Answer the §101 rejection this examiner already allowed.
JR3 reads the examiner's own file wrappers, isolates the arguments and amendments that preceded a Notice of Allowance, and tunes your draft response to match them. Not a generic eligibility brief. The eligibility framing that has cleared this desk before.
Built on real USPTO prosecution records · No synthetic data
The problem
Most §101 responses are written blind.
Two attorneys can file the same Alice/Mayo brief in front of two examiners and get opposite results. The doctrine is national; the practice is personal. One examiner withdraws §101 the moment a claim recites a physical actuation. Another wants a data structure. Another sends it to the SPE.
That knowledge exists. It is sitting in the examiner's own allowed file wrappers, unread, because nobody has time to pull twenty PDFs before a response is due.
How it works
Argument analysis, end to end.
Four stages run before JR3 writes a single line of your response. Each one is auditable, and every finding points back to the page of the file wrapper it came from.
Assemble the record
Every Office Action, applicant response, Advisory Action and Notice of Allowance in the examiner's allowed §101 matters is pulled and OCR-normalized.
Pair argument to outcome
Each rejection basis is matched to the applicant's actual argument and amended claim language, then to whatever the examiner said next.
Grade the record link
Findings are labeled Strong, Moderate or Unclear. Where an Examiner's Amendment or PTAB decision intervened, JR3 says so instead of claiming a win.
Tune the draft
The graded findings become configuration for your drafting agent, so the response you get back argues in the register this examiner has accepted.
From the record
Allowances that followed the argument.
Four §101 matters from the published set, with the amended language the examiner had in front of them. Association, not proven causation — each examiner page carries the caveats in full.
Applicant argued the amended claims integrated ticket-price determination into a practical application through venue-map refresh, a time-lapse movie of inventory statuses, and unlocking a gate structure.
Examiner Borissov · The allowance rationale mirrors the Step 2A Prong Two framing almost directly.
Claims moved from generic insurance application processing to a first and second data structure with dependency and hierarchy encoding, and conversion-based mapping between them.
Examiner Pollock · §101 withdrawn after SPE and Quality Assurance eligibility review.
A one-verb amendment. “Assist in directly controlling” became “directly control” the vehicle to change movement when predicted ability falls below a threshold.
Examiner Grant · The response records that the examiner indicated the amendment would appear to overcome §101.
Eligibility recast as a two-stage credential-handling sequence: send the PAN with a default code, remove the PAN from the device before requesting the account code, then transmit encrypted account data without the PAN.
Examiner Bartley · The Advisory Action rejected the eligibility argument first; allowance followed the RCE.
Examiner highlights
Five desks, opened up.
Each page carries the full §101 record: every application, the amended claim language, the argument matrix, and the caveats where the record does not establish causation.
Igor N. Borissov
Fintech, logistics dispatch, autonomous delivery, ticketing. Allowance rationales repeatedly use “specific combination of inventive features” language.
Open highlight →Kenneth Bartley
Payments, NFC and POS security, transaction cards, retirement planning UI. Eligibility moves that landed were claim-amendment anchored, not attorney argument alone.
Open highlight →Christopher Grant
Vehicle control, mobile apparatus routing, connected cooking devices. Physical actuation is the recurring §101 exit.
Open highlight →2 applications · 9 documentsMary M. Gregg
Payment-card authorization and ATM infrastructure. Naming a machine is not enough; the claim must reconfigure how it behaves.
Open highlight →2 applications · 8 documentsGregory Pollock
Insurance data workflows and self-service financial terminals. Data-structure specificity carried both §101 withdrawals.
Open highlight →Inside the draft
What changes in your response.
“The claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Enfish, DDR, and Bascom.”
Doctrinally correct. Says nothing this examiner has ever acted on.
“Amended claim 1 does not merely determine a value. It requires the processor to refresh the venue map, generate a time-lapse movie of inventory statuses, and unlock a gate structure — operations that cannot be performed in the human mind.”
Built to the shape of the amendments this examiner has allowed.
Common questions
Does this predict whether my case will be allowed?
No. The analysis reports what arguments and amendments preceded allowance in the examiner's own record, and grades how firmly the record supports the link. Where an Examiner's Amendment, RCE or PTAB decision intervened, that is stated rather than smoothed over.
Where does the data come from?
Public USPTO file wrappers. Office Actions, applicant responses, Advisory Actions and Notices of Allowance, read in full rather than summarized from metadata.
My examiner isn't listed. Can you run one?
Yes. Examiner sets are produced on request during onboarding. Bring the application number and we will assemble the examiner's allowed §101 record.
Does anything from my matters leave our environment?
No. Examiner analysis runs on public prosecution records. Your own documents are processed in transit under the same zero-retention terms as the rest of the platform.
Bring us the examiner. We'll bring the record.
A 30-minute demo walks through one of your live §101 rejections against the examiner's own allowed matters.
Examiner analyses are derived from public prosecution records and are provided for prosecution strategy. They are not legal advice and do not predict outcomes.