DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed July 23, 2026 the Examiner has maintained and updated the 35 USC § 101 and 103 rejections.
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 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claims 1
a data interface in communication with an offering device and a payment device; and
one or more hardware processors that read and execute the plurality of processor- executable instructions from the memory to perform operations comprising:
transmitting, to the offering device via the data interface, user information.
receiving, from the offering device via the data interface, an offer fora conditional credit based on the user information;
transmitting, to the offering device via the data interface, an acceptance of the offer;
transmitting, to the payment device, payment information associated with a transaction; and
receiving, from the offering device via the data interface, an indication of whether the conditional credit was utilized in the transaction.
Claim 8
a memory that stores a ledger, a trust list, and plurality of processor executable instructions;
a data interface in communication with an offering device;
one or more hardware processors that read and execute the plurality of processor- executable instructions from the memory to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from the offering device via the data interface, a communication request including a certificate;
establishing a connection to the offering device based on a determination of whether a certificate authority associated with the certificate is in the trust list;
receiving, via the connection, an indication of a conditional credit; and adding the conditional credit to the ledger.
Claim 16
a memory that stores a plurality of processor executable instructions;
a data interface in communication with a user device and a ledger node; and
one or more hardware processors that read and execute the plurality of processor- executable instructions from the memory to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from the user device via the data interface, user information. determining a conditional credit based on the user information; transmitting, to the user device via the data interface, an offer for the conditional credit; receiving, from the user device via the data interface, an acceptance of the offer; and
transmitting, to the ledger node via the data interface, an indication of the conditional credit.
. The limitations of independent claim 1, 8, and 16 as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity because the claims have concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The applicant’s claims are directed to processing and transmitting condition credit offers/acceptances between devices. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of using an interface, processor, offering device, payment device, memory, hardware processors, user device, non-transitory computer readable media. The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of storing, receiving, determining, and transferring) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of interface, processor, offering device, payment device, memory, hardware processors, user device, non-transitory computer readable media amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-20 appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-20 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea The claims the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1 - 20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2, 4-7, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heitmueller (WO 2012/109628)
Claim 1, 16: Heitmueller discloses a user device, comprising:
a memory that stores a plurality of processor executable instructions; (see for example [00120] One form of processor is referred to as a microprocessor. CPUs use communicative circuits to pass binary encoded signals acting as instructions to enable various operations)
a data interface in communication with an offering device and a payment device;(see for example [0021], request inputs via ECIR components into coupon issuance, transaction, and analytics outputs. The ECIR also provides a platform for social network coupon issuance, redemption, authentication, and payment authorization, clearance, and settlement., [0022] . When redeeming the coupon at the merchant, the theatre may type in the details of the coupon into the merchant's client devices (e.g., a Point of Sale ("POS") terminal). consumer desiring to acquire the coupon may utilize a consumer device (e.g., smartphone, laptop, tablet computer, etc.) including an image capture device (e.g., camera, webcam, etc.) to snap a picture of the code. The consumer device may, in some implementations, extract the information embedded in the code. In some implementations, the consumer device may be associated with a virtual wallet account of the consumer. In such implementations, the consumer device may add the coupon to the virtual wallet account of the consumer, for immediate or later use, for sharing with others, to use as a seed for searching for other relevant coupons, etc.) and
one or more hardware processors that read and execute the plurality of processor executable instructions from the memory to perform operations comprising: [00120] transmitting, to the offering device via the data interface, user information. ([0022], coupons, offers, rewards, and/or the like ("coupon"), issued by different entities (e.g., group buying companies, social network program, and/or the like ("GBC")) may require consumers to pay in advance to purchase the coupon before the coupon can be redeemed at a merchant store. For example, a consumer may see an advertisement at a group buying company's ("GBC") website for "pay only $6 for a $12 movie ticket at Movie Theatre ABC," and may pay a fee to purchase the coupon to redeem it later at the theatre.[0024], [0025] In one embodiment, when the consumer redeems the coupon at the merchant for goods and/or services, merchant employees may type the prepaid account VPS number (or swipe the card if the physical card has a magnetic stripe) into the POS terminal or other merchant devices. If the value associated with the offer hasn't yet been redeemed, the merchant may receive an approval through the ECIR payment system and funds may be transferred from the prepaid account to the merchant, also see [0023 and 0024])
receiving, from the offering device via the data interface, an offer for a conditional credit based on the user information; (see for example [0029], the ECIR may facilitate the GBC or other coupon issuer companies assessing customers' purchasing habits associated with the coupon issuance event. In one implementation, the ECIR may identify the customer's personal charge card based on the customer's name provided when purchasing the coupon, and/or the personal charge card used to purchase the coupon. ECIR may analyze customer's transaction data associated with their personal charge card and compare the statistics before and post the coupon redemption date. Also see [0022 and 0035])
transmitting, to the offering device via the data interface, an acceptance of the offer; ([0035]the acceptance of the offer to join the program)
transmitting, to the payment device, payment information associated with a transaction; (see for example [0043], merchant 105 may receive a purchasing request of a product at a price of $25.00 with a discounted amount $0.64. The merchant may submit the coupon information together with the consumer's account number to the ECIR platform, which may verify the $0.64 discount amount has not been redeemed with the coupon issuer 155. The issuer may then approve the $0.64 amount via the ECIR platform 160 to the acquirer $0.64, and the acquirer may in turn 1 approve a purchase at the price of $25-$ο.64=$24.Math.36 at the merchant) and
receiving, from the offering device via the data interface, an indication of whether the conditional credit was utilized in the transaction. (see for example [0041] In one embodiment, the ECIR platform 160 may query its database 119 to determine whether the offer has been redeemed by verifying the coupon amount associated with the consumer account number with an offer issuer 155. [0042] In one implementation, the offer issuer may generate reports summarizing the issued offers and redemption of the offers with a group buying company. Also see [0022])
Claim 2: Heitmueller discloses the user device of claim 1, wherein the user information includes at least one of: historical activities data, sensor data, location data, or user-specific identifying data. ([00107] FIGURES 9A-9D show flow chart diagrams illustrating example aspects of providing customer purchase analytics in various embodiments of the ECIR, e.g., a Customer Purchase Analytics component as discussed in FIGURE 11. In some embodiments, the ECIR server may manage a user's personal card account. If the account holder has enrolled in the analytics program, the ECIR server may aggregate the enrolled cardholder's historical and live transactional spend data to tailor coupons, segment populations, and provide analysis.)
Claim 4: Heitmueller discloses the user device of claim 1, wherein the offer for the conditional credit includes one or more criteria. [0022]
Claim 5: Heitmueller discloses the user device of claim 4, wherein the one or more criteria include at least one of: a timing criteria, a location criteria, or a purchase-type criteria. [0022]
Claim 6: Heitmueller discloses user device of claim 4, wherein the indication of whether the conditional credit was utilized in the transaction is negative based on the one or more criteria not being met by the transaction. ([0067], e GBC server may generate and send a "coupon expired" message 323 to inform the user that the coupon is not valid anymore. The client receives and displays the message 324. If the user has been charged or has credit held when purchasing the coupon, the GBC server may credit the charge back to the user or release the credit held 325. The GBC may generate and send "funds released and coupon expired" message)
Claim 7: Heitmueller discloses the user device of claim 4, wherein the indication of whether the conditional credit was utilized in the transaction is positive based on the one or more criteria being met by the transaction. [0065]
Claim 17: Heitmueller discloses the offering device of claim 16, the operations further comprising: transmitting, to the user device via the data interface, an indication of whether the conditional credit was utilized in a transaction. [0022]
Claim 18: Heitmueller discloses the offering device of claim 16, wherein the offer for the conditional credit includes one or more criteria. [0022 and 0045]
Claim 19: Heitmueller discloses the offering device of claim 18, wherein the one or more criteria include at least one of: a timing criteria, a location criteria, or a purchase-type criteria. [0022]
Claim 20: Heitmueller discloses the offering device of claim 16, the operations further comprising: receiving a certificate from a certificate authority; transmitting, to the ledger node via the data interface, a communication request including the certificate; and establishing a connection to the ledger node [0085]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitmueller (WO 2012/109628) in view of Swamidurai (US 2019/0311392)
Claim 3: Heitmuller discloses the user device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the operations further comprising: receiving, from a ledger node via the data interface, an indication of a ledger status associated with the conditional credit. However Swamidurai discloses receiving, from a ledger node via the data interface, an indication of a ledger status associated with the conditional credit. [0019 and 0028]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, was made to modify, Heitmueller to
include receiving, from a ledger node via the data interface, an indication of a ledger status associated with the conditional credit. The rationale for doing so is that applying a
known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 8: Heitmueller discloses a ledger node comprising:
receiving, via the connection, an indication of a conditional credit; (see for example [0041] In one embodiment, the ECIR platform 160 may query its database 119 to determine whether the offer has been redeemed by verifying the coupon amount associated with the consumer account number with an offer issuer 155. [0042] In one implementation, the offer issuer may generate reports summarizing the issued offers and redemption of the offers with a group buying company. Also see [0022]) but does not explicitly disclose a memory that stores a ledger, a trust list, and plurality of processor executable instructions; a data interface in communication with an offering device; and one or more hardware processors that read and execute the plurality of processor executable instructions from the memory to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the offering device via the data interface, a communication request including a certificate; establishing a connection to the offering device based on a determination of whether a certificate authority associated with the certificate is in the trust list; and adding the conditional credit to the ledger.
However Swamidurai discloses a memory that stores a ledger, a trust list, and plurality of processor executable instructions; ([0034, 0036, 0038] ay include at least one computing device in the form of a computer or processor, or a set of computers/processors, although other types of computing units or systems may be used, such as, for example, a server, web server, pooled servers, or the like. Each rewards partner 150-1, 150-1, 150-2, 150-3 may also include one or more data centers, cloud storages, or the like, and may include software, such as APIs, configured to retrieve and write data to transfer blockchain 140, via a transfer blockchain node.)
a data interface in communication with an offering device; ([0019], e system may also include applications deployed on user devices such as, for example, computers, tablets, smartphones, Internet of Things devices (“IoT” devices), etc. The applications may communicate with the blockchain (e.g., directly or via a blockchain node) to transmit and retrieve data. In various embodiments, a governing organization or consortium may control access to data stored on the blockchain. [0034], , transfer blockchain 140 may serve as an immutable log for reward point transfers to a rewards partner (e.g., rewards partner 150-1, 150-2, 150-3). Transfer blockchain 140 may be maintained on various transfer blockchain nodes 135 in the form of copies of the transfer blockchain, as discussed further herein. Blocks (e.g., including encrypted rewards transfer messages, rewards transfer message hashes, encrypted rewards transfer response messages, rewards transfer response message hashes, etc.) may be written to transfer blockchain) and
one or more hardware processors that read and execute the plurality of processor executable instructions from the memory to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from the offering device via the data interface, a communication request including a certificate; ([0038], existing trust participant (e.g., identity provider), and may be assigned and provided a private key (e.g certificate) and public key pair. Transaction network 101, via rewards redemption module 120, may store a mapping of public keys comprising a rewards partner identifier corresponding to each rewards partner)
establishing a connection to the offering device based on a determination of whether a certificate authority associated with the certificate is in the trust list; and adding the conditional credit to the ledger. ([0034, 0038, 0040 Transfer blockchain 140 may comprise a ledger of interconnected blocks containing data. Each block may link to the previous block and may include a timestamp. Each block may hold encrypted rewards transfer messages, rewards transfer message hashes, encrypted rewards transfer response messages, rewards transfer response message hashes, and/or the like. When implemented in support of system 100, transfer blockchain 140 may serve as an immutable log for reward point transfers to a rewards partner (e.g., rewards partner 150-1, 150-2, 150-3). Transfer blockchain 140 may be maintained on various transfer blockchain nodes 135 in the form of copies of the transfer blockchain, as discussed further herein. Blocks (e.g., including encrypted rewards transfer messages, rewards transfer message hashes, encrypted rewards transfer response messages, rewards transfer response message hashes, etc.) may be written to transfer blockchain 140 by establishing consensus between the transfer blockchain nodes (e.g., transfer blockchain nodes)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, was made to modify, Heitmueller to
include a memory that stores a ledger, a trust list, and plurality of processor executable instructions; a data interface in communication with an offering device; and one or more hardware processors that read and execute the plurality of processor executable instructions from the memory to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the offering device via the data interface, a communication request including a certificate; establishing a connection to the offering device based on a determination of whether a certificate authority associated with the certificate is in the trust list; and adding the conditional credit to the ledger. The rationale for doing so is that applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 9: Heitmueller discloses the ledger node of claim 8, the operations further comprising: transmitting, to a payment processing device, a status indication of the conditional credit; receiving, from the payment processing device, an indication to modify the conditional credit and adding a modification to of the conditional credit to the ledger based on the indication to modify. [0022 and 0043]
Claim 10. The ledger node of claim 9, wherein the indication to modify includes an indication to reduce a credit amount. [0067]
Claim 11: Heitmueller discloses the ledger node of claim 8, wherein the conditional credit includes one or more criteria. [0022]
Claim 12: Heitmueller discloses the ledger node of claim 11, wherein the one or more criteria include at least one of: a timing criteria, a location criteria, or a purchase-type criteria. [0022]
Claim 13: Heitmueller discloses the ledger node of claim 12, the operations further comprising: receiving, from a payment processing device, transaction information; [0067] and transmitting, to the payment processing device, an indication that the one or more criteria are met based on the transaction information. [0065]
Claim 14: Heitmueller discloses the ledger node of claim 12, the operations further comprising: receiving, from a payment processing device, transaction information; [0025]and transmitting, to the payment processing device, an indication that the one or more criteria are not met based on the transaction information. [0067]
Claim 15:Heitmueller discloses the ledger node of claim 8, wherein the ledger is a blockchain-based ledger, the operations further comprising: transmitting, to a second ledger node via the data interface, a second indication of the conditional credit. [0041]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant arguments towards the 102 rejection are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., ledger recorded, mutating, cryptographically authenticated) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s arguments rely on features described in embodiments of the specification rather than limitations recited in the claims, therefore the arguments are moot.
The applicant further argues the 102 rejection that the reference of Heitmueller does not disclose a conditional credit, the Examiner respectfully disagrees under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification the claimed conditional credit, encompasses value that is conditionally available for use in a transaction. (see applicant’s specification at [0022]) The claims do not exclude coupons, discounts, rebates, promotional credits, etc. that would be subject to one or more conditions. Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that the Heitmueller’s coupon reads on the claimed conditional credit.
Also note that the applicant makes several arguments but the applicant does not state which claim is being discussed, nor does the applicant specifically what citations to which limitations do not read on said limitation.
The applicant argues claims 1 and 16 but as stated above the applicant is arguing the unclaimed features of (a) criteria, (b) ledger state, and (c) security-gated device connectivity. Thus, this argument is moot. The applicant also argues the ledger-governed conditional-credit behaviors of claims 2, 4-7, and 17-19, however these features are also unclaimed. Thus, this argument is also moot.
The applicant argues claim 8, the Examiner respectfully disagrees Swamidurai discloses mapping public keys to registered reward partners. Paragraph [0038] discloses that reward partners register with the transaction network or an existing trust participant(e.g. identity provider) and are assigned public/private key pairs with the public keys stored at the transaction network. The stored mapping of approved participant public keys reasonably corresponds to the claimed trust list and the registered reward partner or identity provider associated with the public key reasonably corresponds to the claimed certificate authority. Determining whether a received public key corresponds to a register participant in the stored mapping constitutes determining whether the certificate authority associated with the certificate is in the trust list.
As for claim 8 the reference of Heitmueller discloses at [0085] ECIR which is equivalent to the claimed ledger node, the authentication platform is equivalent to the claimed certificate authority and the authorization message is equivalent to authentication communications.
In response to applicant's argument that does not address the architectural incompatibilities between the references and the claimed system, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The applicant argues the 101 rejection that the claims improve computer network security and state integrity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees the abstract does not discloses a technical problem and unconventional solution. The applicant has merely stated the specification discloses an improvement but does not specifically cite where in the specification the improvement is located. Thus this argument is moot. Per MPEP 2106.05(a)- If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The applicant has not provided a citation in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.
The applicant’s arguments are directed to the improvement to the abstract idea, however Per MPEP 2106.05 (a) However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
The additional elements do not improve the functioning of the computer, other technology or technical field. Rather the additional elements merely use generic computer components as tool to implement a commercial transaction process involving conditional credits, payment transactions, and transaction tracking. The claimed certificate validation, trust list evaluation, ledger recording and transaction status processing are used to implement business rules governing conditional credits and financial transactions. The claimed components are invoked as tools to carry out financial transaction processing. See MPEP 2106.50(f)
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
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
Thus the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
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 DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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, 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 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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights