications event or processing the communications request; and after a predetermined time interval has elapsed, obtain an updated cost metric and an updated status for the given user account and apply the restriction when the updated cost metric is below the threshold”. These recited limitations fall within “Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations. The limitations of “determine, when the cost metric is below a threshold, a restricted account status for the given user account” fall within mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas as it relates to (relations, equations and/or calculations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because recites the following additional elements: (system, VOIP, engine (i.e. routing and predicting) and database) . The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) 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) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add 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)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of system, VOIP, engine (i.e. routing and predicting) and database), to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 29,31-37); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
storing a plurality of unique associations between user accounts of users and telephone numbers;
receive a request for a communications event for a given user account;
store an indication of a restricted status of the given user account in a user data database;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claim 27, which recites no additional elements.
Dependent claims 19-26 and 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims merely add further details that narrow that abstract idea of, without significantly more. Dependent claims 21-23, 30-32 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding the additional steps of “ blocking the user account and resolving the request for the communication event comprises rejecting the request for the communications event; wherein resolving the request for the communications event comprises first subset of communications services, when the communications services rejecting the request for the communications event ; presenting an increased length of advertisements to the user account and presenting an increase number of advertisements to the given user account;
Dependent claims 19-20,24-26,28-29,33-35 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas as it relates to (relations, equations and/or calculations), by adding the steps: determine the cost metric for the user in real time in response toa request for the cost metric; when the cost metric below a first threshold, applying a first restriction; and when the cost metric below a second threshold, applying a second restriction; accost metric comprises one of a predicted cost for the given user account; a predicted revenue associated with the user account and a predicted margin based on the predicted cost and the predicted revenue; predicted cost based on a predefined cost model and predicted revenue based on predefined revenue model. Regarding Claims 25-26 and 34-35 recitation of an additional elements of “model”. These elements amounts to “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) in Steps 2A- Prong 2 and Step 2B); which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No).
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims 18 and 27.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-35 recite subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the Applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection above and Double patenting rejection.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, none of the cited reference discloses the claimed features of independent claims. As such, the examiner, has been unable to find prior art that discloses the combination of the claimed features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Kline, US Pat No: 8055539 B1, teaches system and method for tracking internet related revenue.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights