This action is in response to the amendments filed on 12/03/2025, in which claims 1-20 remain cancelled, claim 37 has been cancelled, claims 21-36, 38-40 are presented for the examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Applicant contends that the term “second verification data” would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in light of specification, citing paragraphs [0052]-[0064] and Fig. 2A and 2B. Applicant further asserts that the claims are therefore definite under 35 USC § 112(b).
However, the argument is not persuasive because the cited portions of the specification do not provide sufficient clarity as to the scope of claimed “second verification data”. When a claim term is purely functional or lacks objective boundaries, the claim may fail to satisfy the definiteness requirement because a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty. See, e.g., Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. (holding claims indefinite where the claim language failed to provide objective boundaries for determining the scope of the invention).
Specifically, while the specification generally describes verification processes and associated data elements, it does not clearly define or distinguish the structure, content or functional boundaries of the claimed “second verification data” relative to the recited “first verification data”. As a result, it remains unclear what specific information constitutes the “second verification data”, how it from the “first verification data” or what criteria determines whether particular data falls within the scope of the claimed limitations.
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of metes and bounds of the claimed invention, particularly with respect to the limitation reciting:
“based on the first verification data and on second verification data associated with the verification event identifier, determine that the event data complies with at least one of a policy or a restriction associated with the verification event.”
Because the scope of “second verification data” remains unclear, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention, as required by 35 USC § 112(b) and MPEP § 2173.02.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 21-41 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 34-39 are rejected under the same rationale as in claims 21, 33, 40.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It appears that the specification fails to provide sufficient guidance or support for a claimed term, “a second verification data” recited in claims 21, 33, 40 . The specification generally describes verification processes and associated data elements, it does not clearly define or distinguish the structure, content or functional boundaries of the claimed “second verification data” relative to the recited “first verification data”. Claim limitation “a second verification data” is so vague/ambiguous that one skilled in the art cannot reasonably determine its scope, it is therefore, deemed indefinite.
Prior art rejections are not provided because the scope of the claim cannot be determined.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 KAMINI B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3902. The examiner can normally be reached on 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 on 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 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.
/KAMINI B PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114