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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/23/26 has been entered.
A) Claims amended:
Independent claims: 1, 11 and 21.
B) Claims canceled: 5, 15 and 25.
Claim Status
Claim status: claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-24 and 26-30 are pending.
1) Method1: 1 -4, and 6-10, and
2) Article1: 11-14 and 16-20, and
3) Apparatus1: 21-24 and 26-30.
The pending claims comprise 3 groups of similar scope.
As of 10/23/25, independent claim 1 is as followed:
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising:
[1] identifying a closed charitable organization that would be available to at least partially satisfy medical expenses associated with a patient if the closed charitable organization was accepting new applications, wherein the closed charitable organization includes a charitable organization that is no longer taking applications for financial assistance;
[2] monitoring the closed charitable organization to determine if the closed charitable organization has reopened, including periodically polling the closed charitable organization to determine if the closed charitable organization has reopened utilizing automated visits that a website of the closed charitable organization; and
[3] if the closed charitable organization has reopened, submitting an application for the patient to the now reopened charitable organization.
Note: numerals [1]-[3] are added to the beginning of each step for reference purpose.
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, 6-14, 16-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(1) a method of organizing human activities,
(2) an idea of itself, or
(3) a mathematical relationship or formula.
In details:
(1) Certain method of organizing human activities --
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-24 and 26-30:
Claim category:
1) Process/Method1: 1-4 and 6-10.
2) Article1: 11-14 and 16-20, and
2) Machine/System1 & 2: 21-24 and 26-30.
2) Analysis:
Method1: claims 1-4 and 6-10 are directed to a computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, for obtaining funding from a charitable organization comprising steps of: identifying a closed charitable organization that would be available to at least partially satisfy medical expenses associated with a patient if the closed charitable organization was accepting new applications; monitoring the closed charitable organization to determine if the closed charitable organization has reopened; and if the closed charitable organization has reopened, submitting an application for the patient to the now reopened charitable organization. (Step 1: yes).
Article1: claims 11-14 and 16-20 are directed to a computer program product having instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor the perform operations for obtaining funding from a charitable organization comprising the steps of:
identifying a closed charitable organization that would be available to at least partially satisfy medical expenses associated with a patient if the closed charitable organization was accepting new applications; monitoring the closed charitable organization to determine if the closed charitable organization has reopened; and if the closed charitable organization has reopened, submitting an application for the patient to the now reopened charitable organization. (Step 1: yes).
System1 (apparatus): claims 21-24 and 26-30 are directed to a system for obtaining funding from a charitable organization comprising the steps of: identifying a closed charitable organization that would be available to at least partially satisfy medical expenses associated with a patient if the closed charitable organization was accepting new applications; monitoring the closed charitable organization to determine if the closed charitable organization has reopened; and if the closed charitable organization has reopened, submitting an application for the patient to the now reopened charitable organization. (Step 1: yes).
Thus, the claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-24 and 26-30 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method for obtaining funding from a charitable organization comprising the steps of: identifying a closed charitable organization that would be available to at least partially satisfy medical expenses associated with a patient if the closed charitable organization was accepting new applications; monitoring the closed charitable organization to determine if the closed charitable organization has reopened; and if the closed charitable organization has reopened, submitting an application for the patient to the now reopened charitable organization, is a well known business method for obtaining funding from a charitable organization which is a method of organizing human activities and is an abstract idea. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the use of at least one processor.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Furthermore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of monitoring the patient assistance (PA) program campaign of a charitable organization wherein the campaign could be a seasonal campaign, for example 3 times/year, 3-month period, with a month of break in between, and submitting the application to the PA program during the open season. This constitutes an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The claim steps in the context of the claim encompass a user determining when the restriction items exceeds a limit, which is a type of “observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.”
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for obtaining funding from a charitable organization, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] identify organization (data) . Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution
Activity (IESA).
[2] monitor the organization, polling the organization … business/human activity/mental
[3] If reopened, submit (send) application (data). Data output, IESA
Step [1] and [3] are data gathering and data transmitting which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Step [2] is well known business method (human activities) for monitor the status of the charitable organization by polling the organization for open campaign to submit an application for funding.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer devices or modules or software, i.e. processor with a software application thereon. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for obtaining funding from a charitable organization, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The processor in all the steps is recited a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device performing generic computer functions of: obtaining funding from a charitable organization comprising the steps of: identifying a closed charitable organization that would be available to at least partially satisfy medical expenses associated with a patient if the closed charitable organization was accepting new applications; monitoring the closed charitable organization to determine if the closed charitable organization has reopened; and if the closed charitable organization has reopened, submitting an application for the patient to the now reopened charitable organization, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[3] above.
Step [1] and [3] are data gathering and data transmitting which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Step [2] is well known business method (human activities) for monitor the status of the charitable organization by polling the organization for open campaign to submit an application for funding.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer devices or modules or software, i.e. processor with a software application thereon. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for obtaining funding from a charitable organization, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The processor in all the steps is recited a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device performing generic computer functions of: identifying a closed charitable organization that would be available to at least partially satisfy medical expenses associated with a patient if the closed charitable organization was accepting new applications; monitoring the closed charitable organization to determine if the closed charitable organization has reopened; and if the closed charitable organization has reopened, submitting an application for the patient to the now reopened charitable organization, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [2]-[3], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As for the system or method claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components, i.e. a processor, a memory to store a set of instructions. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software for carrying out the steps of obtaining funding from a charitable organization, which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claims 2-3 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the type of organization, i.e. a charity and defined by, these further limits the abstract idea of the analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 2-3 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 4 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the source or type of funding, this further limits the abstract idea of the funding features, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 5 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 6 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the campaign monitoring parameters, these further limit the abstract idea of the campaign parameters/ features, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 5-6 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 7 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the database defining funding features, this further limits the abstract idea of the database, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 7 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 8 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the storing application for subsequent submission, this further limits the abstract idea of the application storing features, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 8 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 9-10 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the funding applying features, this further limits the abstract idea of the funding applying features, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 9-10 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Claims 11-14, 16-24, and 26-30 are the article and system claims of method claim 1-4, and 6-10 and have similar limitation as in claims 1-4 and 6-10.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-24, and 26-30 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
On October 10, 2007, the Patent Office issued the "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.," 73 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (2007) (hereinafter the Examination Guidelines). Section III is entitled "Rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103." Within this section is the following quote from the Supreme Court: "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by merely conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Under the Examination Guidelines, the following is a list of rationales that may be used to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(e) "Obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
(g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Each rationale is resolved using the Graham factual inquiries.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 (method1) and respectively 11-14 and 16-20 (article) and respectively 21-24 and 26-30 (system1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over:
Names Publications:
(1) PERRY US 2013/0.132.106,
(2) SMITH ET AL. US 2022/0.245.683,
(3) MOORE US 2003/0.115.216.
As for independent claim 1, 11, and 21, PERRY discloses a computer-implemented method, article, and system for funding a patient assistance program, executed on a computing device, comprising:
[1] identifying a charitable organization that would be available to at least partially satisfy medical expenses associated with a patient if the charitable organization was accepting new applications,
{see [0001 … patient assistance programs …health care areas including, for example, cardiology, hematology, neurology, …]} The patient assistance programs in the cardiology area would define the cardiology diagnosis for the patience.
PNG
media_image1.png
284
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[3] if the closed charitable organization has reopened, submitting an application for the patient to the now reopened charitable organization.
{see [0001 …patients and/or health care providers are generally required to submit specific documentation and patient information to the charitable organization …]}
{see [0001 …ability to pay for services rendered… charitable organizations may offer safety net and patient assistance programs…]}
PERRY teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly discloses step [2] of “monitoring the charitable organization … including periodically polling the closed charitable organization to determine …closed charitable organization.”
SMITH ET AL. teaches the monitoring of a donor giving schedule by identifying giving status, i.e. close or open, and generating a visualized recurrence schedule for donation and displaying these information to the user, see Fig. 3, Fig. 6, [0032].
PNG
media_image2.png
260
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
746
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
543
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fund payment system for the patient assistance program of PERRY by including the monitoring of a donor giving schedule by identifying giving status, i.e. close or open, and generating a visualized recurrence schedule for donation and displaying these information to the user as taught by SMITH ET AL. for identifying the start of the donation campaign for further use such as submitting the application to the patient assistance program.
As for the limitation of wherein the closed charitable organization includes a charitable organization that is no longer taking applications for financial assistance; this would have been obvious because when the charity organization does not receive fund from the donor, it has no resources to help the patient and it should not take applications for financial assistance.
PERRY /SMITH ET AL. teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly discloses step [2] of “monitoring the charitable organization … including periodically polling (accessing) the closed charitable organization to determine …closed charitable organization.”
MOORE teaches a method for developing market intelligence wherein a first business entity would visit (access or poll) a web site of a second business entity to extract information about the 2nd business entity for types of products/services provided and the hours of operation. Such a process may be automated by programming a web robot to visit each competitor (2nd) business site periodically and to extract information about service systematically, see [0018].
PNG
media_image5.png
316
479
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fund payment system for the patient assistance program of PERRY /SMITH ET AL. by developing market intelligence wherein a first business entity would visit (access or poll) a web site of a second business entity to extract information about the 2nd business entity for types of products/services provided and the hours of operation as taught by MOORE for developing market intelligence of knowing when the charitable organization is open and receives application for assistance from the needed patients. Furthermore, as shown in [0018], such a process may be automated by programming a web robot to visit each competitor (2nd) business site periodically and to extract information about service system. It would have been obvious to include the step of accessing the 2nd entity site automatically by programming a web robot to visit each competitor (2nd) business site periodically and to extract information about service system in the system of PERRY /SMITH ET AL. for market intelligence benefit, as taught by MOORE.
As for dependent claim 2 (part of 1 above) and respective 12 (part of 11 above), and respective 22 (part of 21 above), which deals with a type of organization, a charity, this is taught in PERRY [0001 … charitable organization…]}
As for dependent claim 3 (part of 1 above) and respective 13 (part of 11 above), and respective 23 (part of 21 above), which deals with data about the charitable organization are defined in a database, this is taught in [0036 … databases that store information … health care product information…] and [0034 ..A health care product supplier can include .. charitable organizations ….] and Fig. 3A, databases 200.
As for dependent claim 4 (part of 1 above) and respective 14 (part of 11 above), and respective 24 (part of 21 above), which deals with the source of funding, treatment-based funding, this is taught in [0001… healthcare area … cardiology, hematology, …].
As for dependent claim 6 (part of 1 above) and respective 16 (part of 11 above), and respective 26 (part of 21 above), which deals a requesting a message / notification if the organization is open, this is taught in SMITH ET AL. in view of MOORE, wherein SMITH ET AL. discloses in Fig. 3, 304, “Yes”, “Display message” 306, and respective [0032 … start date… end date…checks the donor status is still open, … is not active (closed) at 304…]. The use of the “generated message” for “notification” would have been obvious.
As for dependent claim 7 (part of 1 above) and respective 17 (part of 11 above), and respective 27 (part of 21 above), which deals with applying the application for funding automatically by populating an application, this is taught in PERRY claim 5, “computer-implemented method … generating … request application comprises populating … request application.”
As for dependent claim 8 (part of 1 above) and respective 18 (part of 11 above), and respective 28 (part of 21 above), which deals with applying the application for funding automatically by populating an application and storing the application for subsequent submission, this is taught in PERRY claim 5, “computer-implemented method … generating … request application comprises populating … request application” and {see [0001 … charitable organizations may offer safety net and patient assistance programs …health care areas including, for example, cardiology, hematology, neurology, …]} and SMITH ET AL. in view of MOORE, Fig. 2 “Storing the recurrence schedule as a record” and respective [0031]. The storing of other relevant data such as application for patient assistance program in PERRY would have been obvious so that they may work together to fulfill the scope of PERRY.
As for dependent claim 9 (part of 1 above) and respective 19 (part of 11 above), and respective 29 (part of 21 above), which deals with applying the application for funding when the charitable organization is open, this is taught in PERRY [0001] in view of the teaching of SMITH ET AL. in view of MOORE on Fig. 6, 602 “Paused” and Fig. 3, “304”, “Status: Yes.”
PNG
media_image1.png
284
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for dependent claim 10 (part of 1 above) and respective 20 (part of 11 above), and respective 30 (part of 21 above), which deals with applying the application for funding when the charitable organization is open, this is taught in PERRY [0001], claim 5, “computer-implemented method … generating … request application comprises populating … request application” and {see [0001 … charitable organizations may offer safety net and patient assistance programs …health care areas including, for example, cardiology, hematology, neurology, …]} and SMITH ET AL. in view of SMITH ET AL. as shown in SMITH ET AL. Fig. 6, 602 “Paused” and Fig. 3, “304”, “Status: Yes.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) s 1-30 have been considered and the results are as followed:
1) 101 Rejection: Applicant’s comment on page 8 that the independent claims have been amended to recite additional features and that the additional features are significant to pass the pass 2A, prong 2, and 2B test. These arguments are not persuasive because the additional feature is just another mental step for analyzing the status of opening of a business by polling (accessing or visiting) the business website automatically and periodically to obtain it’s status or condition.
2) 103 Rejection: applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new citations have been used to address the amended features.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6:30-4:30 PM (ET).
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689