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 .
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed on 0625/2026.
Status of claims:
Claims 1, 4-7 and 17 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination
Terminal Disclaimer
The Terminal Disclaimer filed on 06/25/2026 is approved. The double patenting is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1: is a system claim. The claim does not positive recited a hardware, where all of the elements would reasonably be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in light of the disclosure as software, such the system is software, per se. Therefore, the system renders the most software per se, failing to fall within a statutory category. Thus, in order to overcome this 35 USC § 101 rejection the claim needs to be amended to include physical computer hardware (i.e. a memory, a computer) to execute the software components. See MPEP § 2106.01
Accordingly the claims lack the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101. They are clearly not a series of steps or acts to be a process nor are they a combination of chemical compounds to be a composition of matter. As such, they fail to fall within a statutory category. They are, at best, functional descriptive material per se.
Claims 2-6 are dependent on claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rejection as claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 17: recite “determine a code generated outcome; evaluating the parsed information and the code generated outcome to determine functions to implement…, and how to format and combine the outputs from the modules to create the code generated outcome; evaluating content and services accessible to the multi-client service system platform…; determining an ordering for invoking the modules based upon the parsed information and the code generated outcome”. which renders the claims indefinite because the claims provide no guidance as to how the underlined limitations are determined/evaluated and performed. The applicant is required for clarification/correction.
- All dependent claims are rejected under the same rational as their based claim as above.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) 2nd paragraph and the 101 rejections set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loan T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 270-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday from 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Thursday-Friday from 10:00 am - 2:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4103. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
9/15/2026
/LOAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2165
