DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication of February 19, 2026, Applicant, on May 19, 2026, amended claims 1-3, 9, 11, 12, & 16, canceled claims 8 & 18, and added claims 25-28. Claims 5-7, 14, 15, & 17 were previously canceled. Claims 1-4, 9-13, 16, & 19-28 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 19, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections are updated and maintained below.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Applicant argued the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the claim limitations cannot be performed in the human mind, since the claim is structured in two different streams of data processing to occur, wherein should there be a plurality of attributes of natural gas infrastructure that need to be grouped, both the database stream and the calculation stream are required, whereas reusable grouped attribute values are only processed through the database stream, the grouping strategy rooted behind the invention is to ultimately used to reduce the amount of asset data sent to a cloud computing network, and in the above-identified limitations, amended claims as a whole require computer-specific processing mechanisms because they require parallel processing streams and deterministic identifier generation to ensure collision-free matching. Examiner respectfully disagrees
Pursuant to 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, in order to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, under Step 2A, we first (1) determine whether the claims recite limitations, individually or in combination, that fall within the enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes), and (2) determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55. Next, if a claim (1) recites an abstract idea and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, in order to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept,” under Step 2B, we then determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and in combination, are significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
But for the parameters being input "via a graphical user interface," referring to one of the streams as a "database stream," and the other stream configured to "execute a code," a human can mentally perform the steps, including the steps performed as the two different streams, referred to by Applicant.
As noted above, Prong 1 of Step 2A asks whether the claims recite limitations, individually or in combination, that fall within the enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract, and Prong 2 of Step 2A and 2B consider “any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea.” The claims do indeed recite limitations that can be performed mentally for the reasons set forth below under Prong 1 of Step 2A. In addition to the limitations that can be performed mentally, the other elements referred to by Applicant in this argument regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A of "via a graphical user interface," "database," and "executing a code" are additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea addressed under prong 2 of Step 2A and Step 2B, and under prong 2 of Step 2A and Step 2B these elements are nothing more than generic computer components apply the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claim 1, and similarly claims 2-4, 9-13, 16, & 19-28, recites:
forecasting failure in a plurality of natural gas infrastructures …:
inputting … model parameters to generate a likelihood of failure for each of the plurality of natural gas infrastructures against a threat, wherein the model parameters correspond to data associated with a plurality of attributes for a plurality of natural gas infrastructures, the data comprising a first dataset and one or more subsequent datasets from industry, environmental and census sources;
processing the first dataset via a … stream and a calculation stream, wherein the … stream is configured to update the first dataset … and the calculation stream …, the processing further comprising:
generating independently, in the … stream and the calculation stream, a plurality of identifiers based on the plurality of attributes;
grouping, in the … stream, the first dataset according to at least one grouped attribute combination corresponding to at least one sub-portion of a hazard model, wherein the at least one grouped attribute combination comprises a distinct set of input values corresponding to the plurality of attributes;
tagging, in the … stream, each of the at least one grouped attribute combination with a corresponding first identifier from the plurality of identifiers;
determining, in the calculation stream, output values corresponding to at least one computed grouped attribute combination based on the at least one sub-portion of the hazard model;
tagging, in the calculation stream, each of the output values with a corresponding second identifier from the plurality of identifiers;
determining, in the … stream, one or more reusable grouped attribute values from the output values by matching the corresponding first identifier with the corresponding second identifier, such that the corresponding first identifier is equal to the corresponding second identifier; and
… the one or more reusable grouped attribute values …; and
forecasting one or more failure rates of said plurality of natural gas infrastructures
identifying, in the … stream, the at least one grouped attribute combination from the one or more subsequent datasets;
retrieving, in the … stream, the one or more reusable grouped attribute values corresponding to the at least one grouped attribute combination from the one or more subsequent datasets from …; and
determining the one or more failure rates based on the hazard model using the one or more reusable grouped attribute values, such that a processing time of the one or more subsequent datasets is less than the processing time of the first dataset due to reuse of the one or more reusable grouped attributes;
deriving one or more risk assessment values based on the failure rate of said natural gas infrastructures; and
displaying the one or more risk assessment ….
Claims 1-4, 9-13, 16, & 19-28, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of forecasting failure of a plurality of natural gas infrastructures by inputting parameters to generate likelihood of failure of the infrastructures against a threat corresponding to data with attributes regarding the infrastructure comprising a first dataset and other datasets from industry, environmental, and census sources, processing the data by generating identifies based on the attributes in independent streams, grouping the first dataset based on a grouped attributes of a sub-portion of a hazard model, tagging each grouped attribute with a first identifier of the identifiers, determining output values for the group attributes based on the sub-portion of the hazard model, tagging the output values a second identifier of the identifiers, determining and storing reusable grouped attribute values from the output values by matching the first and second identifier, forecasting failure rates of the infrastructure by identifying the group attribute from the other datasets, retrieving the corresponding reusable grouped attribute values from the other datasets, determining the failure rates using the reusable group attributes such that processing time is reduced by reusing reusable attributes, determining the output values for ungrouped data based on the sub-portion of the hazard model, deriving risk values based on the failure rate, and outputting the risk values.
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions,
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited inputting parameters to generate likelihood of failure of the infrastructures against a threat corresponding to data with attributes regarding the infrastructure comprising a first dataset and other datasets from industry, environmental, and census sources, processing the data by generating identifies based on the attributes in independent streams, grouping the first dataset based on a grouped attributes of a sub-portion of a hazard model, tagging each grouped attribute with a first identifier of the identifiers, determining output values for the group attributes based on the sub-portion of the hazard model, tagging the output values a second identifier of the identifiers, determining and storing reusable grouped attribute values from the output values by matching the first and second identifier, forecasting failure rates of the infrastructure by identifying the group attribute from the other datasets, retrieving the corresponding reusable grouped attribute values from the other datasets, determining the failure rates using the reusable group attributes such that processing time is reduced by reusing reusable attributes, determining the output values for ungrouped data based on the sub-portion of the hazard model, deriving risk values based on the failure rate, and outputting the risk values could all be reasonably interpreted as a human making observations of data regarding assets and their attributes, a human performing evaluations based on the observations and using judgement to generate identifiers, group the data, tag attributes with identifiers, determine output values using a hazard model, tag the output values with identifiers, record reusable group attribute values mentally and/or with a pen and paper, a human performing an evaluation and using judgement of the observed data to identify and retrieve subgroups and reusable group attribute values, and a human performing an evaluation using the observed and identified reusable group attribute values to forecast failure rates by determining failure rates by reusing reusable attributes to reduce processing time and deriving risk values based on the model mentally and/or with a pen and paper; therefore, the claims recite a mental processes.
Simply implementing the abstract idea with generic computer components, such as "via a graphical user interface," a "database" and "execute a code" or other generic computer components, does make the claims addressing a technical problem, in capable of being performed by a human, directed to an improvement in computers or other technology, nor otherwise integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The alleged reduction in processing time would be the same regardless of whether the limitations are performed mentally or with a computer, and thus, the alleged improvement is in the abstract mental process, which is the abstract idea itself. The MPEP makes clear "an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology" and that "[m]ere automation of manual processes" is not an improvement in computer technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The limitations referred to by Applicant recite a mental process despite any computational efficiency when performing these limitations on a computer rather than performing the process mentally.
Moreover, as in the claims at issue in Electric Power Group, the present claims are not focused on a specific improvement in computers or any other technology, but instead on certain independently abstract ideas that simply invokes computers as tools to implement the abstract idea. Electric Power Group, LLC V. Alstom S.A., et al., No. 2015-1778, slip op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016); MPEP 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, since the claims recite mental processes, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application as the computer, in this case, is not merely used as a tool to execute the claimed invention, but rather, the computer is improved by optimizing the way in which risk assessments are executed to speed up processing and reduce the time and processing power required to meet the same objective through a conventional system and method, Applicant's specification discusses an improvement to computer functionality by establishing a computational architecture configured to reduce redundant computation, minimize data transmission between processing streams, and enable scalable forecasting across various datasets, rather than recalculating failure rates for a plurality of natural gas infrastructure in each required instance, the claimed system and method decomposes data processing into two distinct processing streams with defined roles, generates identifiers independently in each processing stream as a deterministic function of attribute values, matches identifiers as a technical mechanism to correlate grouped data, and stores reusable grouped attribute values that can be efficiently retrieved and applied when processing subsequent datasets, and these are improvements to the functioning of the computer system itself, not merely instructions to be executed by generic computer components to perform an abstract idea more quickly. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The alleged improved technology of optimizing the way in which risk assessments are executed is not a technology, but rather a mental process. A human can make risk assessments as recited in the claims, including by distinct two or more distinct processing streams and speeding up processing and reducing the time by using reusable grouped attributes, for the reasons discussed above under Prong 1 of Step 2A.
Simply implementing the abstract idea with generic computer components, such as a "via a graphical user interface," referring to one of the streams as a "database stream," the other stream configured to "execute a code" or the other generic computer components, does make the claims addressing a technical problem nor otherwise directed to an improvement in computers or other technology. The MPEP makes clear “an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” and that “[m]ere automation of manual processes” is not an improvement in computer technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The limitations referred to by Applicant recite a mental process despite any computational efficiency when performing these limitations on a computer rather than performing the process mentally.
Moreover, as in the claims at issue in Electric Power Group, the present claims are not focused on a specific improvement in computers or any other technology, but instead on certain independently abstract ideas that simply invokes computers as tools to implement the abstract idea. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., et al., No. 2015-1778, slip op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016); MPEP 2106.05(a).
Under Prong 2 of Step 2A, in claim 1, and similarly claims 2-4, 8-13, 16, & 18-24, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea are the recitations of “[a] computer-implemented method,” “database,” “execute code,” “storing … in a memory,” “from the memory,” and via and in “a graphical user interface” in claim 1, and individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components, which is not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, these elements merely generally link the abstract idea to a field of use.
Applicant argues the claims amount to significantly more by reciting "generating independently, in the database stream and the calculation stream, a plurality of identifiers based on the plurality of attributes," “the step of a plurality of identifiers are generated independently in each pathway to avoid collisions in the system,” “this eliminates the need to store the plurality of identifiers since they are deterministic and are only derived when necessary,” as “a whole, the claims recite limitations that specify the enabling infrastructure for risk assessment values to be determined, further supporting that the claimed invention involves improved computational efficiency, the “claims recite a specific computer architecture that improves how computations of failure rates for a plurality of natural gas infrastructure are executed in an ordered combination of steps involving the reuse of attribute values across various datasets by coordinating distinct processing pathways,” and “the arrangement of various computer components and processing streams to execute all the steps as claimed is not well-understood, routine or conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations asserts recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, for the reasons discussed above under Prong 1 of Step 2A, are part of and directed to the recited abstract idea and recite an abstract mental process that can be performed mentally, even including the limitations that generates the identifiers in independent streams with the alleged avoiding of collisions, eliminating the need to store identifiers, and improved computing efficiency because this can be performed mentally by a human observing information and performing evaluations and using judgement to generate the identifiers in independent processing streams.
As noted above, simply implementing the abstract idea with generic computer components, such as a “database” and “execute a code” or other generic computer components, does make the claims directed to an improvement in computers or other technology or otherwise sufficient to be significantly more than an abstract idea. The limitations referred to by Applicant can be performed mentally and the alleged improvements of this would be the same regardless of whether the limitations are performed mentally or with a computer, and thus, the alleged improvement is in the abstract mental process, which is the abstract idea itself. The MPEP makes clear “an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” and that “[m]ere automation of manual processes” is not an improvement in computer technology or otherwise transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The limitations referred to by Applicant recite a mental process despite any computational efficiency when performing these limitations on a computer rather than performing the process mentally.
Moreover, as in the claims at issue in Electric Power Group, the present claims are not focused on a specific improvement in computers or any other technology, but instead on certain independently abstract ideas that simply invokes computers as tools to implement the abstract idea. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., et al., No. 2015-1778, slip op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016); MPEP 2106.05(a).
Under Step 2B, in claim 1, and similarly claims 2-4, 8-13, 16, & 18-24, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea are the recitations of “[a] computer-implemented method,” “database,” “execute code,” “storing … in a memory,” “from the memory,” and via and in “a graphical user interface” in claim 1, and individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components, which is not sufficient to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, these additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea merely generally link the abstract idea to a field of use. Additionally, these additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0051] (describing the methods described herein may be achieved via an appropriate programmable processing device that executes software, or stored instruction, and physical processors and/or machines employed by embodiments of the present disclosure for any processing or evaluation may include one or more networked or non-networked general purpose computer systems). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic record keeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7.
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, 9-13, 16, & 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims (claim 1, and similarly claims 2-4, 9-13, 16, & 19-28), in view of the first prong of Step 2A, recite:
forecasting failure in a plurality of natural gas infrastructures …:
inputting … model parameters to generate a likelihood of failure for each of the plurality of natural gas infrastructures against a threat, wherein the model parameters correspond to data associated with a plurality of attributes for a plurality of natural gas infrastructures, the data comprising a first dataset and one or more subsequent datasets from industry, environmental and census sources;
processing the first dataset via a … stream and a calculation stream, wherein the … stream is configured to update the first dataset … and the calculation stream …, the processing further comprising:
generating independently, in the … stream and the calculation stream, a plurality of identifiers based on the plurality of attributes;
grouping, in the … stream, the first dataset according to at least one grouped attribute combination corresponding to at least one sub-portion of a hazard model, wherein the at least one grouped attribute combination comprises a distinct set of input values corresponding to the plurality of attributes;
tagging, in the … stream, each of the at least one grouped attribute combination with a corresponding first identifier from the plurality of identifiers;
determining, in the calculation stream, output values corresponding to at least one computed grouped attribute combination based on the at least one sub-portion of the hazard model;
tagging, in the calculation stream, each of the output values with a corresponding second identifier from the plurality of identifiers;
determining, in the … stream, one or more reusable grouped attribute values from the output values by matching the corresponding first identifier with the corresponding second identifier, such that the corresponding first identifier is equal to the corresponding second identifier; and
… the one or more reusable grouped attribute values …; and
forecasting one or more failure rates of said plurality of natural gas infrastructures
identifying, in the … stream, the at least one grouped attribute combination from the one or more subsequent datasets;
retrieving, in the … stream, the one or more reusable grouped attribute values corresponding to the at least one grouped attribute combination from the one or more subsequent datasets from …; and
determining the one or more failure rates based on the hazard model using the one or more reusable grouped attribute values, such that a processing time of the one or more subsequent datasets is less than the processing time of the first dataset due to reuse of the one or more reusable grouped attributes;
deriving one or more risk assessment values based on the failure rate of said natural gas infrastructures; and
displaying the one or more risk assessment ….
Claims 1-4, 9-13, 16, & 19-28, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of forecasting failure of a plurality of natural gas infrastructures by inputting parameters to generate likelihood of failure of the infrastructures against a threat corresponding to data with attributes regarding the infrastructure comprising a first dataset and other datasets from industry, environmental, and census sources, processing the data by generating identifies based on the attributes in independent streams, grouping the first dataset based on a grouped attributes of a sub-portion of a hazard model, tagging each grouped attribute with a first identifier of the identifiers, determining output values for the group attributes based on the sub-portion of the hazard model, tagging the output values a second identifier of the identifiers, determining and storing reusable grouped attribute values from the output values by matching the first and second identifier, forecasting failure rates of the infrastructure by identifying the group attribute from the other datasets, retrieving the corresponding reusable grouped attribute values from the other datasets, determining the failure rates using the reusable group attributes such that processing time is reduced by reusing reusable attributes, determining the output values for ungrouped data based on the sub-portion of the hazard model, deriving risk values based on the failure rate, and outputting the risk values.
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited inputting parameters to generate likelihood of failure of the infrastructures against a threat corresponding to data with attributes regarding the infrastructure comprising a first dataset and other datasets from industry, environmental, and census sources, processing the data by generating identifies based on the attributes in independent streams, grouping the first dataset based on a grouped attributes of a sub-portion of a hazard model, tagging each grouped attribute with a first identifier of the identifiers, determining output values for the group attributes based on the sub-portion of the hazard model, tagging the output values a second identifier of the identifiers, determining and storing reusable grouped attribute values from the output values by matching the first and second identifier, forecasting failure rates of the infrastructure by identifying the group attribute from the other datasets, retrieving the corresponding reusable grouped attribute values from the other datasets, determining the failure rates using the reusable group attributes such that processing time is reduced by reusing reusable attributes, determining the output values for ungrouped data based on the sub-portion of the hazard model, deriving risk values based on the failure rate, and outputting the risk values could all be reasonably interpreted as a human making observations of data regarding assets and their attributes, a human performing evaluations based on the observations and using judgement to generate identifiers, group the data, tag attributes with identifiers, determine output values using a hazard model, tag the output values with identifiers, record reusable group attribute values mentally and/or with a pen and paper, a human performing an evaluation and using judgement of the observed data to identify and retrieve subgroups and reusable group attribute values, and a human performing an evaluation using the observed and identified reusable group attribute values to forecast failure rates by determining failure rates by reusing reusable attributes to reduce processing time and deriving risk values based on the model mentally and/or with a pen and paper; therefore, the claims recite a mental processes. Further, with respect to the dependent claims, aside from the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea addressed below under the second prong of Step 2A and 2B, the limitations of dependent claims 2-4, 10-13, & 19-28, recite similar further abstract limitations to those discussed above that narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims because, aside from the generic computer components and systems performing the claimed functions the limitations of claims recite mental processes that can be practically performed mentally by observing, evaluating, and judging information mentally and/or with a pen and paper. Accordingly, since the claims recite mental processes, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “[a] computer-implemented method,” “database,” “execute code,” “storing … in a memory,” “from the memory,” and via and in “a graphical user interface” in claim 1, “[a] system … the system comprising: one or more computing devices connected to a server through a network, wherein the server comprises: a memory that stores …; and one or more processors coupled to the memory comprising program instructions, wherein the program instructions are executable by the one or more processors to,” “database,” “execute code,” “storing … in a memory,” “from the memory,” and via and in “a graphical user interface” in claim 9, “network involves cloud computing infrastructure” in claim 10, “[a] non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions, that when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising,” “database,” “execute code,” “storing … in a memory,” “from the memory,” and via and in “a graphical user interface” in claim 16, and “in a graphical user interface” in claim 18; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Further, these elements merely generally link the abstract idea to a field of use. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-4, 10-13, & 19-28 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0051] (describing the methods described herein may be achieved via an appropriate programmable processing device that executes software, or stored instruction, and physical processors and/or machines employed by embodiments of the present disclosure for any processing or evaluation may include one or more networked or non-networked general purpose computer systems). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic record keeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-4, 10-13, & 19-28 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-4, 9-13, 16, & 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES A GUILIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
CHARLES GUILIANO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights