DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 12/1/2025 submission filed in Application 18/603,014. Claims 1-18 are now presented.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/1/2025, with respect to the prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “Applicant submits that the claimed subject matter integrates a judicial exception in terms of improvement in functionality of the computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) i.e., removing or deleting generated pick-up list from a memory or database. Although not stated explicitly, this feature reduces the processing time and reduce memory/database storage space in removing previously generated pick-up list and retaining only new pick-up list. As stated in paragraph [0093] of Applicant's published application, "Before generating the pick-up list, the system 100 checks for associate availability and if the associate is not available, the system 100 still generates the pick-up list and the generated pick-up list remains unassigned and when the system 100 re-runs the next pick-up list the old pick-up list gets deleted from the memory102/database 108 and the new pick-up list considers those SKUs with updated quantity".”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that deleting generated pick-up list from a memory or database is an improvement to the technology. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation , a human can delete a pick list from memory. Further, even if this limitation is evaluated as an additional element beyond the abstract idea, it does not represent a technical improvement. Deleting obsolete information from a database is well known and conventional and does not improve the normal functioning of a computer.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “Further, the integration into a practical application requirement is achieved in terms of 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, as discussed in MPEP§ 2106.05(e) i.e., generating the one or more top-up requests for the one or more SKUs based on a pre-defined threshold using the split forecast of rate of sales and creating the pick-up list with sequential steps. As stated in paragraphs [0084] - [0089] of Applicant's published application, "The step of generating the one or more top-up requests for the one or more SKUs based on a pre- defined threshold using the split forecast of rate of sales and creating the pick-up list may be better understood by way of following steps performed by the system 100 of the present disclosure.”
The Examiner finds that generating the one or more top-up requests for the one or more SKUs based on a pre-defined threshold using the split forecast of rate of sales and creating the pick-up list with sequential steps is a method pf organizing human activity and can also be performed mentally. The recited limitations amount to the fundamental principles of analyzing data to forecast required replenishment of shelves and tagging workers with tasks which amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “Applicant believes that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application in terms of tagging skill specific users to the pick-up list to map tasks to be performed to the respective staff/labor/employee based on the actual picklist and top-up generated. As stated in paragraph 0074 of the Applicant’s published application, “Taking into consideration the staff availability and the actual picklist, shift indices are assigned to the staff, with the shift type generated in the shift roster acting as the reference point. It also incorporates the break time between two shifts and shifts during planned events. The system 100 takes the shift roster generated and actual appointments as input, one or more rules are applied, and simulation is performed as known in the art to get best shift index for service-based associates/employees/staff to generate the job allocation output. The rules are based on service-based associate, fixed based associates, primary and secondary skills, role based, and so on. The input to the system 100 would be shift- roster, pick-up list data, and output would be allocation/tagging of skill specific users/staff to the pick-up list based on available associates based on roster".”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tagging skill specific users to the pick-up list to map tasks to be performed to the respective staff/labor/employee based on the actual picklist and top-up generated amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Limitations that fall into one of the abstract idea buckets cannot also integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “that the instant claims are similar to the claim in Example 42 and the instant claim “recites a specific improvement of next run taking input from pick-up list by checking which record (low, medium, high) from the previous refill generation is generated in pick-up list and sets that point as a next check point for this run to evaluate Step 3, and delete generated pick-up list from the memory/database. As stated in paragraphs [0088] [0093] of Applicant's published application, "Step 4: When the method of the present disclosure is executed for the next run by the systems, the system 100 take input from pick- up list by checking which record (low, medium, high) from the previous refill generation has been generated in pick-up list and sets that point as the next check point for this run to evaluate Step 3 (above step)", "Before generating the pick-up list, the system 100 checks for associate availability and if the associate is not available, the system 100 still generates the pick-up list and the generated pick-up list remains unassigned and when the system 100 re-runs the next pick-up list the old pick-up list gets deleted from the memory 102/database 108 and the new pick-up list considers those SKUs with updated quantity".
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the 101 rejection below, the limitations argued by the applicant fall into the abst5ract idea groupings of methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Limitations that fall into one of the abstract idea buckets cannot also provide a technical improvement.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “Referring to XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, 968 F.3d 1323, 1330-32 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Federal Circuit determined that claims to a method of operating a flow cytometry apparatus to classify and sort particles into at least two populations in real time to more accurately classify similar particles was not directed to "the abstract idea of using a 'mathematical equation that permits rotating multidimensional data"' even though they may have involved mathematical concepts. Similar to the above referenced Federal Circuit decision, Applicant's claimed subject matter of matching gene lists from variant prioritization along with those from phenotype-driven analysis using an automated matching algorithm. The automated matching algorithm provides significantly better matching is not directed to "the abstract idea of using a mathematical equation" even though they may have involved mathematical concepts. In similar lines, the Applicant's claimed subject matter periodically trains a ML model with a new dataset pertaining to sales, replenishment and accordingly the performance of the ML models is validated. As stated periodically trained with new dataset pertaining to sales, replenishment, and the like and accordingly the performance of the ML models may be validated".”
The Examiner has not found that the instant claims are directed to mathematical concepts. As such, XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics is not applicable to the instant claims.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case, Claims 1-6 are directed toward a method for creating, via the one or more hardware processors, a pick-up list based on the one or more top-up requests and one or more configurable parameters. Claim 7-12 is directed toward a system to create a pick-up list based on the one or more top-up requests and one or more configurable parameters. Claims 13-18 are directed toward a computer program product for creating a pick-up list based on the one or more top-up requests and one or more configurable parameters. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – 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 MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of analyzing data to create a pick-up list based on the one or more top-up requests and one or more configurable parameters; tag one or more skill specific users to the pick-up list based on the one or more configurable parameters; and calculating an updated quantity of items on the one or more shelves of the store based on an execution of the pick-up list by the one or more tagged skill specific user which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
A method, comprising:
generating, a forecast of rate of sales for one or more items from the plurality of items for a pre-defined time interval;
identifying, one or more item bucket sizes at each of the one or more SKUs and the pre-defined time interval based on a historical sales data, wherein one or more items in each of the one or more item bucket sizes are identified as being sold during a specific time duration based on an item threshold for a given day;
creating, a sales profiler for each of the one or more items based on the one or more item bucket sizes being identified using the historical sales data; splitting the forecast of rate of sales for the one or more items for the pre-defined time interval into at least one of (i) the one or more item bucket sizes, and (ii) a pre-determined time period based on the sales profiler;
generating, one or more top-up requests for the one or more SKUs based on a pre-defined threshold using the forecast of rate of sales for the one or more items being split, wherein the one or more top-up requests comprise a set of items requiring replenishment on one or more shelves in the store;
creating, a pick-up list based on the one or more top-up requests and one or more configurable parameters comprises;
obtaining a beginning quantity at start of day;
generating a rate of sale for every item bucket size from the ML model;
(c) identifying one or more checkpoints that is an item bucket end time by when on hand capacity breaches a predefined percentage of a maximum shelf capacity corresponds to low, medium, high of the maximum shelf capacity and generate a refill quantity at beginning of day for the SKU;
(d) continuing execution for a next run by obtaining an input from the pick- up list by ascertaining one of low, medium, high, from the generated refill quantity is in the pick-up list and set that point as a next checkpoint; and
(e) repeating steps (c) and (d) until end of day is reached or store inventory is out of stock for the SKU;
tagging, one or more skill specific users to the pick-up list based on the one or more configurable parameters and consider availability of skill specific users, shift indices assigned to the skill specific user, a shift type generated in a shift roster, a break time between shifts;
calculating, an updated quantity of items on the one or more shelves of the store based on an execution of the pick-up list by the one or more tagged skill specific users; and
determining availability of the skill specific user prior to generating the pick-up list, when the skill specific user is not available, the generated pick-up list is unassigned, and while re-running a next pick-up list, the generated pick-up list is deleted from a memory or a database, and the next pick-up list considers SKUs with the updated quantity of items.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating 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, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
In the instant case, the limitations of
generating, a forecast of rate of sales for one or more items from the plurality of items for a pre-defined time interval;
identifying, one or more item bucket sizes at each of the one or more SKUs and the pre-defined time interval based on a historical sales data, wherein one or more items in each of the one or more item bucket sizes are identified as being sold during a specific time duration based on an item threshold for a given day;
creating, a sales profiler for each of the one or more items based on the one or more item bucket sizes being identified using the historical sales data; splitting the forecast of rate of sales for the one or more items for the pre-defined time interval into at least one of (i) the one or more item bucket sizes, and (ii) a pre-determined time period based on the sales profiler;
generating, one or more top-up requests for the one or more SKUs based on a pre-defined threshold using the forecast of rate of sales for the one or more items being split, wherein the one or more top-up requests comprise a set of items requiring replenishment on one or more shelves in the store;
creating, a pick-up list based on the one or more top-up requests and one or more configurable parameters;
tagging, one or more skill specific users to the pick-up list based on the one or more configurable parameters comprises;
obtaining a beginning quantity at start of day;
generating a rate of sale for every item bucket size from the ML model;
(c) identifying one or more checkpoints that is an item bucket end time by when on hand capacity breaches a predefined percentage of a maximum shelf capacity corresponds to low, medium, high of the maximum shelf capacity and generate a refill quantity at beginning of day for the SKU;
(d) continuing execution for a next run by obtaining an input from the pick- up list by ascertaining one of low, medium, high, from the generated refill quantity is in the pick-up list and set that point as a next checkpoint; and
(e) repeating steps (c) and (d) until end of day is reached or store inventory is out of stock for the SKU;
tagging, one or more skill specific users to the pick-up list based on the one or more configurable parameters and consider availability of skill specific users, shift indices assigned to the skill specific user, a shift type generated in a shift roster, a break time between shifts;
calculating, an updated quantity of items on the one or more shelves of the store based on an execution of the pick-up list by the one or more tagged skill specific users; and
determining availability of the skill specific user prior to generating the pick-up list, when the skill specific user is not available, the generated pick-up list is unassigned, and the next pick-up list considers SKUs with the updated quantity of items.
are directed to fundamental principles of analyzing data to forecast required replenishment of shelves and tagging workers with tasks.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
In the instant case, the generating, identifying, creating, generating, tagging, calculating and deleting steps cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Further, a human can delete unneeded information from a memory or a database. That is, other than reciting “a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from being performed in the human mind.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A processor implemented method, comprising:
receiving, via one or more hardware processors, input data pertaining to sales of a plurality of items specific to (i) a store, (ii) one or more stock keeping units (SKUs), and (iii) one or more influencing periods;
using hardware processors to perform the abstract idea;
using at least one machine learning (ML) model amongst one or more ML models via the one or more hardware processors
However, the computer elements (the processors) are recited at a high level of generality and given the broadest reasonable interpretation are simply generic computers performing generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Further, the receiving data is recited broadly. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations amounts to data gathering which the MPEP says is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the output is also recited broadly and amounts to insignificant post solution activity.
Further, the use of a machine learning is indicative of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
In the instant case, the additional elements of the broadly recited machine learning attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. The claims do not state how the machine learning classifier generate forecasts a rate of sales for one or more items. As such, the broadly recited ML model does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Viewing the generic computer elements in combination with the data gathering and machine learning does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of the information classification unit; the information collection unit amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, nothing in the claim indicates that the retrieval of information is anything other than conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d) that states “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data is conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner (see 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).
Also see MPEP 2106.05(d) that states storing and retrieving information in memory is conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner (see 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).
Further, similar to the analysis with respect to step 2A prong 2 recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished cannot provide an inventive concept under step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
Viewing the generic computer elements in combination with the data gathering and machine learning does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to an inventive concept.
Further Claims 2-6 further limit the abstract idea of an analysis that can be performed mentally or certain methods of human activity that were already rejected in claim 1, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 2-6 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a system or computer program product, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Therefore, Claims 7-18 are rejected for the same rational that applied to claims 1-6.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights