EXAMINER HIGHLIGHT§101 RECORD · 5 APPLICATIONS · 21 DOCUMENTS

Examiner Igor N. Borissov

Eligibility arguments and amendments associated with subsequent allowance, extracted from applicant responses, Office Actions, Advisory Actions and Notices of Allowance in the Borissov prosecution set.

Try TodaySchedule a DemoJump to the record ↓
JR3 drafting a §101 response for Examiner Igor N. Borissov
§101 matters reviewed4of 5 applications in the set carried a §101 rejection
Allowance rate in set4/4every §101 matter reached a Notice of Allowance
Dominant exitConcrete claim amendmentpractical-application framing anchored to system operations
Record confidenceModerateassociation is clear; examiner's causal rationale is not always stated
Read this first

The record supports a temporal and substantive association between certain arguments or amendments and subsequent allowance. It does not always prove that any single argument caused allowance. Treat these as examiner-specific prosecution signals, not deterministic rules.

Argument pattern matrix

Which eligibility moves appear where.

✓ Clearly present◐ Present, outcome link unclear— Not observed
Argument type14/857,55815/167,24816/416,05517/392,754
§101 practical application (Step 2A Prong Two)—◐◐✓
Not a mental process———✓
Not a certain method of organizing human activity—✓◐✓
Amendment to specific technical architecture—✓✓✓
Incorporating unrejected dependent claims——✓—
§112 support marshalled behind the eligibility argument—✓—◐
Allowance followed the amendment✓✓✓✓

Top allowance-associated §101 arguments

Three moves, ranked by how firmly the record supports them.

01STRONG ASSOCIATION

Practical application through concrete venue-system operations

App. 17/392,754Rejection: §101 abstract idea / mental processAllowed 2023-02-06

Applicant amended claim 1 and argued the claims were not directed to a mental process of determining ticket prices, but integrated any pricing concept into a specific practical application involving venue-specific computer and physical operations.

Amended claim language relied on

“refreshing, by the processor, the venue map with additional statuses of the first inventory to create a movie of statuses on the venue map, wherein the movie is a time-lapse movie”; and “unlocking a gate structure.”

Why it ranks first. The Notice of Allowance states that claims 1–15 recited a combination of additional elements that, as a whole, integrated the mental process of determining ticket prices for unsold event-ticket inventory into a practical application and provided a specific improvement over prior systems. That tracks the applicant's Step 2A Prong Two argument almost directly.

Caveat. The examiner's rationale mirrors the applicant's framing, but the set does not contain a complete prosecution chronology proving the argument alone, rather than the amendments plus interview or search results, produced allowance.

02MODERATE–STRONG

Concrete multi-vehicle architecture and dispatch logic

App. 16/416,055Rejection: §101 organizing human activity; §103Allowed 2022-04-13

Filed after final under AFCP 2.0. Applicant canceled claims 3, 11, 17 and 24 and amended the independent claims to add concrete delivery architecture and decision logic, then argued both §101 and §103 fell away because the claims recited specific autonomous-delivery functionality.

Amended claim language relied on

“causing, by the processor, a first vehicle to navigate the at least one item, a second vehicle, and a third vehicle to a delivery location”; the first vehicle is an AV, the second a UAV, the third a ground-based robotic vehicle; confidence levels above and below a threshold; “causing … the first vehicle to dispatch the second vehicle … instead of the third vehicle.”

Why it ranks. The allowance rationale states that the best prior art, including Bar-Zeev, O'Brien and Speasl, did not render obvious the specific combination of inventive features as recited. Applicant also argued that because dependent claims 3, 11 and 17 were not rejected under §101, incorporating them into the independents should overcome the rejection.

Caveat. Allowance issued on an Examiner's Amendment. The excerpts do not establish which applicant amendment versus examiner-added language was dispositive.

03MODERATE

Reframing a business method as a logistics control problem

App. 15/167,248Rejection: §101 abstract idea; §112 written descriptionAllowed 2022-05-03

Applicant argued the examiner had overgeneralized the claims as “matching and negotiation” and had relied on limitations not present in amended claim 1, such as preparing an offer or outputting estimated values. Double brokering was framed as a technical and logistics control problem rather than a business problem.

Claimed control rules relied on
  • Preventing carrier accounts from sending direct offers to shipper accounts
  • Enforcing offers from matched transport-unit accounts
  • Dispatching matched transport units and loads only when responses comply with system dispatch requirements
  • Rule-based matching using transport-unit quality data

Why it ranks. The §112 rejection of “optimizing” and “set of rules to optimize” was met with specification support through compatibility, matching, evaluation and dispatch rules, which kept the eligibility argument anchored to disclosed structure.

Caveat. The readable record contains no reasons-for-allowance passage tying allowance to these arguments. Association only.

The record

Every §101 matter in the set.

One entry per applicant response, with the rejection basis, the strategy actually filed, the outcome, the underlying technology and the point where the record stops supporting inference.

17/392,754Event ticketing & venue accessNOTICE OF ALLOWANCE 2023-02-06
Rejection basis
§101 abstract idea, mental process and organizing human activity directed to determining ticket prices for unsold event-ticket inventory. Also nonstatutory double patenting and §112 indefiniteness.
Applicant strategy
Amended claim 1 and added new claims. Argued the claims were not mental-process claims and that any pricing concept was integrated into a practical application. Separately argued ticket pricing is not within the enumerated subgroups of certain methods of organizing human activity under MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Subject matter & field
Computer-implemented event ticketing, dynamic pricing, venue-status visualization and gate access. Ticketing systems, event venue systems, inventory visualization, access control.
Point of novelty
Combining ticket-price determination with venue-map status visualization and physical gate-control functionality.
Caveat

Strongest link in the set. The allowance rationale mirrors the practical-application framing, but causation should still not be overstated.

16/416,055Autonomous last-mile deliveryNOTICE OF ALLOWANCE 2022-04-13
Rejection basis
§101 as non-statutory, abstract idea, certain methods of organizing human activity. §103 over Bar-Zeev, O'Brien and Speasl.
Applicant strategy
After-final amendment under AFCP 2.0. Canceled claims 3, 11, 17 and 24 and folded their concrete multi-vehicle delivery features into the independent claims, including confidence thresholds and obstacle-weighted scoring.
Subject matter & field
Autonomous last-mile delivery using AVs, UAVs and ground robotic vehicles. Logistics dispatch and confidence-based delivery selection.
Point of novelty
Coordinated multi-vehicle delivery selecting between a UAV and a ground robot based on delivery confidence, obstacle assessment and feasibility.
Caveat

Allowance involved an Examiner's Amendment. The causal division between applicant amendment and examiner-added language is not established.

15/167,248Freight logistics dispatchNOTICE OF ALLOWANCE 2022-05-03
Rejection basis
§112 written description for “optimizing” and “set of rules to optimize.” §101 based on mixed statutory classes and an alleged abstract idea of matching and negotiation for cargo and transport units.
Applicant strategy
Amended claim 1 for clarity, argued specification support for optimization, and argued the examiner had overgeneralized the claims and relied on functions not present in amended claim 1.
Subject matter & field
Computer-implemented logistics dispatch platform matching cargo and loads with transport units. Dispatch optimization, account-control systems, transport-unit quality tracking.
Point of novelty
Optimized dispatch using rule-based account constraints, transport-unit quality data and restrictions on direct carrier-to-shipper offers.
Caveat

The record confirms allowance but does not tie the Notice of Allowance rationale to these specific §101 or §112 arguments.

14/857,558Hybrid mortgage-backed securitiesNOTICE OF ALLOWANCE 2022-04-21
Rejection basis
§101 non-statutory subject matter, claims 1–22. The full Step 2A and Step 2B rationale is not reliably extractable from the readable response text.
Applicant strategy
Not determinable from the provided documents. The readable text shows specification corrections and typographical amendments with no new matter; the substantive §101 argument is OCR-corrupted.
Subject matter & field
Computer-implemented transformation of bank-owned real-property assets or mortgage note receivables into negotiable hybrid mortgage and asset-backed securities. Fintech, securitization, central-bank collateralization.
Point of novelty
Securitizing a bank mortgage or bank-owned real-property asset together with a negotiable government security, zero-coupon Treasury bond or SDR instrument into a hybrid security.
Caveat

Substantive response argument not reliably extractable. Do not infer argument success from allowance alone.

Practice signals

What JR3 carries into your draft.

These are the configuration signals derived from the record above, applied when JR3 drafts a §101 response for this examiner.

01

Concrete claim amendments read as more persuasive than doctrinal argument standing alone. Every §101 matter in this set was allowed after amendment.

02

Allowance rationales in this set repeatedly use “specific combination of inventive features” language. Frame the response around a combination, not a single limitation.

03

Practical-application framing is strongest when tied to a concrete system operation or a physical effect: refreshing a map, unlocking a gate, dispatching a vehicle.

04

Where a dependent claim escaped the §101 rejection, folding it into the independent has been used here as an eligibility argument in its own right.

05

Where an Examiner's Amendment appears, verify the exact allowed language before attributing success to the applicant's prior argument.

Source documents

Twenty-one files, read in full. Highlight Excerpts accompany each application.

14/857,558Non-Final Office Action 2017-10-30Applicant ResponseNotice of Allowance 2022-04-21Highlight Excerpts
15/167,248Advisory Action 2021-04-07Applicant ResponseNotice of Allowance 2022-05-03Highlight Excerpts
16/416,055Advisory Action 2022-01-19Applicant ResponseNotice of Allowance 2022-04-13Highlight Excerpts
17/392,754Non-Final Office Action 2022-09-21Applicant ResponseNotice of Allowance 2023-02-06Highlight Excerpts

Also in the set: Argument Analysis Report; application 17/306,776 (§103 over Hafner and Boll, allowed 2023-03-07), excluded here as it carried no §101 rejection.

Draft your Borissov response against this record.

JR3 takes these findings as configuration and writes the eligibility section in the register this examiner has accepted.

Try TodaySchedule a DemoAll examiner highlights

Examiner analyses are derived from public prosecution records and are provided for prosecution strategy. They are not legal advice and do not predict outcomes.