DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 of the Remarks, filed on June 24, 2026, with respect to drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 of the Remarks, filed on June 24, 2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 1-12, 16, and 18-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 of the Remarks, filed on June 24, 2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 13-17 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-7 of the Remarks, filed on June 24, 2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 24, 2026. These drawings are acceptable by the examiner.
The drawings are objected to because the word “Ttransmitting” labeled in block 301 of FIG. 3 should be “Transmitting”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (fundamental economic/communication practice of conditional messaging and routing) without reciting a specific, unconventional technological improvement to computer functionality. The claim recites generic steps of sending a request message, checking a condition (whether a dialogue is successful), releasing resources, and receiving an acknowledgment. This describes basic human or organizational communication practices (such as cold-transferring a call only if another party answers). The messages and conditions are defined purely by their functional results (configured to request for releasing) rather than a specific, non-conventional structural improvement to network architecture or protocol execution. The claim relies entirely on generic terminals and standard request/response messaging. Performing standard communication operations on generic hardware does not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The claim fails to provide an inventive concept because the elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the ineligible concept of conditional call routing itself. structural improvement to network architecture or protocol execution.
Claim 2 recites method steps of transmitting a preliminary request to establish a dialogue and receiving a response indicating receipt are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they recite a generic, abstract idea of organizing human communication and data exchange without an inventive technical improvement. The claim focuses on routine rules for managing a connection or dialogue request between terminals. Exchanging status messages, connection requests, and delivery confirmations mirrors basic administrative communication tasks that can be performed mentally or through conventional data routing. The language describes what data or message configuration is sent (requesting and acknowledging a dialogue) rather than how a specific, unconventional technological mechanism achieves it. The steps rely on generic network terminals sending standard messages. Merely adding standard request-and-response signaling procedures to a communication channel does not transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 3 focuses on receiving a notification about an event (a dialogue attempt) and transmitting a confirmation response. Courts often treat generic data gathering, notification, and acknowledgment as abstract concepts akin to human organizing or communication. The claim does not specify a non-conventional technological improvement in how the terminals handle the routing or signals, it falls under the judicial exception. Receiving messages and transmitting responses using standard terminals relies on well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activities. Simply applying a basic communication interaction to a generic network or terminal environment does not transform the abstract idea into eligible subject matter.
Claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea without reciting an inventive concept that improves underlying computer technology. The claim recites generic functional steps: receiving a request message, checking a condition (whether a dialogue is successful), releasing resources, and sending a response message. These steps describe fundamental communication rules, routine data collection, and information processing that humans have historically performed or that rely entirely on generic, conventional signaling functions. The claim is functionally similar to rules for managing calls or handling data messages rather than a specific physical or technological solution. The claim uses generic hardware terms (terminal, resources, message). It fails to specify a non-conventional improvement to how a terminal, network, or communication protocol functions. Because the claim merely automates a generic communication event using standard messaging steps without providing a concrete technical fix to a technical problem, it does not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 7 merely recites generic functional steps of receiving and transmitting messages without a specific technological improvement. The claim is directed to the abstract idea of communication management, specifically receiving a request, acknowledging receipt, and relaying dialogue requests between terminals. These informational steps (notifying someone that a message was received, or asking to speak with a third party) are fundamentally routine concepts that a human could theoretically perform or track by passing notes. The claim language fails to recite any specific rules of an inventive communication protocol, specialized hardware interaction, or concrete structural configuration. It uses broad, functional language (configured to request, configured to indicate) which keeps it in abstraction territory. The steps rely on standard terminal actions (receiving and transmitting messages) executed on generic network architecture without adding an unconventional, patent-eligible twist. Standard data receipt and transmission acknowledgments do not transform the abstract idea into a practical, technologically rooted application.
Claim 8 focuses on sending a notification about an event (a dialogue attempt) and receiving a confirmation response. Courts often treat generic data gathering, notification, and acknowledgment as abstract concepts akin to human organizing or communication. The claim does not specify a non-conventional technological improvement in how the terminals handle the routing or signals, it falls under the judicial exception. Transmitting messages and receiving responses using standard terminals relies on well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activities. Simply applying a basic communication interaction to a generic network or terminal environment does not transform the abstract idea into eligible subject matter.
Claim 9 focuses purely on conventional communication steps, such as generically transmitting a request to establish a dialogue and receiving an acknowledgment or status message are often viewed as falling under “methods of organizing human activity" or generic "data manipulation" (an abstract idea). The claim fails to recite a specific technological solution to a technological problem and relies entirely on generic communication components (terminals, messages). The claim must include additional elements (considered individually and as an ordered combination) that transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. The steps of transmitting the third request and receiving the fourth response merely use standard network protocols in a routine and conventional manner without altering how the underlying communication network operates, they lack an inventive concept under Step 2B. The terms "third request message" and "fourth response message" merely designate functional labels for data content without defining a non-conventional protocol, unique data structure, or hardware enhancement.
Claim 11 is directed purely to transmitting a routine message indicating receipt status between terminals, such communication steps are generally viewed as conventional business or data-handling practices rather than a technical improvement. Under Step 2A, relaying administrative status signals falls under generic methods of organizing human activity or data manipulation. Under Step 2B, simply performing standard message transmission using routine network terminals does not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The claim limitation fails to recite a specific improvement to computer functionality, such as reducing network latency or changing internal device operations.
Claim 12 recites the steps of transmitting a notification of status and receiving a response acknowledgment fall under generic data-processing and communication concepts. Courts routinely hold that standard generic data transmission, notification, and record-keeping are abstract ideas. The claim describes what the messages do (indicate success or receipt) rather than how a specific, unconventional computer network or protocol achieves that result. Using standard terminals to send and receive confirmation messages relies entirely on well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activities. Without reciting a specific, technical improvement to computer functionality, it fails to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim 13 recites an abstract idea (managing/releasing communication resources or conditional messaging) without adding an inventive concept that transforms it into a patent-eligible application. The claim focuses on conditional communication checking if a dialogue is successful, sending a request to release resources, and receiving a response. Transmitting and receiving request/response messages based on logical conditions reflects generic data sorting, communication, and basic business or administrative rules rather than a technological improvement to how a computer operates. The "processor" and "memory storing computer programs" are generic hardware components used in standard, well-known ways. The steps of transmitting a request and receiving a response rely on standard network communication capabilities without specifying a non-conventional, specific improvement in computer functionality.
Claims 18-20 merely recite generic computer hardware executing an ineligible method. Apparatus claims that only use standard processors and memories to run an abstract process fail patent eligibility unless they add a specific, unconventional technical improvement. While an apparatus claim falls under a statutory category (a machine), claiming generic "processors" and "memories" programmed to perform an abstract idea does not transform the exception into a practical application. Because the dependent claims explicitly incorporate the rejected method of claim 1 or claim 6, and add only standard computer components without a non-conventional arrangement, they fall with the parent claim under the Alice/Mayo Framework.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 10, and 14-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Young T. Tse whose telephone number is (571)272-3051. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:30am-7pm.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/Young T. Tse/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights