DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on July 7, 2026, has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 1-3, 11, 17, and 18. Claims 1-18 remain pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-18 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, 9-14, 17 and 18 recite the transmitting and/or receiving of data/information “via the direct interactive electronic communication channel.” The scope of these limitations is unclear because it is unclear/unknown if the transmitting and/or receiving of data via the “direct interactive electronic communication channel” means that the issuer and the investor transmit/receive directly to/from each other, or if it means that the issuer and the investor transmit/receive through the central platform processors, or if it means that the intermediaries are bypassed during the communications, or if it means that communications still flow through these intermediaries (e.g., in a modified form so it cannot be read and/or interpreted by an intermediary), or something else altogether. Phrased differently, it is unclear at what point a communication channel between an issuer and an investor is considered a “direct interactive communication channel.”
Applicant’s disclosure indicates that communicating directly with investors can be problematic because several layers of “custodians” or “custodial intermediaries” may lie between an investor and an issuer. Specification [0002-0003]. In order to overcome this problem, the claimed invention, among other things, “map[s] a direct interactive electronic communication channel comprising a conduit created by the one or more central platform processors between a processor of a terminal for the at least one issuer and a processor of a terminal for the at least one investor based at least in part on data regarding investor positions in the at least one issuer held by the identified plurality of custodial intermediaries.”
As best understood in view of applicant’s disclosure, this “mapping” appears to be a hierarchical representation of the custody chain based on the received holdings data. Specification [0059]. Applicant’s disclosure indicates that the “hierarchy accommodates multiple descendant holdings mapping to a single ancestor holding, and supports an unlimited number of intermediary layers, thus facilitating the modeling of complex global custody environments.” Specification [0059]. Figures 2A and 2B illustrate such a mapping that begins with an issuer and ends with an investor. As seen in Figures 2A and 2B, there could be one or more intermediaries/custodians between an issuer and an investor in the mapped direct interactive electronic communication channel.
Since the mapping includes several entities (e.g., the issuer, one or more custodians, the investor) it is unclear what route/channel to the investor is the “direct interactive electronic communication channel.” Furthermore, since the independent claims indicate that the direct interactive communication channel comprises “a conduit created by the one or more central platform processors”, it is unknown if the direct interactive electronic communication channel must flow through one or more of the central platform processors. Additionally, communications in the claimed invention are recited as being sent and received by the “one or more central platform processors” (i.e., not the issuer), and there is no indication of how the one or more central platform processors relate, if at all, to the issuer and/or the investor. Additionally, there is no indication where the “one or more central platform processors” would fall, if at all, on the mapping. Claim 12 further diminishes the clarity of the claim(s) because “the direct interactive electronic communication channel” (i.e., the same channel used for communications between the issuer and investor in claim 1) is now used to communicate to a vote advisory agent (i.e., not the investor or the issuer). It is unclear if the mapping is simply an organizational chart showing contact information (e.g., an email address) for each entity on the chart, where sending “via the direct interactive electronic communication channel” would simply mean finding an entities contact information on the chart/map and using that contact information to contract the entity (e.g., the investor), or if sending “via the direct interactive electronic communication channel” means following a particular mapped path/channel through a computer network.
In order to further prosecution, Examiner has interpreted transmitting/receiving via the direct interactive electronic communication channel to mean transmitting/receiving via a network. Further clarification is needed.
Claims 2-16 and 18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependency to claim 1 or 17.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined at Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03. Here, it is determined that claims 1-16 are directed to the statutory category of a machine and claims 17-18 are directed to the statutory category of a process.
Under the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 1 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 1 recites:
A system to provide direct interactive electronic communications of proxy voting-related data between issuers and investors, comprising:
one or more central platform processors coupled to memory that is configured to:
receive uploads of data directed to investor positions from each respective custodial intermediary that is one of a plurality of custodial intermediaries that are contractually situated between at least one issuer and at least one investor;
identify a match between the at least one issuer and the at least one investor having a position in the at least one issuer based on the received data;
identify a plurality of custodial intermediaries between the at least one investor and the at least one issuer, wherein the identification of the match and the identification of the plurality of custodial intermediaries are performed on a daily basis;
map a direct interactive electronic communication channel comprising a conduit created by the one or more central platform processors between a processor of a terminal for the at least one issuer and a processor of a terminal for the at least one investor based at least in part on data regarding investor positions in the at least one issuer held by the identified plurality of custodial intermediaries;
transmit, in real time via the direct interactive electronic communication channel to the processor of the terminal for the at least one investor-without interpretation from at least one custodial intermediary of the identified plurality of custodial intermediaries, a notification requesting an exercise of voting rights for the at least one issuer at a meeting; and
return, from the processor of the terminal for the at least one investor via the direct interactive electronic communication channel to a processor of a terminal for the at least one issuer, an exercise of investor voting rights associated with said investor positions for the at least one investor at the meeting.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, of building an organizational contact chart/map based on collected data and utilizing the organizational contact chart/map, or information therein, in order to provide and collect information (e.g., a notification, an exercising voting rights) between the issuer and the investor. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a commercial and/or legal interaction (e.g., an interaction between a user/voter/investor and an issuer), and/or the managing of interactions between people (e.g., between a user/voter/investor and an issuer). Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04. It is further noted that, the performance of the one or more process steps using a generic computer component (e.g., one or more central platform processors coupled to memory, an intelligent application mapping function of one or more central platform processors coupled to memory, etc.) does not preclude the claim limitation(s) from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In this instance, claim 1 recites the additional elements of: one or more central platform processors coupled to memory; a direct interactive electronic communication channel; and a processor of a terminal for the at least one issuer. Similarly, independent claim 17 recites the additional elements of: an intelligent application mapping function of one or more central platform processors coupled to memory; a direct interactive electronic communication channel; and a processor of a terminal for the at least one issuer. The one or more central platform processors coupled to memory, direct interactive electronic communication channel, processor of a terminal for the at least one issuer, and intelligent application mapping function of one or more central platform processors coupled to memory are all recited at a high-level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims’ use of the processor(s), communication channel and/or mapping function does not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application because the claims do not require any nonconventional computer components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for the performance of the abstract idea on a generic computing/processing device. Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2015-1763, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6-7 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016). Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification (See e.g., Specification [0067-0072]), that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components (i.e., a particular machine, invoke any specialized programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions). See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible."). Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the computing components in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the computing components, or another technology, or to a technical field. The tying of this concept to a particular environment (e.g., an environment involving issuers and investors, an investing environment, a voting environment, etc.) fails to move the claims beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea in a particular environment. Accordingly, 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. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed (i.e., provide an inventive concept). MPEP §2106.05. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the use of a particular function (i.e., an intelligent application mapping function), communication channel, processor, and/or memory amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and/or system. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and/or system cannot provide an inventive concept. That is, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Accordingly, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-16 and 18 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2 refines the abstract idea by describing the source of the data used to build the mapping (i.e., build the organizational chart). This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 refines the abstract idea by describing the type of data used in the abstract idea. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 recites the additional abstract idea of recognizing/identifying voting rights based on received data. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 refines the abstract idea by describing the particular type of entities involved in the abstract idea. The fact that the entities involved in the abstract idea are of a particular type fails to affect how any of the positively recited steps are performed. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 refines the abstract idea by describing the updating of information based on received data. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 refines the abstract idea by describing the type of data sent to the investor(s). This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 recites the additional abstract idea of recognizing/identifying voting rights. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 refines the abstract idea by describing the timing of when data is sent to the investor(s). This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 refines the abstract idea by describing, at a high level of generality, how the data is sent to the investor(s) (i.e., without interpretation). This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 refines the abstract idea by describing the timing of when data is sent to the investor(s) (e.g., a predetermined number of days before a meeting). This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 refines the abstract idea by describing another entity to which data is transmitted. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 refines the abstract idea by describing additional data that is transmitted to the investor(s). This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 refines the abstract idea by describing additional data that is transmitted to the investor(s). This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 indicates that the one or more central platform processors, which was considered to be an additional element in claim 1, comprises one or more web-based central platform processors. The fact that the one or more processors is web-based fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. At best, indicating that the processors are web-based merely applies the exception to a particular environment.
Dependent claim 16 indicates that the one or more central platform processors, which was considered to be an additional element in claim 1, comprises one or more web-based central platform processors accessible only by authorized users. The fact that the one or more processors are web-based and is accessible only by authorized users fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. At best, indicating that the processors are web-based merely applies the exception to a particular environment, and indicating that the processors are only accessible to certain users fails to explicitly alter the manner the exception is performed.
Dependent claim 18 refines the abstract idea by describing additional data that is transmitted to the investor(s). This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
Examiner has performed a search of the prior art based on the claimed subject matter and is unable to find any references that would reasonably teach the combination of features recited in independent claims 1 and 17.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is cited in the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The additional cited art further establishes the state of the art prior to the effective filling date of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Faulk (US 2006/0016887 A1), the closest prior art of record, discloses where uploads of data directed to investor positions (i.e., share positions) are received (i.e., obtained) from respective custodial intermediaries between at least one issuer to at least one investor (i.e., from senders, e.g., from custodian banks, from corporations, institutions, mutual fund companies, corporate plan sponsors, and/or other constituents). Faulk [0046-0047]; Fig. 1; Fig. 2 item 222. Faulk discloses where a match of at least one investor having a position in the at least one issuer (i.e. an investor who holds shares in the issuer, e.g., an investor who can vote) is identified based on the received data (i.e. where the identifying of a match based on the received data is indicated, at least, by the fact that only investors holding shares for that issuer receive, and/or can view, the issuers messages, and by the fact that the share position data is provided by the sender (e.g., a custodian bank)), wherein the identification is performed on a configured periodic basis (e.g., each time a message is obtained). Faulk [0046]; [0049]; [0057]; Faulk Claim 10; Fig. 3 steps 316-328; Fig. 4 items 24, 28 and 30. Faulk discloses where a notification requesting an exercise of voting rights for the at least one issuer (i.e., a solicitation message asking the voter to vote) is transmitted via a direct interactive electronic communication channel (i.e. via a communication channel that tags solicitation messages with specific parameters so that messages are only accessible to voters holding positions for the issuer) to a processor of a terminal for the at least one investor (i.e. to a terminal of the voter) without interpretation from the respective custodial intermediaries in the chain of custodial intermediaries (Note the ESSP receives the solicitation message from the sender (e.g., the issuer, the corporation), and then sends the message to the desired recipient group. Faulk [0051-0053]. Accordingly, outside entities (e.g., custodial intermediaries) do not interpret the message nor include information in the sent message.). Faulk [0013]; [0045-0046]; [0051-0053]; [0057-0059]; Fig. 1 item 12; Fig. 3; Fig. 4; Fig. 8; Faulk Claim 6. Faulk also discloses where an exercise of investor voting rights (i.e. a submitted vote) associated with said investor positions for the at least one investor at the meeting is returned from the processor of the terminal for the at least one investor (i.e. from the terminal of the voter) via the direct interactive electronic communication channel (i.e. via the communication channel that tags solicitation messages with specific parameters so that messages are only accessible to voters holding positions for the issuer) to a processor of a terminal for the at least one issuer (i.e. to the terminal of the issuer/corporation). Faulk [0013]; [0045-0046]; [0048]; [0057]; Fig. 1; Fig. 2 item 258; Fig. 3 item 332; Fig. 4.
Faulk’s invention sought to provide a portal for stock, fund or bondholders which gives them the opportunity to view and/or listen to the solicitation via the Internet (or similar electronic distribution methodology) in the privacy of their office, home or other location without other direct contact from the issuer or its agents. Faulk [0009]. Faulk indicates that such rights to view and/or listen to such material will be granted only to those stock, fund or bondholders who have voting rights for that particular security. Id. Faulk also sought to make this process cost effective, personalized and timely. Faulk [0011]. However, Faulk does not explicitly disclose: where the custodial intermediaries are contractually situated between at least one issuer and at least one investor; identifying at least one custodial intermediary, or a plurality of custodial intermediaries, between the at least one investor and the at least one issuer, wherein the identification is performed on a daily basis; mapping a direct interactive electronic communication channel between a processor of a terminal for the at least one issuer and a processor of a terminal for the at least one investor based at least in part on data regarding investor positions in the at least one issuer held by the identified plurality of custodial intermediaries; or where the notification is transmitted to the investor in real time.
Pedersen et al. (US 2010/0023582 A1) discloses where one or more central platform processors (i.e., the acceleration program on the client) identifies at least one custodial intermediary (i.e., intermediary) between the at least one investor (i.e., client) and the at least one issuer (i.e., server), wherein the identification is performed on a configured periodic basis (e.g., each time the acceleration program establishes a connection between the client and the server via an intermediary). Pedersen [0077]; [0790-0798]; Fig. 43. Pedersen differs from the claimed invention, in part, because Pederson does not disclose that the custodial intermediaries are contractually situated between at least one issuer to at least one investor.
Purcell (US 2001/0034680 A1) discloses an electronic dissemination and tabulation system ("EDT") for securely delivering information directly to or receiving information directly from the investor system in response to an Investor request sent via the E-broker system. Furthermore, the EDT system sends information to the investor system in correspondence to stock holdings of the Investor as recorded in the E-broker system. Purcell Abstract. Purcell further discloses where the EDT system extracts information about investors from E-broker systems. The extracted information includes email addresses. Purcell [0049]. Purcell indicates that EDT system then sends personalized emails containing offers to the investors. Purcell also discloses that the EDT system allows an investor to click on an issuer’s name to review documents and to vote. Purcell [0044].
Chaffee et al. (US 2002/0186665 A1) discloses mapping a direct interactive electronic communication channel (i.e. determines the best path through a network from any given node to a neighbor node and ultimately to a destination node). Chaffee [0027]; [0029-0030]. However, Chaffee differs from the claimed invention because Chaffee does not disclose that the mapping is based at least in part on data regarding investor positions in the at least one issuer held by the identified plurality of custodial intermediaries.
Goldschmidt (US 2012/0215552 A1) discloses where data representing the notification regarding the meeting (i.e., a notification regarding the appointment) is transmitted (i.e., sent) in real time (i.e., immediately). Goldschmidt [0033].
Meng (US 2018/0033082 A1) discloses a system to carry out a method of voting by a shareholder so that the shareholder can use a broker's trading platform to link to a shareholder voting platform for shareholders to vote. Meng Abstract; [0005].
Correa Parker (US 2017/0178438 A1) discloses an electronic voting system that operates in an on-line mode, that is, in direct and instant communication through a network. Correa Parker [0098]. In the online mode, batches of information are instantly communicated to the polling server after the user casts their vote. Correa Parker [0109].
Hawkins et al. (US Patent No. 5,497,317) discloses a system for improving the accuracy of trade settlement information and the speed with which trade settlement information is communicated to trade settlement participants to reduce the time required to settle securities trades and to improve the settlement rate for securities trades. Col. 2 lines 42-49. As part of the process, Hawkins creates a database that includes a cross-reference between custodians and account identifiers. Col. 3 lines 38-42.
While certain aspects of claims 1 and 17 appear to be known in the art, the prior art, taken either individually or in reasonable combination with other prior art, fails to disclose, suggest, teach, or render obvious the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in claims 1 and 17.
Examiner notes that the claims would still need to overcome any other outstanding rejections (e.g., the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection) before a notice of allowance could be issued.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Claims 1-18 were, and continue to be, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Applicant concludes that the amendments to claims 1 and 17 obviate this rejection. Amendment, p. 7. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the amendment provides limited insight as to what the direct interactive electronic communication channel comprises (i.e., a conduit created by the one or more central platform processors), it fails to remove the ambiguity of what makes a communication channel to/from an investor and/or issuer a “direct interactive communication channel.” Since the scope of the claim(s) cannot be accurately determined, even in view of the disclosure, the 112(b) rejection remains valid and is being maintained. Examiner has updated the 112(b) rejection based on the claim amendments, however the thrust of the rejection remains unchanged.
For the above reasons, and for those set forth in the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection above, all claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that the limitations in the claim 1 provide an improvement to communication architecture because the claims replace the legacy arrangement, in which meeting information and votes are relayed and re-handled hop by hop through the intermediary chain, with a single conduit that the platform constructs directly between the issuer terminal processor and the investor terminal processor and over which the recited communications pass without interpretation by at least one custodial intermediary. Amendment, p. 9. This argument is unpersuasive. Examiner fails to find any indication that the claimed invention improves “communication architecture.” While the claimed invention transmits data via electronic communication channels (i.e., the claimed invention uses electronic communication channels), there is no indication that these communication channels are improved. The claimed invention is merely identifying entities/intermediaries that could be involved with conveying information (e.g., voting information) between an investor and an issuer. The claimed invention then bypasses these intermediate entities when certain information (e.g., a voting notification, a vote) needs to be exchanged. Examiner contends that this is fundamentally no different than building an organization chart containing contact information for people within the organization and then using the organization chart to identify, and subsequently contract, a particular entity on the chart. Just like the mapping allows the claimed invention to bypass intermediaries, an organization chart also allows a user to identify contact information for a particular entity (e.g., a person in charge, an owner) so that they can be contacted directly (e.g., via a phone call, via email, etc.).
Applicant alleges that the claimed invention provides a solution to a problem rooted in computer-network technology. Amendment, pp. 9-10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Identifying/mapping/charting entities involved in a certain activity (e.g., voting activity, business activity, etc.) and contacting an entity involved in that activity directly is not a technological problem. Identifying entities, or their contact information, and contacting them directly was performed long before the advent of the computer. At best, the claimed invention appears to be applying the abstract idea to a particular environment (e.g., an investing environment, a voting environment, etc.), however applying an abstract idea in a particular environment is not indicative of a practical application.
Applicant argues that the Office has not carried its burden under Berkheimer and MPEP § 2106.05(d). Amendment, pp. 10-11. This argument is unpersuasive. As noted in Applicants’ remarks (Amendment, p. 10) and reiterated in the MPEP (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In this instance, neither the current 101 rejection nor the prior 101 rejection stated that any of the additional elements were well-understood, routine and/or conventional activity. Accordingly, the Berkheimer decision and MPEP 2106.05(d) are not applicable to the current 101 rejection.
Applicant argues that the rejection does not address the ordered combination the claims actually recite. Amendment, p. 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The April 7, 2026, Non-Final Office Action (NFOA) considered the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination. See NFOA at pages 8-11.
Applicant argues that Specification [0067-0072] describes the environment in which embodiments may run, not the claimed proxy-voting communication architecture, and they are not where the claimed improvement resides. Amendment, p. 11. This argument is unpersuasive. The purpose of citing the Specification in the rejection was to illustrate that the claimed invention is merely using generic computing components (e.g., one or more processors) to implement the abstract idea. As indicated in Applicants’ remarks, and as noted in the NFAO (see NFOA at p. 10), there is no improvement to the computing environment/components that implement the abstract idea. For example, the one or more processors that implement the abstract idea are not improved by executing the abstract idea. Applicant’s argument mentions a claimed “proxy-voting communication architecture,” however no such feature is found in the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that absence of specialized hardware does not defeat eligibility. Amendment, p. 12. Examiner agrees. However, it is important to note that the claimed invention does not recite any additional elements beyond the generic hardware used to implement the abstract idea. Since there is clearly an abstract idea recited in the claimed invention, the claim would need to recite something beyond these generic computing components that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. In this instance, no such additional elements are found.
For the above reasons, and for those set forth in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection above, all claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 JASON FENSTERMACHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM ET, Alternate Fridays Off.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571-272-7575. 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights