DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 12/11/2025.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 5, 8, 15, and 18 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-14 of Applicant’s Response, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10 of Applicant’s response filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant next argues, on pages 8-9, that the sending and receiving of information cannot be performed mentally, and therefore the claims do not recite one or more abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the use of a network to send and receive information amounts to the generic computer implementation of the one or more abstract ideas, as outlined below. Examiner has not characterized sending information using a network as an abstract idea. Rather, the receipt of a ride request could be performed mentally, and the mere requirement to receive such a request over a network amounts to generic computer implementation thereof. Since the claims do in fact recite abstract ideas, and the performance of such using a network to transmit and receive the information amounts to the generic computer implementation thereof, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues, on pages 9-10, that the claims recite an improvement to a technical system by optimizing routes based on advertising opportunities while maintaining acceptable travel parameters. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that optimizing a route of a vehicle for maximizing advertising revenue based on bids, at best, represents an improvement to the abstract idea itself (the business process of routing vehicles), rather than to any technical component or technical system. As noted by MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), “. . . it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Since the claims bring about an improvement to the abstract idea itself, rather than any technical component or technical system, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the maintenance of network connectivity demonstrates that the invention amounts to a concrete technological solution. Examiner respectfully disagrees, notes that such maintenance is not claimed, and, even if it were, this limitation would amount to mere generic computer implementation of the one or more abstract ideas.
Applicant argues that the dynamic routing comprises a technical solution. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that rerouting of vehicles is routinely performed in coordinating autonomous vehicle rides for users, therefore the activity is a business relation and commercial sales activity. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine and a process, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1 and 11 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and 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); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1 and 11, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
receiving. . . a ride request from a passenger requesting autonomous vehicle transportation service, the ride request indicating a pick-up location and a drop-off location; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a ride request comprising this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ride servicing companies would perform this step in performing ride services for their customers)
determining a plurality of routes beginning at the pick-up location and ending at the drop-off location, each route in the plurality of routes satisfying a condition; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a plurality of routes in this fashion; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ride servicing companies would perform this step in performing ride services for their customers)
for each route in the plurality of routes, determining an expected monetary value associated with the route, wherein the expected monetary value is based on bid values for promotions of business entities having a place of business located within a predetermined proximity of the route, and wherein the bid value for a promotion indicates a monetary amount offered by the business entity in exchange for presenting the promotion to a rider during a ride. . . ; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine an expected monetary value of each determined routes based on advertisement bid amounts; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ride servicing companies would perform this step in performing ride services for their customers)
wherein determining the expected monetary value for at least one route in the plurality of routes comprises applying a promotion filter to exclude at least one promotion associated with the at least one route when the at least one promotion is for a same product or service from as offered by another business entity along the same route; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine an expected monetary value of a plurality of routes by excluding promotions for products or service offered by another business entity along the same route; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ride servicing companies would perform this step in performing ride services for their customers)
selecting from the plurality of routes the route with the highest expected monetary value; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could select a route with the highest monetary value from a plurality of routes; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ride servicing companies would perform this step in performing ride services for their customers)
and providing. . . the selected route. . . (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine provide a route which has been selected for a transportation trip; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ride servicing companies would perform this step in performing ride services for their customers)
subsequent to selecting the route, determining the existence of a promotion affiliated with a business entity that is within a threshold distance to the selected route; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine the existence of a promotion affiliated with a business within a threshold distance of a route; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ride servicing companies would perform this step in performing ride services for their customers)
communicating. . . promotion data for the promotion. . . for presentation to the rider; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine communicate promotion data for presentation to a rider; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ride servicing companies would perform this step in performing ride services for their customers)
wherein the promotion is presented. . . providing an option that is selectable by a rider of the autonomous vehicle to deviate from the selected route and direct the autonomous vehicle to travel to a place of business associated with the promotion. (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could present a promotion to a rider which, if selected, changes the route to go to the place of business associated with the promotion; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ride servicing companies would perform this step in performing ride services for their customers)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A system for selecting a route for a network-connected autonomous vehicle, the system comprising: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a processor; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a memory storage device storing executable instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A method for determining a route for a network-connected autonomous vehicle, the method comprising: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and providing, via a network, the selected route to the network-connected autonomous vehicle. (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents the mere addition of insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of post-solution data output; furthermore, the provision of a selected route for a rider recites one or more abstract ideas, as outlined above, and the mere requirement to do so using an autonomous vehicle amounts to the mere general linking of this abstract idea to the field of use of autonomous vehicles and/or the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using an autonomous vehicle)
. . . to a computing device of the autonomous vehicle. . . (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . via an in-vehicle display or via a mobile device of the rider; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . over a network. . . (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
wherein the promotion is presented, via an in-vehicle display of the autonomous vehicle, providing an option that is selectable by a rider of the autonomous vehicle to deviate from the selected route and direct the autonomous vehicle to travel to a place of business associated with the promotion. (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents the mere addition of insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of post-solution data output; furthermore, the presentation of a promotion of a business for selection by a user in order to change the route and transport the user to the place of business if selected by a user recites one or more abstract ideas, as outlined above, and the mere requirement to do so using an autonomous vehicle amounts to the mere general linking of this abstract idea to the field of use of autonomous vehicles and/or the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using an autonomous vehicle)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The following limitations have been characterized above as extra-solution activity:
and providing the selected route to the network-connected autonomous vehicle. (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents the court-recognized well-understood routine and conventional computer function of transmitting and receiving information over a network)
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2 and 12:
wherein the condition is that an expected travel time of the route does not exceed an expected travel time of a default route by more than a threshold amount, the default route determined to be the fastest route.
This limitation merely alters the condition used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 3 and 13:
wherein determining the expected monetary value associated with the route comprises: identifying promotions associated with business entities having a place of business located within the predetermined proximity of the route;
for each identified promotion, retrieving the bid value associated with presenting the promotion to a rider;
and aggregating the bid values for the identified promotions.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify promotions within a predetermined proximity of a route, retrieve bid values, and aggregate them; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ride servicing companies would perform this step in performing ride services for their customers
Claims 4 and 14:
wherein the operations further comprise: selecting one or more promotions associated with the selected route based on the bid values;
and transmitting promotion data for the selected promotions to the autonomous vehicle for presentation to a rider during the ride.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could select a promotion and send it to a user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ride servicing companies would perform this step in performing ride services for their customers. Regarding the transmission of such via a communication device and an autonomous vehicle device, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claims 6 and 16:
wherein determining the expected monetary value associated with the route comprises applying a machine learning model to generate a rider acceptance score for each promotion, wherein the rider acceptance score represents a predicted likelihood of the rider interacting with the promotion.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could use a machine learning model to determine a rider acceptance score; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ride servicing companies would perform this step in performing ride services for their customers; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass any mathematical operation or formula which uses a machine learning model to generate the score.
Claims 7 and 17:
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving updated promotion data for a new promotion associated with a location proximate to the current route of the autonomous vehicle during the ride;
determining an expected monetary value associated with diverting to the location of the new promotion based on the bid value;
and in response to the expected monetary value exceeding a threshold, directing the autonomous vehicle to divert to the location associated with the new promotion.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive updated data, determine updated monetary values, and change a route based on such; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ride servicing companies would perform this step in performing ride services for their customers. Regarding the direction of the autonomous vehicle, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents the mere addition of insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of post-solution data output, the broadest reasonable interpretation of which comprises the court-recognized well-understood routine and conventional computer function of transmitting and receiving information over a network.
Claims 9 and 19:
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a selection of an option presented via an in-vehicle display indicating rider acceptance of a promotion;
and in response, automatically placing an order for a product or service associated with the promotion on behalf of the rider.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a selection from an ad and place an order for a product or service; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ride servicing companies would perform this step in performing ride services for their customers. Regarding the transmission of such via a communication device and an autonomous vehicle display, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claims 10 and 20:
wherein the bid value for a promotion is programmatically determined by a computing system of a business based on real-time sales data, inventory data, and wait time data associated with a place of business.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment compute a bid price based on these factors; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ride servicing companies would perform this step in performing ride services for their customers; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass any mathematical operation or formula for computing the bid price. Regarding the use of a computing system of a business, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628