DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 314-330 were previously pending consideration. Per the received amendment, claims 314-330 have been cancelled and claims 331-347 have been newly added.
2. Claims 331-347 are currently pending consideration.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s Arguments filed on April 17, 2026 been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has cancelled all the previous claims and added new claims. The Applicant present arguments but does not individually respond to the rejections, but instead cancelled all the claims and added new claims. The new claims have similar deficiencies as the previous set of claims as will be discussed below in the 112 rejections.
4. The Examiner provided a Sample Claim in the previous Office Action but the claims, though improved upon previous filings, still have many of the same deficiencies.
Many of the objections raised in the previous Office Action have not been addressed including the objection to the Specification.
Furthermore, the original specification (filed on April 24, 2017 and others subsequently filed) does not enable many elements of the claims presented. Further clarification of the enablement issues is provided below. The Applicant is reminded that all new claims have to be supported by the ORIGINAL DISCLOSURE which was filed on April 24, 2017.
Specification
5. The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71, as being so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the examiner. For example, the following items are not understood:
(Pages 3-4 of Amended Specification): In the interactive touchscreens and viewing touchscreens of in networked mobile communication devices and laptops, desktops and servers, said interactive dynamic adaptable and changeable-expandable and retractable multi-dimensional projecting visual-hierarchied flowingframeworks building blocks are SIVSF. SIUNDV and interactive constituent SIVSF for silhouetting interactive SIUNDV and said silhouetted interactive SIUNDV comprise said interactive functions for cvbersecurelv rendering, adapting and changing thence expanding and retracting thence preventing perpetrations of malfeasances on and protecting said correlations of interactive functions-renderings and compilations of said correlations and interactive dynamic adaptable and changeable, expandable and retractable SIVSF. SIUNDV and interactive constituent SIVSF for silhouetting interactive SIUNDV and said silhouetted interactive SIUNDV in and among individual connected assortments of said SIVSF. SIUNDV and interactive constituent SIVSF for silhouetting interactive SIUNDV in connected constellations of said connected assortments of said SIVSF. SIUNDV and interactive constituent SIVSF for silhouetting interactive SIUNDV in diverse fields, industries, enterprises, specialties, sectors, subsectors, subjects, topics, headings and categories as represented in an example infra.
Many of these instances exist where a clear understand of the inventive concept is lacking.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 331 is objected to because of the following informalities:
7. Page 1, line 13 states “letting physicians generating the connected assortments.” This should be corrected to “letting physicians generate the connected assortments.”
8. Page 2, line 6 has “data fof letting.” This should be corrected to “data for letting.”
9. Page 3, line 3: There is an extra “(“ in the claim before “(SIVSF).” Appropriate correction is required.
10. Page 2, line 7: the word “processors” is misspelled.
11. Page 2, line 15: the word “silhouette” is misspelled.
12. Claim 343 is objected to because in line the word “silhouette” is misspelled.
13. Claim 340 is objected to because on the 2nd page of the claim on line 9, the word “for” is misspelled as “fof.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a)IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same,and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
14. Claims 331-347 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and/or replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited in previous Office Actions.
15. Claims 331-347 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
16. Claim 331 recites “abiotic intelligence” which is not a term known in the art and is not defined in the claims. Further clarification is required.
17. Claim 331 recites “AIR Oracle” but it is unclear what elements exactly comprise the AIR oracle. Further clarification is required.
18. Claims 331, 336, 337, 340, 343, 345, 347 recite the term “SIVSF-silhouetted SIUNDV.” The acronyms SIVSF and SIUNDV are not defined in the claim language, and the term “silhouetted” is also not defined. Therefore, the claims are indefinite.
19. The claims also repeatedly recite “visual-hierachied” and “flowing-frameworks.” These terms are indefinite and it is unclear what the terms mean in the context of the claims. Further clarification is required.
20. The claims do not delineate how any of these functions are achieved. Further, the specification does not disclose how the AIR Oracle performs any of these tasks set forth in the claims. There is multiple more instances of enablement problems, but for sake of brevity, only the above have been provided. The claim is replete with multiple instances of problems that will be solved but does not provide specifics on functions which will achieve these results. It appears that the claims are directed towards diagnosing, predicting and controlling diseases (see claim 331) but the claims do not delineate a clear and defined method or system for achieving this purpose. The claims generally claim elements such as “thesaurus software”, SIVSF and SIUNDV, without providing a clear connection and definition of these elements to diagnose and prevent disease.
However, if the Applicant needs more guidance, the Applicant may call the Examiner for further explanation.
The Examiner is providing a sample claim based on the Applicant’s Original disclosure. This claim is not guaranteed to be allowable but is merely a sample of how the claim can be written to avoid 112 and claim objections:
SAMPLE INDEPNDENT CLAIM:
A computer system comprising a plurality of networked computing devices, each device including at least one processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor of at least one of the devices, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
(a) obtaining, from a plurality of repositories, relational data comprising chronologically ordered sequences of timestamped data that include at least one of images or videos and associated goods-and-services data linked to the timestamped data;
(b) executing a thesaurus software module that stores a bidirectional mapping between (i) professional or technical terminologies and (ii) corresponding layperson terminologies, and that:
(b1) groups the relational data into compilations of relations according to same, similar, linked, related, or differential relationships among the sequences; and (b2) generates, for each compilation of relations, terminology-translated descriptors in both professional and layperson terminologies;
(c) constructing, based on the compilations of relations and the terminology-translated descriptors, an interactive, dynamic, multi-dimensional visualization comprising a visual-hierarchied constituent flowing-framework (SIVSF) that successively silhouettes a visual-hierarchied universe of network data visualizations (SIUNDV), the visualization including nodes, framework lines, tree traversals, graphs, symbols and spectrums that encode the relationships of step (b1);
(d) rendering the visualization within interactive templates on a touchscreen or viewing screen of at least one of the devices, the interactive templates exposing the terminology-translated descriptors from step (b2) and enabling user selection of nodes or relationships;
(e) adaptively updating the visualization in real time in response to at least one of: (i) arrival of additional timestamped data that extend any of the chronologically ordered sequences, (ii) a change to a relationship used in step (b1), or (iii) a user interaction received through the interactive templates; and
(f) producing, from the updated visualization, at least one of trending, patterning, predicting, preventing, extrapolating, or guiding outputs that are stored to the memory and presented in both professional and corresponding layperson terminologies within the interactive templates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Jung Kim can be reached at 571-272-3804. 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.
/KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR/
06/22/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights