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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 02/27/2026. Claims 1, 10 – 11, & 20 were amended in a reply filed 06/18/2026. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 06/30/2026 was filed before the mailing date of the final office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 FR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The claims filed 06/18/2026 have obviated the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The claims filed 06/18/2026 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims 11 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. However, claims 11 – 20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 commensurate with the Alice/Mayo inquiry as outlined below.
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/18/2026 with respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues, on pp. 15 – 16, that the claims require “performing a maintenance activity for each processing device while it is deactivated. The processing devices of an oil refinery, a gas processing plant or a chemical plant, are tangible machines configured to produce output materials, which are physical quantities. Accordingly, limitation (vi)-(vii) describe performing physical operations (i.e., switching to processing devices to the inactive status and performing the maintenance activities) on tangible machines (i.e., the processing devices), and therefore do not recite abstract ideas.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that the claims do not recite abstract ideas. Claims 1 & 11 (see the below 101 rejection) recite functions that encompass determining a shutdown schedule for a production facility. These limitations cover performance during a commercial interaction or while following rules or instructions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” as well as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Additionally, determining a shutdown schedule for a production facility could be performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper, and thus falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)). Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas that fall within both the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas.
Examiner further notes that the functionality of “deactivating the plurality of processing devices by switching each processing device to an inactive status during its respective optimum calendared deactivation period,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, could be performed by adjusting a piece of information or generating a flag (or any status indicator) next to a field for a particular piece or equipment in a spreadsheet or chart. In other words, this imitation does not require any tangible elements to be physically changed whatsoever. Accordingly, this step is a part of the recited judicial exception itself.
Examiner additionally notes that the functionality of performing the maintenance activities during a deactivation period are denoted as post-solution activity under Step 2A, Prong Two as well as well-understood, routine, conventional activity that is merely appended to the judicial exception under Step 2B as outlined in the below 101 rejection, and are thus not deemed to be a part of the recited judicial exception as per Step 2A, Prong One.
Applicant next argues, on pg. 16, that, similar to CardioNet, LLC V. InfoBionic, the instant claims are “not directed to an abstract idea because they applied computational steps to improve of the functioning of a technical field” because the “determined optimum deactivation schedule is materialized by switching the processing devices to inactive during their respective optimum calendared deactivation period.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and initially notes that CardioNet has a vastly different fact pattern. In particular, the court stated that the “’207 patent’s written description identifies a number of advantages gained by the elements recited in the claimed cardiac monitoring device. By analyzing the “variability in the beat-to-beat timing” for “atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in light of the variability in the beat-to-beat timing caused by ventricular beats identified by the ventricular beat detector,” the claimed invention more accurately detects the occurrence of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, as distinct from V-TACH and other arrhythmias. ’207 patent col. 3 ll. 6–16, 21–26, 35–39. We accept those statements as true and consider them important in our determination that the claims are drawn to a technological improvement.” In contrast, Applicant has not provided any evidence that the step of changing the status of a device amounts to an improvement in the functionality of a computing device or any other technology.
Examiner reiterates that the functionality of “deactivating the plurality of processing devices by switching each processing device to an inactive status during its respective optimum calendared deactivation period,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, could be performed by adjusting a piece of information or generating a flag (or any status indicator) next to a field for a particular piece or equipment in a spreadsheet or chart. In other words, this imitation does not require any tangible elements to be physically changed whatsoever. Accordingly, this step is a part of the recited judicial exception itself.
Applicant next argues, on pg. 17, that “even if independent claim 11 were interpreted as reciting a judicial exception, limitations (ii)-(vii) would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, limitations (ii)-(vii) are directed to switching processing devices of a processing to inactive in a manner that optimizes a production objective of the processing system.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, the exemplary steps of claim 11 which Applicant refers as steps ii – vi are recited in claim 11 as the following steps: “receive, for each processing device of the plurality of processing devices, a minimum deactivation time for a maintenance activity to be performed on the processing device; receive a maximum turnaround time for a turnaround operation of the processing system, the turnaround operation comprising, for each processing device, the maintenance activity to be performed on the processing device; receive, for the deactivation schedule, a set of conditions comprising: a deactivation period condition that, for each processing device in the plurality of processing devices, a duration of the calendared deactivation period of the processing device is no less than the minimum deactivation time associated with the processing device; a turnaround condition that a total duration of the deactivation schedule does not exceed the maximum turnaround time, and a stateful non-overlap condition that, at least, reduces overlap between calendared deactivation periods; determine, subject to the set of conditions, an optimum deactivation schedule for the processing system, the determination comprising optimizing a production objective based on a production of the one or more materials, the optimum deactivation schedule comprising, for each processing device, an optimum calendared deactivation period associated with the processing device, and deactivate the plurality of processing devices by switching each processing device to an inactive status during its respective optimum calendared deactivation period.”
These limitations recite abstract ideas that fall within both the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas, as outlined above and below in the 101 rejection.
Step vii entails the functionality of performing the maintenance activities during a deactivation period, which is post-solution activity under Step 2A, Prong Two as well as well-understood, routine, conventional activity that is merely appended to the judicial exception under Step 2B. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP2106.05(g)), as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity").” (See MPEP2106.05(g)) Similarly, the mere addition of post-solution maintenance activity to a process for determining a deactivation schedule does not amount to an inventive concept.
Moreover, the purported improvement of optimizing a production objective is a business-related improvement rather than an improvement in the functionality of a computing device or any other technology. The court in Enfish noted that “the first step in the Alice inquiry in this case asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database) or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. As noted infra, in Bilski and Alice and virtually all of the computer-related § 101 cases we have issued in light of those Supreme Court decisions, it was clear that the claims were of the latter type—requiring that the analysis proceed to the second step of the Alice inquiry, which asks if nevertheless there is some inventive concept in the application of the abstract idea.” See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 2357–59. In this case, however, the plain focus of the claims is not to an improvement to computer functionality itself, but “on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity” (e.g., optimizing a production objective). The instant claims are directed to a method of organizing human activity as well as a mental process, which invokes generic computer components as a mere tool for implementation, rather to an improvement thereof. The claims are not directed to an improvement in the functionality of a computing device or other technology; rather, the claims are directed to an improvement to the recited judicial exception itself, and do not recite any additional elements that provide integration of the recited judicial exception into a practical application..
Applicant next argues, on pg. 17, that “limitations (ii)-(vii) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception” because “independent claim 11 describes optimizing a production objective of the processing system under conditions that are not routine or conventional for a generic computer. These conditions include the deactivation period condition, the turnaround condition and the stateful non-overlap condition recited in limitation (iv). Accordingly, amended independent claim 11 provides a specific technical solution for operating a processing system, rather than merely applying generic, conventional functions known in the art.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and initially notes that the conditions of limitation iv, rather than being classified as “routine or conventional” by the Office, have been deemed to be a part of the recited judicial exception itself. Limitation iv is a step of merely obtaining information: “receive, for the deactivation schedule, a set of conditions comprising: a deactivation period condition that, for each processing device in the plurality of processing devices, a duration of the calendared deactivation period of the processing device is no less than the minimum deactivation time associated with the processing device; a turnaround condition that a total duration of the deactivation schedule does not exceed the maximum turnaround time, and a stateful non-overlap condition that, at least, reduces overlap between calendared deactivation periods.” The acquiring of calendaring criteria for use in generating a deactivation schedule is part of the recited judicial exception and does not amount to an improvement in the functionality of a computing device or other technology.
Examiner notes that “limitation vii” is the only element that is deemed to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The 101 rejection below points to the generic description of the extra-solution activity of “performing, for each processing device, the maintenance activity associated with the processing device while the processing device is deactivated” and “wherein, for each processing device, the maintenance activity associated with the processing device is performed while the processing device is deactivated a maintenance [sic]” in the instant specification: [0034] “The processing system (201) produces each of the one or more materials at a certain specific material production rate… The turnaround operation is a process of deactivating a set of processing devices (where the set may include all the processing devices) in the plurality of processing devices (203) for a certain amount of time, specific to the processing device. While deactivated, a processing device may undergo maintenance.” [0046] “A system maintenance (319) is performed in accordance with the optimum deactivation schedule (317). The system maintenance (319) includes performing, for each processing device Ui, one or more maintenance activities during the optimum calendared deactivation periods St, while the processing device Ui is deactivated. Maintenance activities may be of several types. Examples of maintenance activities that may be performed for a processing device include, but are not limited to, an inspection of the processing device, a cleaning of the processing device, a tuning of the processing device and a repair of the processing device, such as, for example, replacing a part of the processing device.” Therefore, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more. (See Berkheimer Memo, § (III.)(A.)(1.)).
The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “wherein: the processing system is configured to: the plurality of processing devices produce one or more materials, and the processing system is configured to operate…” is recited, instead of the grammatically-correct “wherein the plurality of processing devices are configured to produce one or more materials, and the processing system is configured to operate…,” or similar language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “wherein: the processing system comprises, wherein: the processing system comprises a plurality of processing devices” is recited, instead of the grammatically-correct “wherein: the processing system comprises a plurality of processing devices,” or similar language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “while the processing device is deactivated a maintenance” is recited in the last limitation, instead of the grammatically-correct “while the processing device is deactivated,” or similar language. Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 – 10 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 11 – 20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1 – 20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites: “obtaining, for each processing device of a plurality of processing devices of a processing system comprising at least one of an oil refinery, a gas processing plant or a chemical plant, a minimum deactivation time for a maintenance activity to be performed on the processing device… obtaining a maximum turnaround time for a turnaround operation of the processing system, the turnaround operation comprising, for each processing device, the maintenance activity to be performed on the processing device; obtaining, for the deactivation schedule, a set of conditions comprising: a deactivation period condition that, for each processing device in the plurality of processing devices, a duration of the calendared deactivation period of the processing device is no less than the minimum deactivation time associated with the processing device; a turnaround condition that a total duration of the deactivation schedule does not exceed the maximum turnaround time, and a stateful non-overlap condition that, at least, reduces overlap between calendared deactivation periods; determining, subject to the set of conditions, an optimum deactivation schedule for the processing system, the determination comprising optimizing a production objective based on a production of the one or more materials, the optimum deactivation schedule comprising, for each processing device, an optimum calendared deactivation period associated with the processing device; deactivating the plurality of processing devices by switching each processing device to an inactive status during its respective optimum calendared deactivation period.”
Independent claim 11 recites: “receive, for each processing device of the plurality of processing devices, a minimum deactivation time for a maintenance activity to be performed on the processing device; receive a maximum turnaround time for a turnaround operation of the processing system, the turnaround operation comprising, for each processing device, the maintenance activity to be performed on the processing device; receive, for the deactivation schedule, a set of conditions comprising: a deactivation period condition that, for each processing device in the plurality of processing devices, a duration of the calendared deactivation period of the processing device is no less than the minimum deactivation time associated with the processing device; a turnaround condition that a total duration of the deactivation schedule does not exceed the maximum turnaround time, and a stateful non-overlap condition that, at least, reduces overlap between calendared deactivation periods; determine, subject to the set of conditions, an optimum deactivation schedule for the processing system, the determination comprising optimizing a production objective based on a production of the one or more materials, the optimum deactivation schedule comprising, for each processing device, an optimum calendared deactivation period associated with the processing device, and deactivate the plurality of processing devices by switching each processing device to an inactive status during its respective optimum calendared deactivation period.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction or while following rules or instructions. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass generating a shutdown schedule for a production facility. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” as well as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Additionally, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in in the human mind or with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, and thus falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)). Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas that fall within both the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 & 11, as a whole, amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of: “the processing system is configured to: the plurality of processing devices produce one or more materials,” “the processing system is configured to operate in accordance with a deactivation schedule comprising, for each processing device in the plurality of processing devices, a calendared deactivation period associated with the processing device, during which the processing device is deactivated,” and “performing, for each processing device, the maintenance activity associated with the processing device while the processing device is deactivated.”
Claim 11 recites the additional elements of: “a processing system comprising at least one of an oil refinery, a gas processing plant or a chemical plant,” “wherein: the processing system comprises a plurality of processing devices configured to produce one or more materials,” “the processing system is configured to operate in accordance with a deactivation schedule comprising, for each processing device in the plurality of processing devices, a calendared deactivation period associated with the processing device, during which the processing device is deactivated,” “a computer comprising one or more computer processors, configured to,” and “wherein, for each processing device, the maintenance activity associated with the processing device is performed while the processing device is deactivated a maintenance [sic].”
The additional element of “a computer comprising one or more computer processors, configured to” is recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of “the processing system is configured to: the plurality of processing devices produce one or more materials,” “a processing system comprising at least one of an oil refinery, a gas processing plant or a chemical plant,” and “wherein: the processing system comprises a plurality of processing devices configured to produce one or more materials” are recited at a high-level of, and when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of “the processing system is configured to operate in accordance with a deactivation schedule comprising, for each processing device in the plurality of processing devices, a calendared deactivation period associated with the processing device, during which the processing device is deactivated,” “performing, for each processing device, the maintenance activity associated with the processing device while the processing device is deactivated,” and “wherein, for each processing device, the maintenance activity associated with the processing device is performed while the processing device is deactivated a maintenance [sic]” amounts to a mere instruction to “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, these additional elements, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution activity) and thus do not amount to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment, and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP2106.05(g)), as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The extra-solution activity of “the processing system is configured to operate in accordance with a deactivation schedule comprising, for each processing device in the plurality of processing devices, a calendared deactivation period associated with the processing device, during which the processing device is deactivated,” “performing, for each processing device, the maintenance activity associated with the processing device while the processing device is deactivated,” and “wherein, for each processing device, the maintenance activity associated with the processing device is performed while the processing device is deactivated a maintenance [sic]” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity that is merely appended to the judicial exception, as evidenced by the generic description of these elements in the instant specification:
• [0034] “The processing system (201) produces each of the one or more materials at a certain specific material production rate… The turnaround operation is a process of deactivating a set of processing devices (where the set may include all the processing devices) in the plurality of processing devices (203) for a certain amount of time, specific to the processing device. While deactivated, a processing device may undergo maintenance.”
• [0046] “A system maintenance (319) is performed in accordance with the optimum deactivation schedule (317). The system maintenance (319) includes performing, for each processing device Ui, one or more maintenance activities during the optimum calendared deactivation periods St, while the processing device Ui is deactivated. Maintenance activities may be of several types. Examples of maintenance activities that may be performed for a processing device include, but are not limited to, an inspection of the processing device, a cleaning of the processing device, a tuning of the processing device and a repair of the processing device, such as, for example, replacing a part of the processing device.”
• [0083] “The system maintenance (319) includes a maintenance activity for each processing device while the processing device is deactivated, during the optimum calendared deactivation period associated with the processing device.”
Therefore, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more. (See Berkheimer Memo, § (III.)(A.)(1.)).
Therefore, the additional generic computer elements of “a computer comprising one or more computer processors, configured to,” “the processing system is configured to: the plurality of processing devices produce one or more materials,” “a processing system comprising at least one of an oil refinery, a gas processing plant or a chemical plant,” “wherein: the processing system comprises a plurality of processing devices configured to produce one or more materials,” “the processing system is configured to operate in accordance with a deactivation schedule comprising, for each processing device in the plurality of processing devices, a calendared deactivation period associated with the processing device, during which the processing device is deactivated,” “performing, for each processing device, the maintenance activity associated with the processing device while the processing device is deactivated,” and “wherein, for each processing device, the maintenance activity associated with the processing device is performed while the processing device is deactivated a maintenance [sic]” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 10 & 12 – 20 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. Claims 8 – 9 & 18 – 19 additionally substantially recite “wherein determining the optimum deactivation schedule further comprises optimizing a plurality of objective functions using an optimizer comprising one of: a multi-objective optimizer; a sequential optimizer comprising a sequence of stages, each stage associated with a distinct objective function among the plurality of objective functions, and a single-objective optimizer configured to combine the plurality of objective functions (claims 8 & 18),” “wherein the optimizer comprises one of: a linear programing algorithm; a lexicographic algorithm; a Lagrange multiplier algorithm, and a genetic algorithm (claims 9 & 19),” which are limitations that fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas, and are therefore not eligible subject matter. The additional elements of “a refinery; a gas processing plant, and a chemical plant” in claims 10 & 20 generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)). The extra-solution activity of “the maintenance activity associated with the processing device comprises one or more of: an inspection of the processing device, or a repair of the processing device” in claims 10 & 20 is well-understood, routine, conventional activity that is merely appended to the judicial exception, as evidenced by the generic description of these elements in the instant specification (See [0046], noting that “Maintenance activities may be of several types. Examples of maintenance activities that may be performed for a processing device include, but are not limited to, an inspection of the processing device, a cleaning of the processing device, a tuning of the processing device and a repair of the processing device, such as, for example, replacing a part of the processing device.”). Therefore, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more. (See Berkheimer Memo, § (III.)(A.)(1.)). The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights