Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
1. This communication is in response to the amended Application No. 18/755,518 filed on 11/11/225.
2. Claims 1-9 and 21-31 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
3. Claims 10-20 have been cancelled by the Applicant.
4. For the purpose of applying prior art, PreGrant Publications will be referred to
using a four digit number within square brackets, e. g. [0001].
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
5. 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 Applicant’s Comments/Remarks
6. Applicant’s response, filed on 11/11/2025, has fully been considered.
Applicants Argument #1:
Applicant contends that the amended claims obviate the 35 USC 101 rejection, for Applicant has removed all mention of “bids,” “bidding events,” and “bidding results.”
Applicant then argues that Applicant’s claims are directed toward “enhancing data security.” Therefore, the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner’s Response to Argument #1:
Applicant’s argument that the amended claims obviate the 35 USC 101 rejection, for Applicant has removed all mention of “bids,” “bidding events,” and “bidding results.”
Applicant then argues that Applicant’s claims are directed toward “enhancing data security.” Therefore, the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application has fully been considered, but is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Specification recites:
A method and apparatus for online bidding, a device, and a medium is provided according to the embodiments of the present disclosure. According to the method, encrypted information from a verification device of a bidding event is received at a participation device of the bidding event. The participation device transmits verification information associated with a bid of the bidding event to a management device of the bidding event. The participation device receives a first signature and a verification information set from the management device. The verification information set includes at least an association relation between the participation device and the verification information. The first signature is generated by the verification device for the verification information set. The participation device verifies a bidding process of the bidding event based on the first signature, the verification information set and the encrypted information.
Additionally, Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0029] As mentioned above, plenty of object providers desire to display their goods, services or other objects at promoters (such as websites and mobile terminal applications (App)) such that the provided objects can be better known by users, thereby guiding more users to acquire these objects. A plurality of object providers may participate in a bidding event initiated by a promoter through respective participation devices. A bidding result of a bidding event may be determined by a management device. The bidding result may indicate a winning device of a plurality of participation devices participating in the bidding event. The promoter may display contents related to the winning device or its provided object at display positions.
[0040] In some embodiments, the management device 110 is configured to receive, from the verification device 130, a request to execute the bidding event 101. Herein, the verification device 130 is also referred to as a supply-side platform (SSP) or a supply-side device. The verification device 130 is configured to be in communication with a promotion platform 140 (also referred to as a promoter, a display position provider or a display position developer). In some embodiments, the verification device 130 may also be integrated into the promotion platform 140. Additionally or alternatively, the verification device 130 may also be a device running a trusted agent program serving the promotion platform 140. Examples of the promotion platform 140 include but are not limited to a website, a mobile terminal application (App), etc. For instance, the promotion platform 140 may be a video website, etc. that provides an online advertisement position. The bidding event 101 may be an event for online bidding for an advertisement position on the video website.
Applicant’s claim(s) describes the interaction between a computing device, verification device and management device and how these devices participate in an “online event.” Therefore, Applicant’s claim(s) fall under “certain methods of organizing human activity,” under the category of “commercial or legal interactions.” Additionally, Applicant asserts in his 11/11/2025 response, page 14, that the claims are directed toward, “…to improve the security of the data being processed and transmitted…” The Examiner wishes to point out that this is an example of “mitigating risk,” an additional sub-category under the “fundamental economic principle or practices” category. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that the claims do not fall under “certain methods of organizing human activity” has fully been considered, but is not persuasive for Applicant’s claims are being interpreted to fall under “commercial or legal interactions” and “mitigating risk” categories.
Taking Applicant’s claim elements separately, the functions performed by the devices at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using devices to perform Applicant’s claimed functions are one of the most basic functions of a computer. These function(s) are functions that can be achieved by a general-purpose computer without special programing. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce an unexpected result.
It must be determined if the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, however, Applicant’s Specification (including the claim language) makes clear that the claims focus on an abstract idea, and not on any improvement to computer technology and/or functionality.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effect in the improvement in any other technology or technical field. Applicant’s claim limitations do not describe any particular improvement in the manner of a computer functions.
None of Applicant’s limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a 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.
Applicant’s limitations simply reflect the “processing of an online event,” without significantly more. Applicant’s claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in claim 1 provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of “processing of an online event,” without significantly more.
The Federal Circuit has held similar concepts abstract. Thus, for example, the Federal Circuit has held that abstract idea includes the concepts of collecting data, analyzing the data, and displaying the results of the collection and analysis, including when limited to particular content.
The Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, nor does the Applicant direct the Examiner to any indication, that the operations recited in claim 1 require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any assertedly inventive programing, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions.
The Examiner finds no indication in the Specification that the claimed invention effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Additionally, the Examiner fails to find anything of record that attributes an improvement in technology andor a technical field to the claimed invention or that otherwise indicates that the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a “practical application,” as that phrase is used in the MPEP 2106.
Applicant has offered no persuasive argument or technical reasoning to demonstrate that the “processing of an online event” recited in claim 1 involves more than well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities, i.e., generic computer functions. CF. In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Simply programing a general-purpose computer or generic circuitry to perform abstract ides does not provide an “inventive concept” such that the claim amounts to significantly more than that abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221-227
The Examiner would like to point out that “claims for which computers are invoked merely as a tool…use of a computer as a tool – economic task, or method of conducting business, the computer acts as a device to move and hold data, but the computer is used merely in its ordinary capacity of routine computerization of bookkeeping functions are not tied to a technological advance.”
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer functions of Applicant’s claim ## add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately; hence, the ordering of the steps is therefore, ordinary and conventional.
Also, the Examiner would like to point out that “an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.” In sum, on this record, Examiner find that Applicant’s claim(s) do NOT integrate the judicial exception into a practical application that improves existing technological processes and computer technology.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 22-29 and 31 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant and maintains his rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-9 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract
idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2016.04(a)(2).
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Consideration’s indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(d).
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field;
Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine;
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
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;
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in MPEP § 2106.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea)).
Consideration’s indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in MPEP 2016.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field MPEP 2106.04(d)(1);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine MPEP 2106.04(d)(2);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
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 NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the consideration’s indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are NOT indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the in MPEP 2016.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(g);
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h);
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See MPEP 2106;
Claims 1-9 and 21-31 is/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.
Step 1: Statutory Categories (MPEP § 2106.03):
Representative claim 1 is directed toward a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Representative claim 21 is directed toward an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention.
Representative claim 30 is directed toward an article of manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity:
The claim, as a whole, recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves “processing of an online event” which is an abstract idea, without substantially more.
(Currently Amended) A method for enhancing data security in a multi-device data processing network, comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, encrypted information from a verification device, wherein the encrypted information comprises a public key of the verification device (Which is an example of commercial or legal interactions);
generating, by the computing device, first information indicating first data and transmitting, by the computing device, the first information to a management device (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
receiving, by the computing device, a first signature and a verification information set from the management device, wherein the verification information set indicates an association relation between identity information of the computing device and the first information, wherein the verification information set is generated by the management device, wherein the verification information set is sent by the management device to the verification device, wherein the first signature is generated by the verification device using additional encrypted information based on the verification information set, and wherein the additional encrypted information comprises a private key of the verification device (Which is an example of commercial or legal interactions);
generating and transmitting, by the computing device, a coded representation of only a portion of the first data and verification information associated with the portion of the first data to the management device (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and
receiving, by the computing device, second information and a second signature, wherein the second information is generated by the management device based on comparing the verification information associated with the portion of the first data with the first information, and wherein the second signature is generated by the verification device based on the second information sent from the management device and the private key of the verification device (Which is an example of commercial or legal interactions);
decrypting, by the computing device, the second signature using the public key of the verification device (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and
verifying, by the computing device, whether information in the first signature conforms to information in the verification information set, whether the information in the verification information set conforms to the first data, and whether the second information conforms to information decrypted from the second signature to prevent information leakage, thereby improving the data security in the multi-device data processing network (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
Thus, the claim(s) are directed toward “processing of an online event” which is an abstract idea, without substantially more.
NOTE: The mere nominal recitation of technology does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.1
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of some of the positively recited steps (e.g., “receiving;” “generating;” “receiving;” “generating;” “receiving;” “decrypting;” “verifying;”) including interaction with a plurality of devices and additional elements of:
(e.g., (a) “a computing device;” (b) “a management device;” (c) “verification device;” (d) “multi-device data processing network;”).
The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of:
data processing (e.g., “generating;” “generating;” “decrypting;” “verifying;” etc. step(s) as claimed); and
(b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” etc. step(s) as claimed)).
The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data processing, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea(s) are performed (e.g., the non-transitory computer-readable….) Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does NOT integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does NOT impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do NOT integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do NOT provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do NOT include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field.
Applicant’s Specification, as filed on 6/26/2024 does NOT provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0050] The management device 110, the participation device 120 and the verification device 20 130in FIG. 1 may be implemented as any system or device having computing power, such as various computing devices/systems, terminal devices, servers, etc. The terminal device may be any type of mobile terminal, fixed terminal or portable terminal, including a mobile phone, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a notebook computer, a netbook computer, a tablet computer, a media computer, a multi-media tablet, or any combination thereof, including 25 accessories and peripherals of these devices, or any combination thereof. The servers include but are not limited to mainframes, edge computing nodes, computing devices in cloud environments, etc.
Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as:
data processing (e.g., “generating;” “generating;” “decrypting;” “verifying;” etc. step(s) as claimed); and
data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” etc. step(s) as claimed)).
are well understood, routine and conventional. Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activates previously known in the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do NOT add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The original filed Specification supports this conclusion at Par [0050].
Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Hence, the use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.2 Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
For these reasons, there is NO invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible. Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 22-29 and 31are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Conclusion
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 22-29 and 31 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
For instance, in claim(s) 2, 22 and 31 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the receipt and processing of information in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 3 and 23 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the processing of information in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 4 and 24 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the processing of information in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 5 and 25 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the generating of a bidding event in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 6 and 26 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the bidding process in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 7 and 27 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the verification process between devices in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 8 and 28 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the verifying the bidding process in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 9 and 29 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the verifying the bidding process in furtherance of the abstract idea.
In all the dependent claim(s), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. This is because the claim(s) do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, the claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claim(s) also are not patent eligible.
Claims 21 and 30 contains similar language or like deficiencies found in claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 22-29 and 31 do not add any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above and are rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Hoffberg (US 2010/0235285)
A method for allocation among agents, comprising providing to at least two each having a respective wealth generation function adapted to generate a virtual currency; conducting an auction, having an auction outcome with respect to an auction transaction, in which each respective agent bids an amount of the generated virtual currency; and transferring an amount of the generated virtual currency in accordance with the auction outcome, in consideration of an auction transaction.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. §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 from the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MOTNH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date of the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR §1.136(a) will be calculated from the mail 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 communication from
the examiner should be directed to Mr. Dante Ravetti whose telephone number is
(571) 270-3609. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday
9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Mr. John Hayes may be reached at (571) 272-6708. The
fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is
assigned is (571) 270-4609.
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, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 1-(866)
217-9197. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service
Representative or access to the automated information system, call 1-(800) 786-
9199 (IN USA or CANADA) or 1-(571) 272-1000.
/DANTE RAVETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
12/17/2025
1 (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, NO 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP 2106);
2 MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h);
Prosecution Insights