DETAILED ACTION
Response received on August 12, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 15-16, have been amended and Claim 4 has been cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending.
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 .
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the application filed on 07/02/2024 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 8/12/2026. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending.
Priority
Application 18/762,156 was filed on 07/02/2024.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/12/2026 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 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1‐3 and 5-7 are directed to a device (machine), Claims 8-14 are directed to non-transitory machine-readable medium (apparatus/machine), and Claims 15-20 are directed to a method (process). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 8 and 15. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A device, comprising: a processing system of an automated regulatory compliance data package generation system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: collecting a plurality of source data having a scope defined by a target regulatory requirement; staging the plurality of source data as normalized name and value pairs in one or more staging tables; detecting a change to one or more of the normalized name and value pairs in the one or more staging tables; transforming the plurality of source data to derive decoded responses by applying a set of automated logics that implements a compliance to the target regulatory requirement, wherein the set of automated logics comprises executable coded rules constructed according to rule syntax patterns using a pattern matching configuration, and wherein the pattern matching configuration comprises variables associated with the target regulatory requirement, wherein the pattern matching configuration is stored in a pattern matching configuration module, and wherein the executable coded rules are dynamically constructed, by a rule constructor module, according to the rule syntax patterns using the pattern matching configuration, and wherein the pattern matching configuration module and the rule constructor module are included in a rule administration module, wherein transforming the plurality of source data is triggered responsive to detecting the change; converting the decoded responses into machine-readable encoded data required for the target regulatory requirement; wherein the detecting, the transforming, and the converting take place in near-real time responsive to the detecting the change; determining, based on execution of the set of automated logics, a compliance completeness status indicating whether the plurality of source data includes values for required source data fields used to derive the machine-readable encoded data for the target regulatory requirement; and proceeding to encoded data submission to be published to a content administrator and downstream systems of the automated regulatory compliance data package generation system, wherein the proceeding further comprises, responsive to the compliance completeness status indicating that the plurality of source data staged in the one or more staging tables includes, in the normalized name and value pairs in the one or more staging tables, values for the required source data fields, submitting, to be published to the content administrator and the downstream systems, a data package comprising at least a portion of the plurality of source data, the decoded responses, and the machine-readable encoded data
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. commercial interactions include agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor (computer) the claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. For example, for the processing system and associated computer components, this claim encompasses actions such as collecting source data scoped to a target regulatory requirement, transforming the source data by applying automated compliance logics to derive decoded responses, etc., which are steps that could conventionally be performed manually by compliance officers, regulatory analysts, or reporting personnel as part of a common regulatory compliance assessment and filing process. The specification [0003] states “Compliance to the Dodd Frank 1017, through an extensive manual process, is prone to an inconsistent application of regulatory procedures”, which supports that the invention can be done manually by humans and is merely automated using generic computer components, confirming that the computer is only used as a tool to carry out the abstract concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a “a device”, “a processing system of an automated regulatory compliance data package generation system”, “processor”, “memory”, “automated logics” “a pattern matching configuration module”, “rule constructor module”, “a rule administration module”, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional element of the claims are merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 1 recites the additional element of “a device”, “a processing system of an automated regulatory compliance data package generation system”, “processor”, “memory”, “automated logics”, “a pattern matching configuration module”, “rule constructor module”, “a rule administration module”, and Claim 8 recites “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “processor”, “automated logics”, “an automated generation system of regulatory compliance data package”, “a pattern matching configuration module”, “rule constructor module”, “a rule administration module”,. Claim 15 recites “a processing system an automated regulatory compliance data package generation system”, “processor”, “a pattern matching configuration module”, “rule constructor module”, “a rule administration module”. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. The computing devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claimed invention recites additional elements (“a processing system of an automated regulatory compliance data package generation system”, “processor”, “memory”, “automated logics”) that appears to be used in their ordinary capacity as generic computing components for processing data, storing information, and facilitating data generation, without any improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or a transformation of any particular technology. The additional elements are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to technical environment. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A). 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 and are at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without an integration into a practical application.
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements (“a processing system of an automated regulatory compliance data package generation system”, “processor”, “memory”, “automated logics”, “a pattern matching configuration module”, “rule constructor module”, “a rule administration module”) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea. The automated regulatory compliance data package generation system performs generic function of storing and processing data is generic function of known processing systems. Thus, this does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components which cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the operations further comprise detecting an event based on the change to one or more of the normalized name and value pairs in the one or more staging tables. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 3 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the operations further comprises, in response to the detected event, triggering the transformation of the changed one or more normalized name and value pairs in the one or more staging tables to derive the decoded responses by applying the set of logics. In addition, the claims recite the same additional elements found in Claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A and Step 2B set for the for claim 1 applies equally here. Therefore, the dependent claim is patent ineligible.
Claim 5 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the detecting of the event, the triggering of the transformation, the transforming, and the converting, take place asynchronously. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 6-7 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the decoded responses comprise human-readable answers and the encoded data comprise machine-readable encoded data and wherein the machine-readable encoded data comprise different integers corresponding to the target regulatory requirement. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claims do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 9-10 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the operations further comprise constructing the coded rules based on the rule syntax patterns using pattern matching configuration and based on a plurality of variables associated with the target regulatory requirement and wherein the operations further comprise staging the one or more source data as normalized name and value pairs, and the detecting the event further comprises detecting the change from the staged one or more source data. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claims do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 11-13 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the operations further comprise executing an event-listener model by: in response to the detected event directed to source data of a first category, triggering transformation of the source data of the first category; and triggering no transformation of the one or more source data of a rest of the different categories having no change, wherein the operations further comprise: determining that the one or more source data is relevant to the target regulatory requirement; and upon the determination, automating the generation of the package, and wherein the operations further comprise: enabling the first user system to review content of the generated package, wherein the review by the first user system is specific to a particular point in time; and enabling the first user system to trigger an action that submits the generated package to the second user system. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claims do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 14 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the operations further comprise generating a new package using the content of the generated package, wherein the new package includes a modification relevant to a new target regulatory requirement. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 16-17 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the executing the event-listener program further comprises: detecting , the event based on the change to one or more of the normalized name and value pairs in the one or more staging tables; and in response to the detected event, triggering, by the processing system, an action responding to the detected event, wherein the action comprises triggering the transforming of the collected in scope source data to derive the decoded responses by applying the set of logics and receiving, an error topic from the downstream systems, wherein the error topic includes at least a portion of rejected data based on data quality, a business rule, a system error, or a combination thereof. In addition, the claims recite the same additional elements found in Claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A and Step 2B set for the for claim 1 applies equally here. Therefore, the dependent claims are patent ineligible.
Claim 18 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the decoded responses comprise human- readable answers and the machine-readable encoded data comprise different integers corresponding to the target regulatory requirement. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how facilitating and implementing generation of regulatory compliance data packages having access control, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 19-20 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include further comprising: enabling the content administrator to review content of the generated data package, wherein the review by the content administrator is specific to a particular point in time; and enabling the content administrator to trigger an action that submits the generated data package to the downstream systems, generating, a new package using the content of the generated data package, wherein the new package includes a modification relevant to a new target regulatory requirement. In addition, the claims recite the same additional elements found in Claim 1, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A and Step 2B set for the for claim 1 applies equally here. Therefore, the dependent claims are patent ineligible.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 11 of Applicant’s response, applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s characterization of that claims as being directed to "managing legal and commercial interactions" and a "certain method of organizing human activity," and further asserts that the claimed "data processing pipeline" is merely generic computer implementation and rule- based processing without any specific technological improvement beyond achieving the abstract result of automated compliance reporting. The Examiner respectfully maintains the position that the claims are directed to “managing legal and commercial interactions”, which constitutes a certain method of organizing human activity. Examiner notes that recited pipeline provides merely implements the underlying regulatory compliance activity using generic computer functionality and rule-based data processing. Applicant further argues that when the claim language is evaluated as a whole and in the context of the Specification, claim 1 is not "directed to" a fundamental economic practice or a method of organizing human activity but rather is directed to a specific computer-implemented data processing architecture and pipeline for generating and publishing regulatory compliance data packages in a manner that is event-driven, rule-configurable, machine-encoding-aware, and completeness-gated. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the recited event-driven, rule-configurable, machine-encoding-aware, and completeness-gated features merely provide computer-implemented mechanism for carrying out the underlying regulatory compliance activity. Accordingly, reciting a particular data processing architecture and sequence of operations does not alter that the claim, considered as a whole, is directed to organizing and performing regulatory compliance activities.
Applicant further argues that Claim 1 recites a concrete, ordered set of technical operations that constrain how the system operates and that these claimed features define a particular computerized mechanism for (i) constructing and applying coded rules using rule syntax patterns and a pattern matching configuration tied to regulatory variables, (ii) transforming into encoded outputs, (iii) computing a completeness status based on required fields used to derive those encoded outputs, and (iv) gating publication of a composite data package downstream. Applicant asserts that this is a specific technical implementation, not an abstract "organizing human activity" concept. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the argued operations of constructing and applying rules to regulatory data, transforming and encoding that data, and determining completeness based on required fields are themselves part of the identified abstract idea of managing regulatory compliance information, rather than additional elements that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Further, Applicant’s characterization that the claim “gates” publication is not consistent with the scope of Claim 1, as the claim merely recites proceeding with submission responsive to the completeness status indicating that the required values are present, and does not recite “gating” publication. Applicant further argues that claim 1 recites specific technical mechanisms for event-driven processing in a distributed enterprise environment, including "staging the plurality of source data as normalized name and value pairs in one or more staging tables," "detecting a change to one or more of the normalized name and value pairs in the one or more staging tables," and "wherein transforming the plurality of source data is triggered responsive to detecting the change” and that these limitations do not merely "store rules, generate rules, and apply rules," but instead constrain how the processing system monitors and reacts to changes in staged data and performs transformation/encoding in an event-driven pipeline. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because staging data as normalized name/value pairs, detecting changes to that data, and triggering processing in response to those changes merely describe how the abstract regulatory compliance activity is automated using generic data handling functions, and do not establish that the claimed event driven pipeline improves the operation of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field.
Applicant further argues that Claim 1 further constrains the downstream publication path by requiring a computed readiness gate, namely "determining, based on execution of the set of automated logics, a compliance completeness status," and proceeding to submission only "responsive to the compliance completeness status” and that this is a concrete control mechanism that prevents premature or incomplete publication to downstream systems, and is not merely an abstract instruction to apply rules to regulatory data. Examiner respectfully disagrees because determining whether required regulatory data is complete before permitting submission merely applies a conditional decision or “gate” to the abstract compliance process and does not improve the functioning of the computer or another technology or technical field. Applicant further argues that further, the recited near-real-time limitation is not a statement of intended use; it is a functional timing constraint tied to the change-triggered staging and transformation pipeline, and reflects a technological improvement in how the system processes continuously changing enterprise data by reducing latency between a detected change and publication-ready encoded outputs. Examiner respectfully disagrees. To the extent Applicant asserts that the claimed near-real-time processing reduces latency and increases processing efficiency, such increased speed or efficiency resulting from the use of a computer does not establish a technological improvement, as merely using a computer to automate an abstract process or achieve a result more quickly is insufficient to confer eligibility. See Bancorp Services, L.L.C v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) which explains that a machine must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed rather than merely provide a mechanism for achieving the solution more quickly. See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, the claimed near-real-time processing merely permits the underlying regulatory compliance activity to be performed more quickly in response to detected changes, rather than changing how the computer itself operates. Moreover, Applicant has not established that the specification as originally filed identifies reduced latency as a technological improvement resulting from the claimed processing.
Applicant further argues that the Examiner's characterization oversimplifies the claim at a high level of generality and that the Examiner's summary ("collecting, evaluating, transforming, and submitting regulatory compliance information") describes the claim at an outcomes-oriented level and omits the claim's key technological constraints (rule construction via syntax patterns/configuration/variables; encoding; completeness computation; conditional publication of a linked data package), such "high level of generality" abstraction is improper. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim has not been characterized merely by its intended results. Rather, the identified rule construction, encoding, completeness determination, and conditional publication limitations have been considered individually and as ordered combination, but merely further specify how the abstract idea is implemented and do not transform the claim into a technological improvement or otherwise remove it from the identified abstract idea. Applicant further argues that "could be done manually" does not render claim 1 abstract, and is incorrect as applied to claim 1's recited constraints and that the Final Office Action (and earlier Office Action) emphasizes that compliance officers could perform similar steps manually and cites the Specification's discussion of manual processes does not establish that the claim is abstract. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the rejection does not rely solely on the fact that similar steps could be performed manually. Rather, the manual nature of the underlying compliance activities further supports their abstract character, while the additional elements merely automate those activities without providing a specific technological improvement. Applicant further argues that to the contrary, claim 1 recites a computer-implemented pipeline with specific mechanisms-rule construction according to rule syntax patterns using a pattern matching configuration of regulatory variables; machine-readable encoding; computation of a completeness status based on required source fields used to derive the encoded output; and completeness-gated publication of a composite package to downstream systems-which are not reasonably characterized as a "manual" practice in the way asserted. Examiner respectfully disagrees because although the claimed operations are computer-implemented, the recited rule construction, encoding, completeness determination, and conditional publication merely automate the evaluation and processing of regulatory compliance information and do not provide a specific improvement to computer functionality or another technology. Moreover, the rejection does not require every claimed limitation to itself be capable of manual performance for the claim to recite an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 is not directed to "certain methods of organizing human activity." It is directed to a specific, computer-implemented data processing pipeline that operates in a concrete manner to generate and publish a regulatory submission data package. Examiner respectfully disagrees because generating and publishing regulatory submission data remains directed to managing regulatory and legal compliance activity, and merely implementing that activity through a computer-based data processing pipeline does not remove it from the identified certain method of organizing human activity. Applicant further argues that even assuming that the Examiner could identify some alleged abstract concept in the claim, claim 1 is nonetheless patent-eligible because it integrates the alleged concept into a practical application through the above-identified ordered combination and concrete control mechanisms. Examiner respectfully disagrees because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the recited control mechanism merely automates and further refine the performance of the abstract idea and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by providing a specific improvement to computer functionality or another technology or technical field. Applicant further argues that Claim 1 recites features that impose meaningful constraints on the claim and tie the operations to a concrete architecture that produces a specific machine-usable data package for downstream systems, consistent with the Specification's event-driven, near-real-time/asynchronous processing, staging/change detection, and downstream publication/feedback architecture. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the recited architecture, event-driven processing, staging/changing detection, and downstream publication merely impose implementation details on the performance of the regulatory compliance process, while producing a machine usable data package represents the result of that process rather than a specific improvement to computer functionality or another technology or technical field.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 also satisfies Step 2B and submits that the Examiner’s analysis which asserts that the elements operate at a high level of generality and merely perform ordinary computer functions of receiving, processing, storing, and transmitting data, abstracts away the claim's specific limitations and that the claim's ordered combination is not conventional "generic computer implementation" of compliance reporting. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the recited limitations, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, merely use generic computer functions to automate the underlying regulatory compliance process, and the additional specificity regarding how the data is processed does not amount to an inventive concept or otherwise transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter under Step 2B.
Applicant further argues that the near-real-time limitation further reinforces that this is an improved enterprise data-processing mechanism that reduces processing latency associated with change propagation, rather than a conventional batch compliance workflow. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the recited near-real time processing merely uses a computer to perform the underlying regulatory compliance activity more quickly, and increased speed or efficiency from computer implementation does not render an abstract idea patent eligible. See Bancorp Services, L.L.C v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Applicant further argues that claim 1 is directed to such a software-based technological improvement and that the Examiner's characterization improperly reduces the claim to an outcome ("automated compliance reporting") and treats the claim's specific architecture and control logic as "generic”, but under Enfish, the relevant inquiry is whether the claim is directed to an improvement in computer functionality achieved through claimed logical structures and processes, not whether the claim recites new hardware. Examiner respectfully disagrees because, unlike the specific improvements to computer functionality recognized in Enfish, the claimed logical structure and processing mechanism are directed to automating regulatory package generation and publications and do not improve the operation of the computer itself. Accordingly, characterizing these limitations as computer implemented does not establish a technological improvement merely because new hardware is unnecessary.
Applicant further argues that the Examiner's analysis appears to focus on the presence of "regulatory compliance information" and, based on that characterization, treats the claimed invention as merely an unpatentable algorithm implemented on generic computer components and that this improperly discounts the claimed specific technical implementation for automated generation and publication of regulatory compliance data packages. Applicant asserts that the Examiner's approach could potentially result in a categorical exclusion of the claimed invention based on the regulatory context of the data, rather than evaluating the actual claim limitations reciting the technological improvements. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the rejection is not based merely on the regulatory nature of the data, rather, the claim has been evaluated as a whole, including its asserted technical limitations, which merely specify how generic computer processing is used to automate the generation and publication of regulatory compliance information without providing a specific improvement to computer functionality or another technology. Applicant further argues that the Examiner's assertion that claim 1 lacks a "specific improvement to computer functionality" is incorrect because it disregards the claim's recited software- architectural improvements-implemented as specific logical structures and processes-that govern how rules are constructed and applied, how encoded outputs are generated, and how completeness is computed and enforced to control downstream publication. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the recited logical structures governing rule construction, encoding, completeness determination, and downstream publication merely define how the abstract idea is automated and controlled, rather than improving the operation or functionality of the computer or underlying data processing technology itself. For the reasons mentioned above, the argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1-3 and 5-20 under 35USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights