This action is in response to the amendments filed on 06/16/2026, in which claims 1-20 remain cancelled, claims 37, 39 has been cancelled, claim 42 has been added. claims 21-36, 38, 40-42 are presented for the examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Office fails to establish that Applicant's claims do not "recite" an abstract idea under Prong One of Revised Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in office action, the claims recite analyzing the information to determine compliance. Under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), concepts that involve evaluations, judgements and decision-making fall within the category of mental processes.
Applicant argues that the claims cannot be performed mentally because they involve:
Programmatic access to a graphical interface
Communication across a network
Interaction with computing systems
However, the mere recitation of generic computer implementation does not negate the presence of a mental process.
Courts have explained that an abstract idea remains abstract even when implemented on a computer. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Although the claims recite computer implementation, the underlying concept corresponds to a process that could be performed by a human. Thus, the claimed steps represent automation of a mental evaluation process.
The claims recite analyzing the information to determine compliance, which constitutes a mental process and therefore an abstract idea. Accordingly, the determination that the claims recite a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One is maintained.
b. The Office fails to establish that Applicant's claims are "directed to" a patent
ineligible abstract idea under Prong Two of Revised Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. When considered as a whole, the additional elements—such as the processor, memory, communications interface, graphical interface amount to no more than generic computer components performing routine functions of transmitting, analyzing and updating data. These elements merely implement the abstract idea on conventional computer technology and do not improve computer functionality or another technology.
Applicant appears to rely on the limitation reciting programmatic access to a graphical interface of a first application across a communications network and providing programmatic input to an interface element as evidence of a technological improvement. However, this limitation merely describes using a computer to interact with an existing GUI to obtain verification data. The claims do not recite any improvement to GUI technology, networking technology or computer functionality itself but instead use these components as tools to perform the abstract idea of obtaining verification data and determining compliance. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the determination under Step 2A, Prong Two is maintained.
C. Applicant's independent claims amount to "significantly more" than any alleged
abstract idea under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements—such as the processor, memory, communications interface, graphical interface amount to no more than generic computer components performing routine functions of transmitting, analyzing and updating data. When considering these elements individually or in combination, these elements merely implement the abstract idea using well-understood, routine and conventional computer activity.
The claims do not recite any specific technical improvement to networking technology or computer functionality itself nor do they include any unconventional arrangement of components that would amount to an inventive concept. Courts have consistently held that implementing an abstract idea using generic computer components performing conventional functions does not provide the required inventive concept. . See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.
Accordingly, claim do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and the rejection under Step 2B is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 21-36, 38, 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 21:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
“Determine compliance with policy based on the first and second verification data;”
Yes, the limitations represent fundamental concepts of analyzing and comparing data with policy, which is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Additional elements include:
A processor, a memory, communications interface, a graphical interface of a remote application;
claim uses generic computer components to perform abstract idea.
Accessing a GUI and providing programmatic input is simply automation of data entry and verification using conventional computer networking.
The claim does not improve the functioning of computer or another technology, nor does it provide technological solution to a technological problem.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
Additional elements include:
Generic processor, generic memory, communications interface, a graphical interface of a remote application;
These elements represent well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions.
Courts have held that such generic implementation does not provide an inventive concept. See Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank International and Electric Power Group, LLC V. Alstom S.A.
The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
As to claim 33:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
“Determine compliance with policy based on the first and second verification data;”
Yes, the limitations represent fundamental concepts of analyzing and comparing data with policy, which is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Additional elements include:
A processor, a memory, communications interface, a graphical interface of a remote application;
claim uses generic computer components to perform abstract idea.
Accessing a GUI and providing programmatic input is simply automation of data entry and verification using conventional computer networking.
The claim does not improve the functioning of computer or another technology, nor does it provide technological solution to a technological problem.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
Additional elements include:
Generic processor, generic memory, communications interface, a graphical interface of a remote application;
These elements represent well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions.
Courts have held that such generic implementation does not provide an inventive concept. See Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank International and Electric Power Group, LLC V. Alstom S.A.
The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
As to claim 40:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
“Determine compliance with policy based on the first and second verification data;”
Yes, the limitations represent fundamental concepts of analyzing and comparing data with policy, which is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Additional elements include:
A processor, a memory, communications interface, a graphical interface of a remote application;
claim uses generic computer components to perform abstract idea.
Accessing a GUI and providing programmatic input is simply automation of data entry and verification using conventional computer networking.
The claim does not improve the functioning of computer or another technology, nor does it provide technological solution to a technological problem.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
Additional elements include:
Generic processor, generic memory, communications interface, a graphical interface of a remote application;
These elements represent well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions.
Courts have held that such generic implementation does not provide an inventive concept. See Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank International and Electric Power Group, LLC V. Alstom S.A.
The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea; therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
All the dependent claims 22-32, 41 and claims 34-36, 38 are rejected under the same rationale as in claims 21, 33, 40.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMINI B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/KAMINI B PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights