DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/18/25 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a system for retrieving documents, the system comprising: a memory, a communication interface, and a processor operatively coupled to the memory and the communication interface; the processor configured to execute a pipeline, the pipeline comprising: a chunking module configured to obtain a plurality of chunks in an initial order corresponding to portions of text from each document in a set of documents; a scoring module configured to compute a score for each one of the plurality of chunks in relation to a query; a labeling module configured to generate a reordered set of chunks that is ordered from a highest score associated with a first given chunk in the reordered set of chunks to a lowest score associated with a last given chunk in the reordered set of chunks; the labellinq module configured to generate a sum of n number of highest scores from the reordered set of chunks, wherein the sum is at least equal to a threshold, and produce a subset of chunks that are associated with the n number of highest scores; the labelling module configured to identify one or more documents, which are associated with the subset of chunks, as relevant to the query, wherein the one or more documents are a subset of the set of documents; a retriever module configured to retrieve the one or more documents from a document repository and ignore a remaining set documents of the set of documents; and a generator large language model (LLM), wherein the processor executes the generator LLM to generate and output a response to the query that comprises text from the one or more documents.
The limitations of ...obtain a plurality of chunks in an initial order corresponding to portions of text from each document in a set of documents; ...compute a score for each one of the plurality of chunks in relation to a query; ...generate a reordered set of chunks that is ordered from a highest score associated with a first given chunk in the reordered set of chunks to a lowest score associated with a last given chunk in the reordered set of chunks; ...generate a sum of n number of highest scores from the reordered set of chunks, wherein the sum is at least equal to a threshold, and produce a subset of chunks that are associated with the n number of highest scores; ...identify one or more documents, which are associated with the subset of chunks, as relevant to the query, wherein the one or more documents are a subset of the set of documents, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, but for the language pertaining to each of the modules, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language pertaining to each of the modules, the limitations pertaining to “obtain”, “compute”, “generate”, “generate”, and “identify” in the context of this claim encompass the user analyzing documents and judging chunks or portions of text from the documents, judging a score for each of the chunks, judging a reordered set of chunks from a highest score, judge a sum of highest scores to produce a subset of chunks, and judging one or more documents as relevant to the query. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the “compute” or “generate” limitations appear to also be directed to a mathematical calculation. Therefore, they also would fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” groups of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites multiple abstract ideas (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – a system for retrieving documents, the system comprising: a memory, a communication interface, and a processor operatively coupled to the memory and the communication interface; the processor configured to execute a pipeline, the pipeline comprising: a chunking module configured to obtain a plurality of chunks in an initial order corresponding to portions of text from each document in a set of documents; a scoring module configured to; a labeling module configured to; the labelling module configured to; the labelling module configured to; a retriever module configured to retrieve the one or more documents from a document repository and ignore a remaining set documents of the set of documents; and a generator large language model (LLM) , wherein the processor executes the generator LLM to generate and output a response to the query that comprises text from the one or more documents. The system, memory, processors, communication interface, memory, pipeline, modules, generator LLM, and document repository are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “retrieve” represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and is a mere data gathering step. The limitation pertaining to the generator LLM configured to generate and output is recited as being performed using generic computing components at a high level of generality. In this limitation pertaining to the generator LLM configured to generate and output, computing components are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of (generate and output query response). See MPEP 2106.05(f). In this limitation pertaining to the generator LLM configured to generate and output, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do 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 pertaining to the generator LLM, wherein the processor executes the generator LLM to generate and output represents insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry and recites the use of generic computing components. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of query processing, data storage/retrieval, and/or artificial intelligence and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 11, 20 similarly recite providing a pipeline comprising a chunking module, a scoring module, a labelling module, a retriever module, and a generator large language model (LLM); obtaining, using the chunking module, a plurality of chunks in an initial order corresponding to portions of text from each document in a set of documents; computing, using the labelling module, a score for each one of the plurality of chunks in relation to a query; generating, using the labellinq module, a reordered set of chunks that is ordered from a highest score associated with a first given chunk in the reordered set of chunks to a lowest score associated with a last given chunk in the reordered set of chunks; computing, using the labelling module, a sum of n number of highest scores from the reordered set of chunks, wherein the sum is at least equal to a threshold, and produce a subset of chunks that are associated with the n number of highest scores; identifying, using the labelling module, one or more documents, which are associated with the subset of chunks, as relevant to the query, wherein the one or more documents being a subset of the set of documents; and retrieving, using the retriever module, the one or more documents from a document repository and ignoring a remaining set of documents of the set of documents; and, executing the generator LLM to generate and output a response to the query that comprises text from the one or more documents.
The limitations of obtaining, ... a plurality of chunks in an initial order corresponding to portions of text from each document in a set of documents; computing, using the labelling module, a score for each one of the plurality of chunks in relation to a query; generating, ..., a reordered set of chunks that is ordered from a highest score associated with a first given chunk in the reordered set of chunks to a lowest score associated with a last given chunk in the reordered set of chunks; generating, ..., a sum of n number of highest scores from the reordered set of chunks, wherein the sum is at least equal to a threshold, and produce a subset of chunks that are associated with the n number of highest scores; identifying, ..., one or more documents, which are associated with the subset of chunks, as relevant to the query, wherein the one or more documents being a subset of the set of documents, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, but for the language pertaining to each of the modules, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language pertaining to each of the modules, the limitations pertaining to “obtaining”, “computing”, “generating”, “generatng”, and “identifying” in the context of this claim encompass the user analyzing documents and judging chunks or portions of text from the documents, judging a score for each of the chunks, judging a reordered set of chunks from a highest score, judge a sum of highest scores to produce a subset of chunks, and judging one or more documents as relevant to the query. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the “compute” limitations appear to also be directed to a mathematical calculation. Therefore, they also would fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” groups of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 11, 20 recites multiple abstract ideas (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – a method for retrieving documents, the method executed in a computing environment comprising one or more processors, a communication interface, and memory, and the method comprising:; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer executable instructions which, when executed by at least one computer processor, cause the at least one computer processor to carry out a method for retrieving documents, the method comprising: providing a pipeline comprising a/the chunking module, a/the scoring module, a/the labellinq module, a/the retriever module, and a/the generator large language model (LLM); and retrieving, using the retriever module, the one or more documents from a document repository and ignoring a remaining set of documents of the set of documents; and, executing the generator LLM to generate and output a response to the query that comprises text from the one or more documents. The computing environment, processors, communication interface, memory, pipeline, modules, generator LLM, and document repository are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “retrieving” represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and is a mere data gathering step. The limitation pertaining to executing the generator LLM is recited as being performed using generic computing components at a high level of generality. In this limitation pertaining to executing the generator LLM, computing components are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of (generate and output query response). See MPEP 2106.05(f). In this limitation pertaining to executing the generator LLM, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do 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 pertaining to the generating and outputting using the generator LLM represents insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of query processing, data storage/retrieval, and/or artificial intelligence and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claims 11, 20 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10, 12-19 depend on claims 1, 11 and include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, these claims are directed to the same abstract idea and the analysis must proceed to (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Claims 2, 12 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to the multiple documents. The limitation pertaining to the association and identifying of the multiple documents is directed to the abstract idea of analyzing documents and judging them to be relevant to the query. The additional limitation pertaining to retrieving documents does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represents an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do 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 element pertaining to retrieving documents represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, this limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 3, 13 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to storing the subset of chunks, scores in association with documents. This additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represents an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do 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, this additional element represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, this limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4, 14 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to a data ingestor that transmits. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The claim also recites additional generic computing components performing generic computing activities. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do 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 represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). The claim also recites additional generic computing components performing generic computing activities. Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5, 15 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to computing the sum. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mathematical concepts (mathematical calculations and/or relationships). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical calculations and/or relationships, then it falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 represent further mathematical steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 5, 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 6, 16 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to the subset of chunks. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent the mental process steps of judging a sum, or mathematical calculation of computing a sum, as in the independent claims. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” or “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step and/or mathematical concept) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 represent further mental process steps or mathematical concepts. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 6, 16 are not patent eligible.
Claims 7-8, 17-18 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to computing the score. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent the mental process steps or mathematical calculations of computing the score as in the independent claims. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” or “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step and/or mathematical concept) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 represent further mental process steps or mathematical concepts. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 7, 17 are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites additional limitations pertaining to the plurality of chunks which are obtained in the independent claims. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent the mental process steps of judging chunks by analyzing documents. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claims 10, 19 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to produce and store. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of producing (judge) embeddings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the limitations pertaining to the vector database and embeddings LLM are recited as being performed using generic computing components at a high level of generality. These limitations use computing components as a tool to perform the generic computer function of (producing and storing). See MPEP 2106.05(f). In the limitation pertaining to “produces”, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The judicial exception of “produces” is performed using the “embeddings LLM”. That is, the embeddings LLM is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the embeddings LLM functions to accomplish this task. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “produces a plurality of embeddings” and do not include any details about how the producing is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of using the “embeddings LLM” in the limitations also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element using the “embeddings LLM” limits the identified judicial exceptions, “produces”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (large language models) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 represent further mental process steps. The additional element of using the “embeddings LLM” is at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additional element “the vector database stores” was also found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because it is determined to be an insignificant limitation as necessary data gathering and outputting. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 10, 19 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the amendment filed on 12/18/25.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pgs. 7-8, applicant argues that the examiner’s rejection is contrary to the policy set by Director Squires.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the examiner did not reject the claim because it involves AI nor did the examiner state that AI is inherently abstract.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pgs. 9-10, applicant argues that the claims recite patent eligible subject matter, and that., an LLM can’t be executed in the human mind.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the while the specific amended portion mentioned by the applicant is not directed to an abstract idea, it does recite generic computing components performing generic computing functions. Therefore, this limitation would not render the claim as a whole to be eligible.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 10, applicant argues that the claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the amended portions, as aforementioned, recite generic computing components performing generic computing functions. Therefore, they would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 11, applicant argues that the amended claims effect an improvement to the technology of information retrieval because they are better able to identify chunks from a corpus of document that are relevant to a query.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that one could “identify” chunks or portions of data using mental judgement and/or analysis. Therefore, this is directed to an abstract idea and “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” (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 12, applicant argues that the specialized architecture and specific technical interactions in the pipeline are integrally applied in the system to calibrate raw search scores and improve computational accuracy in answers of the generator LLM.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the claim does not recite “specialized” architecture. Rather, the claims recite the use of generic computing components performing generic computing functions to perform functions that can be accomplished mentally. Therefore, the claims do not improve the functioning of the computer or of the technology. Further, it is not clear how the system would necessarily improve computational accuracy.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 12, applicant argues that the specialized architecture and technical interactions are integrally applied in the system to reduce the computational burden.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the avoidance of retrieving documents from a document repository is not evidence that applicant’s claimed invention recites an improvement. Almost any query or data retrieval does not retrieve an entirety of the data in a database or repository.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 12, applicant argues that the claim as a whole is directed to improvements in machine learning technology including RAG systems.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the claims do no recite any elements that provide any improvements to the functioning of the computer or the technology.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 13, applicant argues that claim 1 is similarly directed to improvements in machine learning technology itself specifically in RAG systems.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the claims do not similarly recite any elements that provide any improvements to the functioning of the computer or the technology as was decided in this PTAB decision.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pgs. 13-14, applicant argues that the claimed subject matter as a whole recites meaningful limitations that provide an improvement to a field of technology and are directed to significantly more.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the applicant merely indicates the whole claim is directed to specific limitations other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity and ignores the analysis provided in the examiner’s rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P BARTLETT whose telephone number is (469)295-9085. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 11:30-8:30, F 11-3.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM P BARTLETT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169