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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following office action in response to the RCE filed on 04/13/2026.
Claims 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 37, 39 and 40 are currently amended.
Claims 42-45 are newly added.
Claims 1-21, 25, 31, 36 and 41 were cancelled.
Therefore, claims 22-24, 26-30, 32-35, 37-40 and 42-45 are pending and addressed below.
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the FINALITY of the previous Office Action has been WITHDRAWN pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered.
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 22-24, 26-30, 32-35, 37-40 and 42-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 22-24, 26-30, 32-35, 37-40 and 42-45 are directed to a method, a system, and thus a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…provide data, for display…; verify employee-enrollments in a benefit plan based on an employee-identifier of an employee; verify plan benefits for the benefit plan based on a plan-identifier of the plan benefits; verify plan membership based on a personal-identifier associated with the plan- identifier displayed in the third panel; determine differences between the benefit plan and a previous benefit plan associated with the employee; detect a user input corresponding to executing a comparison operation that produces the differences; and responsive to the user input being detected, display and identify the differences between the benefit plan and the previous benefit plan”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, i.e. providing and verifying the benefit plan of the employee) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of one or more hardware processors, a display device, a first panel, a second panel, a third panel and a graphical user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “….provide …data, for display…; verify …employee-enrollments in a benefit plan…; verify …plan benefits for the benefit plan…; verify …plan membership…; determine …differences between the benefit plan and a previous benefit plan; detect…a user input comprising a selection …of a control displayed…to executing …a comparison operation that produces… the differences; and update …the graphical user interface to include display… an arrangement of graphical elements that display… and identify… the differences between the benefit plan and the previous benefit plan…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular 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 or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the one or more hardware processors, the display device, the first panel, the second panel, the third panel and the graphical user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “….provide …data, for display…; verify …employee-enrollments in a benefit plan…; verify …plan benefits for the benefit plan…; verify …plan membership…; determine …differences between the benefit plan and a previous benefit plan; detect…a user input comprising a selection …of a control displayed…to executing …a comparison operation that produces… the differences; and update …the graphical user interface to include display… an arrangement of graphical elements that display… and identify… the differences between the benefit plan and the previous benefit plan…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 33 recite limitations substantially similar to claim 22. Thus, the claims are rejected based on the same reasoning as above in claim 22. Thus, the claims are not eligible.
Dependent claims 23-24, 26-30, 32, 34, 35, 37-40 and 42-45 are dependent on claims 22 and 33. Therefore, claims 23-24, 26-30, 32, 34, 35, 37-40 and 42-45 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 22 and 33. Claims 23-24, 26-30, 32, 34, 35, 37-40 and 42-45 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the first panel, the network, the client device, the computer system, the second panel, the third panel, the graphical user interface, the one or more processors and the display screen included in the dependent claims 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37-40 and 42-45 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive… a user input for a selection of a control displayed; and display …the employee-enrollments based on the user input” (claim 23); “identify …a previous and a current enrollment of the employee; and display… a comparison between the current enrollment and the previous enrollment” (claim 24); “detect… that the current enrollment is generated by performing …a write-over of a previous enrollment; identify… a lapse in the employee-enrollments caused by the write-over; and update… the graphical user interface to display the lapse” (claim 27); “receive…respective inputs” (claim 29); “the graphical user interface comprises tabs that allow …navigation between the panels” (claim 30); “to mass-verify enrollments for multiple employees based on respective personal-identifiers” (claim 32); “receiving …a user input for a selection… of a control displayed…; and displaying…the employee-enrollments based on the user input” (claim 34); “identifying …a previous enrollment of the employee and a current enrollment of the employee; and displaying… a comparison between the current enrollment and the previous enrollment” (claim 35); “identifying … a previous coverage level of the previous benefit plan and a current coverage level of the benefit plan; and displaying… the comparison between the current coverage level and the previous coverage level” (claim 37); “receiving… a rate level and at least one of a provider identifier, a plan code, or a plan name; and identifying… the plan benefits based on the rate level and at least one of the provider identifier, the plan code or plan name” (claim 38); “receiving… respective inputs…” (claim 39); “the graphical user interface comprises tabs that allow …navigation between the panels” (claim 40); “representing… an object displayed rendering the graphical user interface” (claim 42); “maintain …a shared comparison state associated with the comparison operation; and automatically synchronize… display content …based on the shared comparison state such that each of the panel… is updated… in a coordinated manner responsive to the detected user input” (claim 43); “detect… user interaction…that initiates …a transition of the graphical user interface from a pre-comparison display state to a comparison display state” (claim 44); and “render… graphical elements related to the comparison operation within the panel” (claim 45), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 23-24, 26-30, 32, 34, 35, 37-40 and 42-45 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the first panel, the network, the client device, the computer system, the second panel, the third panel, the graphical user interface, the one or more processors and the display screen included in the dependent claims 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37-40 and 42-45 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive… a user input for a selection of a control displayed; and display …the employee-enrollments based on the user input” (claim 23); “identify …a previous and a current enrollment of the employee; and display… a comparison between the current enrollment and the previous enrollment” (claim 24); “detect… that the current enrollment is generated by performing …a write-over of a previous enrollment; identify… a lapse in the employee-enrollments caused by the write-over; and update… the graphical user interface to display the lapse” (claim 27); “receive…respective inputs” (claim 29); “the graphical user interface comprises tabs that allow …navigation between the panels” (claim 30); “to mass-verify enrollments for multiple employees based on respective personal-identifiers” (claim 32); “receiving …a user input for a selection… of a control displayed…; and displaying…the employee-enrollments based on the user input” (claim 34); “identifying …a previous enrollment of the employee and a current enrollment of the employee; and displaying… a comparison between the current enrollment and the previous enrollment” (claim 35); “identifying … a previous coverage level of the previous benefit plan and a current coverage level of the benefit plan; and displaying… the comparison between the current coverage level and the previous coverage level” (claim 37); “receiving… a rate level and at least one of a provider identifier, a plan code, or a plan name; and identifying… the plan benefits based on the rate level and at least one of the provider identifier, the plan code or plan name” (claim 38); “receiving… respective inputs…” (claim 39); “the graphical user interface comprises tabs that allow …navigation between the panels” (claim 40); “representing… an object displayed rendering the graphical user interface” (claim 42); “maintain …a shared comparison state associated with the comparison operation; and automatically synchronize… display content …based on the shared comparison state such that each of the panel… is updated… in a coordinated manner responsive to the detected user input” (claim 43); “detect… user interaction…that initiates …a transition of the graphical user interface from a pre-comparison display state to a comparison display state” (claim 44); and “render… graphical elements related to the comparison operation within the panel” (claim 45), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 23-24, 26-30, 32, 34, 35, 37-40 and 42-45 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous Double Patenting
The previous double patenting rejections of the claims have been withdrawn in the light of the Applicant’s filing a valid Terminal Disclaimer.
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 22-24, 26-30, 32-35, 37-40 and 42-45 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argued that: “…Claim 22 was argued as allegedly describing "fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) but for recitation of generic computer components." (Office Action, pages 2-3.) Applicant respectfully disagrees… These features tie claim 22 to a particular interactive computing interface, not a fundamental economic practice…” (Please see the remarks on pages 8-9).
Answer 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the office has explained above that the claim recites the limitations of “…provide data, for display…; verify employee-enrollments in a benefit plan based on an employee-identifier of an employee; verify plan benefits for the benefit plan based on a plan-identifier of the plan benefits; verify plan membership based on a personal-identifier associated with the plan- identifier displayed in the third panel; determine differences between the benefit plan and a previous benefit plan associated with the employee; detect a user input corresponding to executing a comparison operation that produces the differences; and responsive to the user input being detected, display and identify the differences between the benefit plan and the previous benefit plan”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, i.e. providing and verifying the benefit plan of the employee) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the MPEP 2106.04(a) states that: “…Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One”. Thus, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a), Examiner (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) (…provide data, for display…; verify employee-enrollments in a benefit plan based on an employee-identifier of an employee; verify plan benefits for the benefit plan based on a plan-identifier of the plan benefits; verify plan membership based on a personal-identifier associated with the plan- identifier displayed in the third panel; determine differences between the benefit plan and a previous benefit plan associated with the employee; detect a user input corresponding to executing a comparison operation that produces the differences; and responsive to the user input being detected, display and identify the differences between the benefit plan and the previous benefit plan) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas of “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, i.e. providing and verifying the benefit plan of the employee) in the Appellant’s claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) (…provide data, for display…; verify employee-enrollments in a benefit plan based on an employee-identifier of an employee; verify plan benefits for the benefit plan based on a plan-identifier of the plan benefits; verify plan membership based on a personal-identifier associated with the plan- identifier displayed in the third panel; determine differences between the benefit plan and a previous benefit plan associated with the employee; detect a user input corresponding to executing a comparison operation that produces the differences; and responsive to the user input being detected, display and identify the differences between the benefit plan and the previous benefit plan) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One”.
Therefore, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a), it is reasonable to conclude that Applicant’s claim 22 was describing "fundamental economic principles or practices” and recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One” (Please see the remarks on pages 8-9). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argued that: “…Claim 22 is patent eligible at least at Step 2A, Prong Two, for at least the reason that claim 22 improves how computers present multi-source verification data to users in a structured and interactive graphical user interface. For example, verifying benefit information can enable benefit verification system 204 to provide graphical user interface 208 that improves visualization of both plan information and enrollment information." (Specification, [0040].) Improvements to user interfaces represents a patent eligible technical improvement similar to that described in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. V. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Core Wireless.) For example, "[t]he asserted claims are directed to an improved user interface for computing devices." (Core Wireless, page 9.) Moreover, improvements to user interfaces was reinforced as being patent eligible in Example 37 of the 2019 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples² (Examples), which emphasized that "improved user interface[s] for electronic devices" represent patent eligible subject matter and "is not directed to [a] judicial exception." (Examples, pages 2- 3.) …” (Please see the remarks on pages 9-10).
Answer 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of one or more hardware processors, a display device, a first panel, a second panel, a third panel and a graphical user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “….provide …data, for display…; verify …employee-enrollments in a benefit plan…; verify …plan benefits for the benefit plan…; verify …plan membership…; determine …differences between the benefit plan and a previous benefit plan; detect…a user input comprising a selection …of a control displayed…to executing …a comparison operation that produces… the differences; and update …the graphical user interface to include display… an arrangement of graphical elements that display… and identify… the differences between the benefit plan and the previous benefit plan…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible at least at Step 2A, Prong Two.
In addition, In Core Wireless, the claim requires "an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu," specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed. The claim further requires the application summary window list a limited set of data, "each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application." This claim limitation restrains the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window. Finally, the claim recites that the summary window "is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state," a requirement that the device applications exist in a particular state. In Example 37, the court determined that the claim recites the combination of additional elements of receiving, via a GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on the amount of use of each icon, a processor for performing the determining step, and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use. The claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. Here, the Applicant’s claims are an improvement to an abstract idea, as opposed to Core Wireless and Example 37 which improvement to a technology. Automating the process in the instant Applicant’s claims improves the business process, not technology. Merely using a computer as a tool to carry out a process that improve a business process (i.e. the abstract idea) does not equate to a technological solution. Thus, Applicant’s claims are not similar with the claims in Core Wireless and Example 37. Thus, claim 22 does not integrate the ideas into a practical application and is not patent eligible at least at Step 2A, Prong Two. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 3: Applicant argued that: “…None of the pending claims sustained any art-based rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the pending claims recite allowable subject matter and are in condition for allowance…” (Please see the remarks on page 8).
Answer 3: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Office also would like to point out to the Applicant that the "novelty" (None of the pending claims sustained any art-based rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) in the abstract idea does not satisfy the second prong of Step 2A and Step 2B of the Alice's analysis. Please see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter" Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-89; see also Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that, "under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility").
Furthermore, please see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which stated that in "defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303". In other word, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014) are examples of where a narrow/specific abstract or novel abstract idea are still considered abstract ideas. Thus, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 4: Applicant argued that: “…Further, evaluating the claim as an ordered combination confirms that the claimed graphical user interface behavior amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The claims do not simply automate benefit verification using generic computing components, but instead recite a user-initiated, event-driven interface model in which execution of a comparison operation triggers coordinated updates across multiple concurrently displayed panels. Neither the Office Action nor any cited reference identifies this interface logic as well-understood, routine, or conventional. Under Berkheimer, the absence of such factual findings precludes a conclusion of ineligibility at Step 2B. Moreover, consistent with Ex Parte Desjardins, the specification describes a concrete technical improvement-namely, enforcing synchronized visualization of comparison results across multiple interface regions-and the claims expressly reflect that improvement through limitations tying UI updates to a specific control-driven comparison event. Accordingly, the claims recite a technical solution governing how an interactive user interface operates, not merely an instruction to apply an abstract idea, and therefore satisfy Step 2B…” (Please see the remarks on pages 10-12).
Answer 4: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the one or more hardware processors, the display device, the first panel, the second panel, the third panel and the graphical user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “….provide …data, for display…; verify …employee-enrollments in a benefit plan…; verify …plan benefits for the benefit plan…; verify …plan membership…; determine …differences between the benefit plan and a previous benefit plan; detect…a user input comprising a selection …of a control displayed…to executing …a comparison operation that produces… the differences; and update …the graphical user interface to include display… an arrangement of graphical elements that display… and identify… the differences between the benefit plan and the previous benefit plan…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Thus, Under Step 2B, claim 22 does not provide an inventive concept and the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) (Advanced training module: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/training-materials-subject-matter-eligibility) on page 22 and page 37 clearly states that:
“Prong Two Excludes The “WURC” Consideration
As noted on the preceding slide, there is no evaluation of well-understood, routine, conventional (“WURC”) activity in Prong Two.
Examiners should give weight to all of the claimed additional elements in Prong Two, even if those elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity.
Because Step 2A excludes consideration of WURC, a claim that includes WURC elements may still integrate an exception into a practical application.
Do not evaluate WURC unless the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.”…
“…Eligibility At Step 2B
Revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
However, if an examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B
If such reevaluation indicates that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that an inventive concept is present and that the claim is thus eligible.
For example, when evaluating a claim reciting an abstract idea such as a mathematical equation and a series of data gathering steps that collect a necessary input for the equation, an examiner might consider the data gathering steps to be insignificant extra-solution activity in revised Step 2A, and therefore find that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. However, when the examiner reconsiders the data gathering steps in Step 2B, the examiner could determine that the combination of steps gather data in an unconventional way and, therefore, provide an “inventive concept,” rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B.”
Regarding the 2019 PEG Guidelines, the Office had not previously concluded under Step 2A that an additional element of the Appellant’s claim was insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the Applicant’s claims do not need to be reevaluated under WURC. Thus, Applicant’s claims are not applicable to be reevaluated under WURC and The Patent Office do not need to provide evidence under WURC in claim 22 and claim 33 (please see the remarks on pages 10-12). Thus, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In addition, the claims of the Ex Parte Desjardins decision analyzed eligibility to determine whether the claims were directed to an improvement in the functioning of the computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. It was in step 2A Prong 2, it was determined that the specification identified improvements and was reflected in the claims as to how the machine learning model itself operates. The specification of the Desjardins application identified the improvement to machine learning technology. Whereas the claims and the specification of the instant application, do not reflect the improvement to the machine learning models. Therefore, the claims are unlike the claims in Ex Parte Desjardins. Thus, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.
For the above reasons, it is believed that Appellant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
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.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights