Two bases for the rejections: one for lack of statutory subject matter (no machine or transformation under Bilski) and one for obviousness (combining an article about patent trolling with the PTO's prosecution manual makes the claimed method obvious).

With regard to subject matter, the applicant makes two arguments: (1) patents are like personal property, so they satisfy the "transformation of matter" prong of Bilski; and (2) one of the steps involves computer research (basically, Google searching), which involves a machine.

With regard to obviousness, the patent applicant argues that the prosecution manual does not contain all the steps of the claimed method.

In my mind, the big issue is that the applicant most likely wrote the claims up based on what other patent trolls have done before. Besides the fact that this means that his claims are anticipated by prior use, it means that he is not the original inventor of the claims, making them unpatentable.