DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 3/15/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/29/2025.
a. Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18 are amended
Overall, claims 1-21 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-7 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 8-14 are directed to a system, and claims 15-21 are directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A system for screening users in virtual environments, the system comprising: a hardware processor:
[B] determining one or more first representative values of one or more first metrics for a first user,
[C] wherein the one or more first metrics are associated with one or more content items presented within a virtual environment and
[D] wherein the one or more first metrics includes: (i) angles between orientation vectors of one or more content items and view directions of one or more virtual cameras in the virtual environment, wherein the one or more virtual cameras are controlled by the first user; (ii) on-screen real estates of the one or more content items based on distances between the one or more content items and the one or more virtual cameras controlled by the first user; (iii) view duration in which a content item of the one or more content items was at least partially presented for the first user on a rendered screen of the virtual environment during a predetermined amount of time; and (iv) a comparison between the view duration and a duration in which the one or more virtual cameras were controlled by the first user during the predetermined amount of time;
in response to determining the one or more first representative values of the one or more first metrics,
[E] comparing the one or more first representative values to one or more corresponding reference values,
[F] wherein comparing the one or more first representative values to the one or more corresponding reference values comprises
[G] determining a fraud score based on the one or more first representative values and the one or more corresponding reference values;
in response to determining the fraud score,
[H] determining whether the first user in the virtual user is a human user or a nonhuman user programmed to control the one or more virtual cameras in the virtual environment by comparing the fraud score with the first predetermined range of values,
[I] wherein the first user in the virtual environment is determined to be the human user in response to determining that the fraud score is within the first predetermined range of values and
[J] wherein the first user in the virtual environment is determined to be the nonhuman user programmed to control the one or more virtual cameras in the virtual environment
in response to determining that the fraud score is not within the first predetermined range of values; and
in response to determining that the first user in the virtual environment is a human user the nonhuman user programmed to control the one or more virtual cameras in the virtual environment,
[K] inhibiting the first user from accessing the virtual environment by
[L] removing one or more accounts associated with the first user and by
[M] removing stored associations between the one or more first representative values of the one or more first metrics and the first user.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) recites: comparing values and determining a fraud score ([E], [G]); identifying a user as human or non-human ([H]) and preventing a user from accessing the virtual environment by removing the user accounts along with the stored associating of that user ([K], [L], [M]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: classifying virtual environment users as human or non-human, along with items, in order to avoid fraud.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations aimed at mitigating risk. These limitations fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
In addition, or alternatively, this is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, opinion in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step “comparing the one or more first representative values to one or more corresponding reference values”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally making a comparison, without physical aid. Further, the step “determining a fraud score based on the one or more first representative values and the one or more corresponding reference values”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally making a determination, without physical aid. Further, the step “determining whether the first user in the virtual user is a human user or a nonhuman user programmed to control the one or more virtual cameras in the virtual environment by comparing the fraud score with the first predetermined range of values”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally making a determination by comparing scores, without physical aid. Further, the step “inhibiting the first user from accessing the virtual environment”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally preventing an action, without physical aid. Further, the step “removing one or more accounts associated with the first user”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally disabling an account, without physical aid. Further, the step “removing stored associations between the one or more first representative values of the one or more first metrics and the first user”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally disabling an association, without physical aid. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) iii B)
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “a hardware processor,” “memory,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements “wherein the one or more first metrics are associated with one or more content items presented within a virtual environment”; “wherein the one or more first metrics includes: …”; “wherein the first user in the virtual environment is determined to be the human user in response to determining that the fraud score is within the first predetermined range of values”; “wherein the first user in the virtual environment is determined to be the nonhuman user programmed to control the one or more virtual cameras in the virtual environment
in response to determining that the fraud score is not within the first predetermined range of values” as applied to the metrics and the users in a virtual environment, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea classifying virtual environment users as human or non-human, along with items, in order to avoid fraud, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: determining user metrics values ([B]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (classifying virtual environment users as human or non-human, along with items, in order to avoid fraud) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15), evaluated individually, as well as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 8, 15) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 8, 15 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 2, which is representative of dependent claims 9, 16, recites:
storing an association between a first category indicating that the first user is a human user; and
storing a number of views associated with the first user.
The elements in these dependent claims are comparable to “storing and retrieving information in/from memory”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (classifying virtual environment users as human or non-human, along with items, in order to avoid fraud) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)). When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claims continue to recite the identified abstract idea.
The dependent claims elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. It is readily clear that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claims further elaborate on the previously identified abstract idea (classifying virtual environment users as human or non-human, along with items, in order to avoid fraud).
Therefore, dependent claim 2 (which is representative of dependent claims 9, 16) is deemed ineligible. As a result, it is concluded that the dependent claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claim 4, which is representative of dependent claims 11, 18, recites:
wherein the determining of the one or more first representative values of the one or more first metrics for the first user is performed at a first time, and
wherein the method further comprises:
determining one or more third representative values of the one or more first metrics for the first user at a second time;
in response to determining the one or more third representative values of the one or more first metrics,
comparing the one or more third representative values to one or more corresponding second reference values,
wherein comparing the one or more third representative values to the one or more corresponding second reference values comprises
determining a second fraud score based on the one or more third representative values and the one or more corresponding second reference values;
in response to determining the second fraud score,
determining that the second fraud score is within a second predetermined range of values; and
in response to determining that the second fraud score is within the second predetermined range of values,
determining that the first user is the nonhuman user.
The elements in these dependent claims are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (classifying virtual environment users as human or non-human, along with items, in order to avoid fraud) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claims continue to recite the identified abstract idea.
The dependent claims elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. It is readily clear that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claims further elaborate on the previously identified abstract idea (classifying virtual environment users as human or non-human, along with items, in order to avoid fraud).
Therefore, dependent claim 4 (which is representative of dependent claims 11, 18) is deemed ineligible. As a result, it is concluded that the dependent claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claims 3, 5-7, which are representative of dependent claims 10, 12-14; 17, 19-21, respectively, recite:
wherein the one or more second metrics include:
(i) second angles between the orientation vectors of the one or more content items and second view directions of one or more second virtual cameras in the virtual environment, the one or more second virtual cameras controlled by a plurality of users;
(ii) second on-screen real estates of the one or more content items based on distances between the one or more content items and the one or more second virtual cameras controlled by the plurality of users;
(iii) a second view duration in which the content item of the one or more content items was at least partially presented for the plurality of users on the rendered screen of the virtual environment during a predetermined amount of time; and
(iv) a second comparison between the second view duration and a second duration in which the one or more second virtual cameras were controlled by the plurality of users during the predetermined amount of time.
wherein the one or more first representative values of the angles includes a mean value of the angles between the orientation vectors of the one or more content items and the view directions of the one or more virtual cameras in the virtual environment, and
wherein the one or more first representative values of the on-screen real estates includes a mean value of the on-screen real estates of the one or more content items based on the distances between the one or more content items and the one or more virtual cameras controlled by the first user.
wherein the one or more first representative values of the angles includes a median value of the angles between the orientation vectors of the one or more content items and the view directions of the one or more virtual cameras in the virtual environment, and
wherein the one or more first representative values of the on-screen real estates includes a median value of the on-screen real estates of the one or more content items based on the distances between the one or more content items and the one or more virtual cameras controlled by the first user.
wherein the one or more first representative values of the angles includes a mode value of the angles between the orientation vectors of the one or more content items and the view directions of the one or more virtual cameras in the virtual environment, and
wherein the one or more first representative values of the on-screen real estates includes a mode value of the on-screen real estates of the one or more content items based on the distances between the one or more content items and the one or more virtual cameras controlled by the first user.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements (in this instance – the second metrics, first representative values) and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 3, 5-7, which are representative of dependent claims 10, 12-14; 17, 19-21, are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner Remark
No prior art rejection has been applied to the instant set of claims in the non-final office action already.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20170357981 A1 Azzam; Mark Jules et al. Systems and Methods for Use in Approving Transactions, Based on Biometric Data Systems and methods are provided for use in processing transactions based on biometric data used in connection with authenticating consumers to payment accounts to which the transactions are directed. One exemplary method includes causing a biometric associated with a consumer to be received, when the consumer presents a payment device for funding a transaction with a merchant via a payment account associated with the payment device. The method also includes appending, by a computing device, a biometric score to an authorization request associated with the transaction at the merchant where the biometric score is indicative of a degree of match between the received biometric and a reference biometric, and transmitting, by the computing device, the authorization request whereby an issuer associated with the payment account is able to utilize the biometric score in determining to approve or decline the transaction.
US 20250045761 A1 Nimale; Tanishq et al. METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND MEDIA FOR SCREENING USERS OF A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT Methods, systems, and media for screening users of a virtual environment are provided. In some embodiments, the method comprises: determining one or more first representative values of one or more first metrics for a first user, wherein the one or more first metrics are associated with one or more content items presented within a virtual environment and wherein the one or more first metrics includes: (i) angles between orientation vectors of one or more content items and view directions of one or more virtual cameras in the virtual environment, wherein the one or more virtual cameras are controlled by the first user; (ii) on-screen real estates of the one or more content items based on distances between the one or more content items and the one or more virtual cameras controlled by the first user; (iii) view duration in which a content item of the one or more content items was at least partially presented for the first user on a rendered screen of the virtual environment during a predetermined amount of time; and (iv) a comparison between the view duration and a duration in which the one or more virtual cameras were controlled by the first user during the predetermined amount of time; in response to determining the one or more first representative values of the one or more first metrics, comparing the one or more first representative values to one or more corresponding reference values, wherein comparing the one or more first representative values to the one or more corresponding reference values comprises determining a fraud score based on the one or more first representative values and the one or more corresponding reference values; in response to determining the fraud score, determining that the fraud score is within a first predetermined range of values; and, in response to determining that the fraud score is within the first predetermined range of values, determining that the first user in the virtual environment is a human user.
US 20170083985 A1 Lacoss-Arnold; Jason Jay et al. Systems and Methods for Locating Merchant Terminals Based on Transaction Data Systems and methods are provided for use in locating one or more merchant terminals based on transaction data associated with the terminals. One exemplary method generally includes accessing, by a computing device, transaction data for a transaction to a payment account between a merchant and a consumer at a merchant terminal where the transaction data includes a terminal ID for the merchant terminal, a merchant ID of the merchant, an acquirer ID for an acquirer associated with the merchant, and a temporal indicator. In addition, the method includes receiving, by the computing device, location data associated with the transaction, identifying, by the computing device, a location associated with the location data as a location of the merchant terminal, and assigning, by the computing device, a score to the identified location indicative of a confidence that the identified location is the actual location of the merchant terminal.
US 20110189981 A1 Faith; Patrick et al. Transaction Using A Mobile Device With An Accelerometer Embodiments of the invention may use a first accelerometer to measure first acceleration data of a first device. Other interaction data, including time data and geographic location data, generated by the first device may also be recorded. First acceleration data is compared by a remote server computer to second acceleration data generated by a second accelerometer in a second device. If the first and second accelerometer data are substantially equal, it can be determined that the devices have interacted and communications can be initiated. After communications are initiated, a financial transaction is conducted. Accelerometer data may be stored and/or used as part of the authentication process in a payment processing network. Other embodiments of the invention use the accelerometer to generate movement security data to make financial transaction more secure. Accelerometer data is used for authentication, security, encryption, session keys, non-repudiation, or fraud protection.
US 20120011041 A1 Beydler; Michael L. et al. POST BANKRUPTCY PATTERN AND TRANSACTION DETECTION AND RECOVERY APPARATUS AND METHOD A method for post bankruptcy recovery of a consumer with an outstanding credit card balance is disclosed. The method includes the steps of scoring a portion of a related set of consumer transactions and received payments in accordance with an item set criteria to determine a level of collectability, weighting the portion of the related set of consumer transactions in accordance with age of data and in accordance with external consultant assessments and recommendations based on consumer financial status, and comparing at least one portion of a transaction description from the related set of consumer transactions to historical data from transaction descriptions to update and adjust the level of collectability.
US 20180335928 A1 VAN OS; Marcel et al. USER INTERFACES FOR PEER-TO-PEER TRANSFERS The present disclosure generally relates to user interfaces for managing peer-to-peer transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for initiating and managing transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces corresponding to completed transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for providing visually distinguishable message object appearances based on message designation. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for activating accounts for accepting and sending transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for exchanging accounts for use in a transfer. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for splitting transfers between two or more accounts. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for generating and displaying a transfers history list. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for voice-activation of transfers. In some examples, a device provides visual or haptic feedback corresponding to a transfer operation.
US 20180336543 A1 VAN OS; Marcel et al. USER INTERFACES FOR PEER-TO-PEER TRANSFERS The present disclosure generally relates to user interfaces for managing peer-to-peer transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for initiating and managing transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces corresponding to completed transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for providing visually distinguishable message object appearances based on message designation. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for activating accounts for accepting and sending transfers. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for exchanging accounts for use in a transfer. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for splitting transfers between two or more accounts. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for generating and displaying a transfers history list. In some examples, a device provides user interfaces for voice-activation of transfers. In some examples, a device provides visual or haptic feedback corresponding to a transfer operation.
US 20230401802 A1 MASCHMEYER; Russ et al. System and Method for Updating Electronic Content By Selectively Replacing Virtual 3D Objects A system and method are provided for updating electronic content by selectively replacing virtual 3D objects being displayed in an electronic environment. The method includes in one example, presenting augmented reality (AR) content, the presented AR content showing a set of objects, at least some of the objects of the set of objects being rendered 3D objects; receiving an input identifying one of the objects of the set of objects; and responsive to the input, providing updated AR content, the updated AR content replacing at least one of the objects with a different rendered 3D object, wherein the replaced at least one of the objects is determined based on the identified one of the objects of the set of objects.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “It is plainly apparent from the language of the claim that such a method is clearly not a) mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations); b) certain methods of organizing human activity; and c) mental processes.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action does not allege that the claims of the instant application are directed to a) mathematical concepts, b) all of the enumerated methods of organizing human activity. The eligibility analysis has determined that the claims are directed to 1) mitigating risk as part of fundamental economic principles and practice grouping of abstract ideas, as defined by USPTO and 2) mental processes.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant respectfully submits that these limitations, in combination with the other limitations of amended claim 1, amount to significantly more than the allegedly abstract idea identified by the Examiner of "mitigating risk."”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action has determined at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 8, 15) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 8, 15 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant also respectfully submits that, in light of these proposed amendments, the
Examiner's rejection does not address all of the features of the claims as amended.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action addresses all claim features, included the amended ones.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The rejection is maintained, necessitated by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
Prosecution Insights