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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-12, and 14-24 remain
pending in the application.
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 1 and 5-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation “the normalized number of events.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting “the normalized number of events” as “a normalized number of events.”
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, 5-12, and 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a mental process because the claim recites a method that includes determining, based at least in part on the plurality of event logs and for individual pairs of the two or more intervals associated with the period of time, a distance metric; determining, based at least in part on the plurality of event logs, one or more entropy metrics associated with the period of time; determining, based at least in part on the plurality of event logs, a number of events associated with each of the two or more intervals associated with the period of time; generating, based at least in part on the one or more entropy metrics, a normalized entropy metric associated with the period of time; generating, based at least in part on the distance metric associated with the individual pairs of intervals, a normalized distance metric for the individual pairs of intervals; and determining, based at least in part on the normalized distance metric, the normalized entropy metric, and the normalized number of events, an entropic load associated with the plurality of event logs over the period of time; and generating, based at least in part on the entropic load, a visual representation of the entropic load. This is a method of evaluation that can be performed in the human mind and with pencil and paper. In addition, these limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. Thus, the claim falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of receiving a plurality of event logs associated with a period of time, the period of time having two or more intervals; and, causing the visual representation of the entropic load to be presented on a display of a user device. These limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instead, the process of receiving and displaying information merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The courts have recognized the following functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements of receiving and displaying information merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claims 5-10 and 22-23 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claim 5 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., defining the distance metric is one or more of the following: a Jensen-Shannon Distance, a Kullback-Leibler Distance, a Hellinger Distance, a Total Variation Distance, a Wasserstein Distance, a Bhattacharyya Distance, or Kolmogorov-Smirnov Distance. Claim 6 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., defining the normalization technique one or more of a Min-Max Scaling or Sigmoid Function. Claims 7 and 9 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., defining the first interval associated with the period of time and the event logs used in the calculations. Claims 8 and 10 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., defining visual representations associated with the plurality of events and the summed distance metric. Claim 22 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., defining determining a time series visual representation. Claim 23 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., defining generating a visual representation of the normalized distance metric.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts and mental processes that can be performed in the human mind and/or with pencil and paper. Thus, claims 2-10 and 22-23 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B.
Claims 22-23 recite the additional elements of causing data to be presented on the display.
These limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instead, the process of receiving and displaying information merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The courts have recognized the following functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,
e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claims 2-10 and 22-23 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 11 recites a mental process because the claim recites a method that includes determining, based at least in part on the plurality of event logs, one or more entropy metrics associated with the period of time; determining, based at least in part on the plurality of event logs, a number of events associated with individual intervals of the two or more intervals; determining, for individual pairs of the two or more intervals associated with the period of time, a distance metric; determining, based at least in part on the one or more entropy metrics, the distance metric for the pairs of intervals, and the number of events for individual intervals, an entropic load associated with the plurality of event logs over the period of time; and determining, based at least in part on the plurality of entropic load, a time series visual representation associated with the plurality of events. This is a method of evaluation that can be performed in the human mind and with pencil and paper. In addition, these limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. Thus, the claim falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the determining and presenting processes in a computer environment. The mere nominal recitation of a display; a user interface; one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites the additional elements of receiving a plurality of event logs associated with a set of agents for a period of time, the period of time having two or more intervals; and, causing the time series visual representation to be presented on the display. These limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instead, the process of receiving and displaying information merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The courts have recognized the following functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements of receiving and displaying information merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claims 12, 14-16, and 24 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 11 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claim 12 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 11 by e.g., defining the distance metric is a Jensen-Shannon Distance. Claim 14 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 11 by e.g., defining generating a normalized entropy metric, a normalized number of events, a normalized distance metric associated with the period of time. Claim 15 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 11 by e.g., defining visual representations associated with the plurality of events and the entropic load. Claim 16 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 11 by e.g., defining the pairs of intervals associated with the period of time. Claim 24 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 11 by e.g., generating a visual representation associated with the individual one of the plurality of event logs. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts and mental processes that can be performed in the human mind and/or with pencil and paper. Thus, claims 12, 14-16, and 24 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 11 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B.
Claim 24 recites the additional elements of causing data to be presented on a display. This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instead, the process of displaying information merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The courts have recognized the following functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial,
the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Accordingly, alone and in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claims 12, 14-16, and 24 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 17 recites a mental process because the claim recites a method that includes assigning individual events of a plurality of events associated with a period of time to an individual interval of the period of time; determining the number of events assigned to each of the individual intervals of the period of time; determining, based at least in part on the plurality of events, an entropy metric associated with individual intervals of the period of time; determining, for individual pairs of intervals associated with the period of time, a distance metric; determining, based at least in part on the number of events for one or more of the individual intervals, the entropy metric associated with one or more of the individual intervals, and the distance metric for one or more pairs of intervals, an entropic load associated with the period of time; and generating, based at least in part on the entropic load, a visual representation of the entropic load. This is a method of evaluation that can be performed in the human mind and with pencil and paper. In addition, these limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. Thus, the claim falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites the additional element of causing the time series visual representation to be presented on a display of a user device. This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instead, the process of displaying information merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The courts have recognized the following functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Accordingly, alone and in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 18-21 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 17 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claim 18 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 17 by e.g., defining generating a normalized distance metric, a normalized entropy metric, and a normalized number of events. Claim 19 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 17 by e.g., defining causing a visual representation of the summed distance metric and the summed entropy metric. Claim 20 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 17 by e.g., defining the pairs of intervals associated with the period of time. Claim 21 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 17 by e.g., defining normalized distance metric. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts and mental processes that can be performed in the human mind and/or with pencil and paper. Thus, claims 18-21 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 17 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claims 18-21 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Novel & Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 5-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 and the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 1 would be allowable for disclosing generating, based at least in part on the one or more entropy metrics, a normalized entropy metric associated with the period of time; generating, based at least in part on the number of events for each interval, a normalized number of events associated with the period of time; and determining, based at least in part on the normalized distance metric, the normalized entropy metric, and the normalized number of events, an entropic load associated with the plurality of event logs over the period of time.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims, and rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections. Claim 14 would be allowable for disclosing
generating, based at least in part on the one or more entropy metrics, a normalized entropy
metric associated with the period of time; and determining, based at least in part on the one or more entropy metrics, the distance metric for the pairs of intervals, and the number of events for individual intervals, an entropic load associated with the plurality of event logs over the period of time.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims, and rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections. Claim 18 would be allowable for disclosing
generating, based at least in part on the one or more entropy metric associated with the
individual intervals, a normalized entropy metric for the period of time; determining, based at least in part on the number of events for one or more of the individual intervals, the entropy metric associated with one or more of the individual intervals, and the distance metric for one or more pairs of intervals, an entropic load associated with the period of time.
Kaplan US 20090099820 A1 teaches generating, based at least in part on the distance metric associated with the individual pairs of intervals, a normalized distance metric. Additionally, Kaplan teaches determining entropy metrics associated with the period of time, and determining a number of events associated with each of the two or more intervals associated with the period of time. However, the cited art does not teach determining an entropic load associated with the plurality of event logs over the period of time based at least in part on the normalized distance metric, the normalized entropy metric, and the normalized number of events.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, Applicant argues that “[a] human mind cannot ‘generating, based at least in part on the entropic load, a visual representation of the entropic load’ nor cause ‘the visual representation of the entropic load to be presented on a display of a user device’” (p. 12). The Examiner disagrees that a human mind cannot generate a visual representation of data. For example, the human mind can envision a graph, chart, and/or numbers representing a value prior to drawing the graph, chart, and/or numbers on paper.
Regarding generation of the visual representation, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis added). As the Federal Circuit explained, “methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’” 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) (“‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’” (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Applicant argues that “the instant claims, as amended, do integrate the alleged
abstract idea into a practical application at least by improving at least one technical field,
specifically, visualization of entropy data associated with a collection of related activities or
events” (p. 13). The Examiner disagrees. Contrary to the position taken by Applicant, visualizing data does not improve technology or a technical field.
Applicant argues that:
It was not well-known to perform a method involving "generating, based at least in part
on the one or more entropy metrics, a normalized entropy metric associated with the period of time; generating, based at least in part on the distance metric associated with the individual pairs of intervals, a normalized distance metric for the individual pairs of intervals; determining, based at least in part on the normalized distance metric, the normalized entropy metric, and the normalized number of events, an entropic load associated with the plurality of event logs over the period of time; [and] generating, based at least in part on the entropic load, a visual representation of the entropic load" from which the visualization of entropy data associated with a collection of related activities or events is generated. This ordered combination of features is inventive
(pp. 15-16).
The Examiner disagrees. A claim that recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea) is eligible. Therefore, any purported inventive concept has to be an additional element that is not part of the abstract idea. In the present claims, there is no inventive concept that is in addition to (i.e., not a part of) the abstract idea. For instance, the features cited by Applicant in the previous paragraph, are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the process steps are directed to “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes”). If the purported inventive concept is part of the abstract idea, it is not an “additional element” under Step 2B. Therefore, even assuming arguendo that the abstract limitations were novel/non-obvious, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant argues that “the Office has not shown, by any of the four categories of the Berkheimer Memo, that the claims are well-understood, routine, and conventional” (pp. 17-18). The Examiner disagrees. As described more fully above, the process of receiving and displaying information merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The courts have recognized the following functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUANE MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-7544. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached on (571)272-4602. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/D.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628