DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 3 February 2025, claiming benefit back to 11 October 2019.
Claims 2 – 21 are pending and have been examined.
This action is Non-Final.
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 .
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 18/750,883 filed on 21 June 2024, (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
It has been held that to satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. (See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116). Further, it has been held that a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. (Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Claim 2 recites the limitations of monitoring an allocation rate of a resource in response to the selected threshold routing value; adjusting the threshold routing value dynamically based on monitoring of the allocation rate of the resource; and transmitting the adjusted threshold routing value for implementing the resource allocation based on the adjusted threshold routing value, however Examiner is unable to find support in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure that reasonably conveys to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Initially, Examiner is unable to find support for the limitation of monitoring an allocation rate of a resource in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
In respect to the limitation of monitoring, Applicant’s disclosure recites the term in the following paragraphs:
[0081] One or more data structures in a relational data structure may reflect whether particular access-rights have been assigned or remain available. This data may be based on data received from a catalog system 342 that monitors and tracks statuses of resource access-rights…
[0102] Communications manager module 406 can implement transport-layer functions. For example, communications manager module 406 can identify a transport protocol for an outgoing message (e.g., transmission control protocol (TCP) or user diagram protocol (UDP)) and appropriately encapsulate the message into transport protocol data units. Message processor module 404 can initiate establishment of connections between devices, monitor transmissions failures, control data transmission rates and monitoring transmission quality. As another example, communications manager module 406 can read a header of an incoming message to identify an application layer protocol to receive the message's data. The data can be separated from the header and sent to the appropriate application. Message processor module 404 can also monitor the quality of incoming messages and/or detect out of order incoming packets.
[0126] Intermediate system coordination engine 510 can monitor communication channels with intermediate systems to track the health and security of the channel. For example, a healthy connection can be inferred when scheduled signals are consistently received…
[0144] A combination of modules 414,416,418 comprise a secure addressable endpoint agent 420 that acts as an adapter and enables cross-device interfacing in a secure and reliable manner so as to facilitate allocation of access-enabling codes and coordinate resource access. Secure addressable endpoint agent 420 can further generate a health signal that is transmitted to another device for monitoring of a status of a communication channel. The health signal is optionally a short message of a few bytes or many bytes in length that may be transmitted on a frequent basis (e.g., every few milliseconds or seconds). A communications manager 406 on the receiving device can then monitors the health signal provided by the agent to ensure that the communication link between the host server and device 400 is still operational.
[0169] Peer monitor 830 can monitor communications, networks, radio signals, short-range signals, etc., which can be received by a receiver of user device 110) Peer monitor 830 can, for example, detect a short-range communication from another device and/or use a network multicast or broadcast to request identification of nearby devices. Upon or while detecting another device, peer monitor 830 can determine an identifier, device type, associated user, network capabilities, operating system and/or authorization associated with the device. Peer monitor 530 can maintain and update a data structure to store a location, identifier and/or characteristic of each of one or more nearby user devices.
[0203] It will be appreciated that, in various instances, a load may be generated in response to evaluation of a load (e.g., in an attempt to define a load that accords with request parameters), or a load may be first defined (e.g., based on which access-right slots remain available and/or distribution priorities of the primary load management system) and it is then determined which rule to which the load corresponds. In some instances, a primary-system rule as to which access-right slots are to be included in a load and/or a secondary-system rule as to which access-right slots are requested may depend on information, such as an
environmental characterization corresponding to a resource, a throughput monitor and/or a discrepancy associated with a resource (e.g., a spread or line associated with a resource)…
As can be seen in the above paragraphs, there is no description, either explicitly or inherently, of the claim monitoring an allocation rate of a resource. Noting that this is a continuation Application, see MPEP at 2163.II.3(b) which states “To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. When an explicit limitation in a claim "is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation." Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Further, MPEP 2163.I.B states “While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure.
In respect to the limitation an allocation rate of a resource, Examiner is unable find any recitation of this term in Applicant’s disclosure. There is no disclosure, either inherently or explicitly, of an allocation rate, or an allocation rate of a resource. The only disclosure of a rate is a ‘conversion rate’, which is not the same as an allocation rate, and the ‘conversion rate’ in Applicant’s disclosure refers to historical information, not monitoring of any rate with respect to a selected value. See Applicant’s disclosure, [0235] and [0236].
Next, Examiner is unable to find support for the limitation of adjusting the threshold routing value dynamically based on monitoring of the allocation rate of the resource in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Initially, since there is no disclosure of an allocation rate, there is no adjusting of a threshold value based on the rate in Applicant’s disclosure.
Further, Examiner is unable to find any disclosure of adjusting the threshold routing value dynamically based on monitoring of the allocation rate of the resource. The closest disclosure is found in paragraphs [0236] and [0239], which state:
[0236] In some implementations, threshold routing value selector 1350 can automatically select threshold routing values using reinforcement learning techniques, and if the selected threshold routing values yield rewards (e.g., high conversion rates above a threshold), then the model continues to use the selected threshold routing values as reference. If the model does not detect any reward or if the reward(s) are reduced, then the dynamic system can automatically explore different threshold routing values to identify a better-performing threshold routing value (e.g., in terms of resource allocation) than the threshold routing value being used.
[0239] FIG. 15 depicts a flow chart of a method 1500 for resource-access facilitation, according to an exemplary embodiment. Particularly, the method 1500 relates to dynamic determination of threshold routing value using machine-learning models.
As such, Applicant’s disclosure, either inherently or explicitly, fails to convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed
adjusting the threshold routing value dynamically based on monitoring of the allocation rate of the resource.
Next, Examiner is unable to find support for the limitation of transmitting the adjusted threshold routing value for implementing the resource allocation based on the adjusted threshold routing value, as there is no teaching in Applicant’s disclosure of an adjusted threshold routing value as recited in the previous claim limitation. (i.e., since Applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose adjusting the threshold routing value dynamically based on monitoring of the allocation rate of the resource, it further fails to disclose the transmitting the adjusted threshold routing value for implementing the resource allocation based on the adjusted threshold routing value).
As such, claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as Examiner is unable to find support in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure that reasonably conveys to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
See MPEP 2163 II. A. 3. (i): “Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function. In contrast, without such a correlation, the capability to recognize or understand the structure from the mere recitation of function and minimal structure is highly unlikely. In this latter case, disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession; it does not satisfy the written description requirement. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (written description requirement not satisfied by merely providing “a result that one might achieve if one made that invention”); In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming a rejection for lack of written description because the specification does “little more than outline goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate”).
Also see MPEP 2163 II. A. 3. (a) Possession may be shown in many ways. For example, possession may be shown by describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Possession may also be shown by a clear depiction of the invention in detailed drawings or in structural chemical formulas which permit a person skilled in the art to clearly recognize that inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description of the invention may be shown by any description of sufficient, relevant, identifying characteristics so long as a person skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the written description "inquiry is a factual one and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis"); see also Pfaff v. Wells Elec., Inc., 55 U.S. at 66, 119 S.Ct. at 311, 48 USPQ2d at 1646 ("The word ‘invention’ must refer to a concept that is complete, rather than merely one that is ‘substantially complete.’ It is true that reduction to practice ordinarily provides the best evidence that an invention is complete. But just because reduction to practice is sufficient evidence of completion, it does not follow that proof of reduction to practice is necessary in every case. Indeed, both the facts of the Telephone Cases and the facts of this case demonstrate that one can prove that an invention is complete and ready for patenting before it has actually been reduced to practice.")
Claims 3 – 10 depend on claim 2, and have the same deficiencies under 35 USC 112(a), and are rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 11 recites the same limitations as found in claim 2, and is rejected using the same rationale. Claims 12 – 19 depend on claim 11, and have the same deficiencies under 35 USC 112(a), and are rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 20 recites the same limitations as found in claim 2, and is rejected using the same rationale. Claims 21 depends on claim 20, and has the same deficiencies under 35 USC 112(a), and is rejected using the same rationale.
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 2 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 2 recites the limitations of: A computer-implemented method for dynamically adjusting threshold routing values for resource allocation, the method comprising:
receiving data from a plurality of data sources, wherein the data comprises event information and historical performance metrics;
generating a context vector, wherein the context vector represents contextual information associated with the event information and the historical performance metrics;
selecting a threshold routing value from a set of threshold routing values based on the context vector using a reinforcement learning algorithm;
monitoring an allocation rate of a resource in response to the selected threshold routing value;
adjusting the threshold routing value dynamically based on monitoring of the allocation rate of the resource; and
transmitting the adjusted threshold routing value for implementing the resource allocation based on the adjusted threshold routing value.
These limitations (bolded and italicized), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, price determination for routing or sending communications, such as promotions or advertisements, based on value determined by a rate of allocation of a resource, such as a ticket to an event1. These limitations encompass certain methods of organizing human activity, such as commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. B. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A – 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Exemplary claim 2 recites the additional element of receiving data from a plurality of data sources, wherein the data comprises event information and historical performance metrics, however this is recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 2 further recites the additional element of generating a context vector, wherein the context vector represents contextual information associated with the event information and the historical performance metrics, however this is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity2. Claim 2 further recites the additional limitation of a reinforcement learning algorithm; however, this amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The algorithm is used generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the reinforcement learning algorithm functions.
Independent claim 11 recites the additional elements of one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; however, these are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Independent claim 20 recites the additional elements of a computer-program product tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium; however this is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). The claim is directed to the abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims, and it has been held that “[i]n defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350. )
Turning to the dependent claims, none of the claimed features of the dependent claims further limit the claimed invention in such a way to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter (e.g. change the scope of the claimed invention as to no longer be directed towards an abstract idea, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se), nor do they add limitations that, when taken as a combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to exemplary dependent claims 3 – 10:
Claim 3 further describes the insignificant extra-solution activity;
Claim 4 merely adds further comparison steps to the judicial exception;
Claim 5 merely further describes the threshold selection;
Claim 6 merely further describes the data that is described by the vector;
Claim 7 merely further describes the source of the received data;
Claim 8 merely further describes the reinforcement learning algorithm;
Claims 9 and 10 merely further describe the data used in the judicial exception;
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry3 [e.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data] .
Applicant’s specification, at, e.g., paragraphs [0043], [0071]-[0080],[0151]-[0153], [0235], [0261]-[0263], provides evidence of generic computer hardware performing generic, well-known, computer functions.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation4.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 2 – 20 do not currently stand rejected under 35 USC 102 or 103, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the 112(a) rejection, above.
With respect to exemplary independent claim 2, the prior art of record (see below), either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality directed to monitoring an allocation rate of a resource in response to the selected threshold routing value; adjusting the threshold routing value dynamically based on monitoring of the allocation rate of the resource; and transmitting the adjusted threshold routing value for implementing the resource allocation based on the adjusted threshold routing value.
However, since these limitations are rejected under 35 USC 112(a), any amendments to these limitations may cause the claims to be rejected over art under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Ives-Halperin; Kenneth et al. US 20170076522 A1 Short-Range Device Communications For Secured Resource Access
Scarborough; David et al. US 20170237820 A1 Location-Based Task Execution For Enhanced Data Access
Scarborough; David et al. US 20150066546 A1 Biased Ticket Offers For Actors Identified Using Dynamic Assessments Of Actors' Attributes
Ashner; Louis Clayton et al. US 9832128 B1 Dynamic advertisement routing
Karlsson; Niklas US 20170249652 A1 Adaptive Representation Of A Price/Volume Relationship
Denker; Dennis A. et al. US 9202180 B2 Methods and systems for computer aided event and venue setup and modeling and interactive maps
Rishabh; Ish et al. US 10528896 B2 Dynamic model-based access right predictions
Cernoch D et al. US 20190230082 A1 Method for performing scalable authentication of access to resource data using workflows, involves enabling user to access user account associated with user in response to determining that user is successfully authenticated
Brown S et al. US 20180357105 A1 Method for generating dynamic model-based recommendations of access rights for users for mobile device, involves generating resource prediction with unassigned access right to resource based on determined parameter of resource
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
1 See, e.g., Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0039], which discloses that an electronic resource can be a ticket to an event, for example. See also [0227], which describes threshold routing values for promotional communications.
2 See Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0235], which merely states that “Context generator 1340 may generate a context vector (e.g., a data vector representing a contextual model) from the data stored in data sources 1310 through 1330”.
3 “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. Id, pages 10-11. “Likewise, the server fails to add an inventive concept because it is simply a generic computer that “administer[ s]” digital images using a known “arbitrary data bank system.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 45–46. But “[f]or the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2359). “These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 1348 (“storing information” into memory, and using a computer to “translate the shapes on a physical page into typeface characters,” insufficient confer patent eligibility); Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (generic computer components such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 (a “database” and “a communication medium” “are all generic computer elements”); BuySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”)”. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C., (No. 15-1372, (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)), at *12-13.
See additionally MPEP 2106.05(d).
4 “Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted))”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Prosecution Insights