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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 08, 2025 has been entered.
REMARKS
On page 10, Applicant’s argument by claim amendment to overcome the 35 USC 112(a) New Matter rejection is persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) New Matter rejection has been withdrawn.
On pages 10-11, Applicant argues independent claim 1 has been amended to recite generating an event object representing the event in response to the trigger, wherein the event object comprises a digital representation of the event, collecting a set of activity data for the event object, each activity data comprising structured and unstructured data describing an activity that occurred during the event, wherein the unstructured data comprises one or more of texts, pictures, videos, and sound recordings, and displaying the activity data for the event object via the dashboard in real-time. Claim 11 has been similarly amended. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 are now 25 statutory. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the step of “generating an event object representing the event in response to the trigger…” at a high level of generality remains a mental process performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. The limitation of “wherein the event object comprises a digital representation of the event” further narrows the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As for the argued limitation of “collecting a set of activity data for the event object, each activity data comprising structured and unstructured data describing an activity that occurred during the event, wherein the unstructured data comprises one or more of texts, pictures, videos, and sound recordings, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the limitations are directed to the extra-solutions activity of data gathering. The limitation of “displaying the activity data for the event object via the dashboard in real-time” is post extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g), which provide examples that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, such as “[p]rinting or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55” and “[s]electing information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”).
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection as applied to claims has been maintained.
Pending Matters
Claims 1-20, filed November 06, 2025, are examined on the merits.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims recite a method (claims 1-10) and a system (claims 11-20), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites “generating an event object representing the event in response to the trigger, wherein the event object comprises a digital representation of the event” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. For example, the instant specification discloses “[a]n event module 25 generates an event object 26 when an event occurs. The event object 26 can be generated manually or automatically when a certain trigger is received” (page 7, lines 6-8). The instant disclosure of “event object 26 can be generated manually or automatically when a certain trigger is received…” supports that the “generating an event object representing the event in response to the trigger” could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation as supported by the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Claim 1 recites “assigning the event class from a plurality of event classes to the event object, the event class being associated with a predefined set of parameters” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. For example, the instant specification discloses “[a]n event module 25 generates an event object 26 when an event occurs. The event object 26 can be generated manually or automatically when a certain trigger is received. An event object 26 is a digital representation of an event and stores all the activities in relation to the event, such as time and location of the event, people involved in the event, or a type of the event. Other types of information can be stored as an event object 26. The database 19 maintains the event objects 26 as a part of the workflow data 18. For each event object 26, one or more event classes 33 are assigned” (page 9, lines 6-13). The instant disclosure of “event object 26 can be generated manually or automatically when a certain trigger is received…” supports that the “assigning the event class from a plurality of event classes to the event object, the event class being associated with a predefined set of parameters” could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation as supported by the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Claim 1 recites “copying values for the set of parameters of the assigned event class for the new event object for the new event” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation as supported by the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Claim 1 recites “modifying at least one of the copied parameter values to conform with the new event based on the received instructions” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation as supported by the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Claim 1 recites “identifying one of the classes of events comprising the event objects for that class from all the classes of events comprising the event objects for those classes of events for performing trend analysis” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. The instant specification discloses “[a]utomatic trend analysis with a set of search filters can even provide an easier way to obtain meaningful comparison of the data associated with events in two or more data sets than manually reviewing each event object separately and can also identify anomalies and trends among the data sets” (page 45, lines 1-4). The instant disclosure of “[a]utomatic trend analysis with a set of search filters can even provide an easier way to obtain meaningful comparison of the data associated with events in two or more data sets than manually reviewing each event object separately and can also identify anomalies and trends among the data sets” supports that the “identifying one of the classes of events comprising the event objects for that class from all the classes of events comprising the event objects for those classes of events for performing trend analysis” could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation as supported by the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Claim 1 recites “defining one time period and previous time periods for the trend analysis of the event objects of the identified class of events” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. The instant disclosure of “[a]utomatic trend analysis with a set of search filters can even provide an easier way to obtain meaningful comparison of the data associated with events in two or more data sets than manually reviewing each event object separately and can also identify anomalies and trends among the data sets” supports that the “defining one time period and previous time periods for the trend analysis of the event objects of the identified class of events” could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation as supported by the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Claim 1 recites “performing the trend analysis by determining trends among the events associated with the event objects generated during the trend analysis time period in the identified class of events” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. The instant disclosure of “[a]utomatic trend analysis with a set of search filters can even provide an easier way to obtain meaningful comparison of the data associated with events in two or more data sets than manually reviewing each event object separately and can also identify anomalies and trends among the data sets” supports that the “performing the trend analysis by determining trends among the events associated with the event objects generated during the trend analysis time period in the identified class of events” could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation as supported by the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Claim 1 recites “comparing the trends of the events from the trend analysis period with the trends of the events from the previous time periods” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. The instant disclosure of “[a]utomatic trend analysis with a set of search filters can even provide an easier way to obtain meaningful comparison of the data associated with events in two or more data sets than manually reviewing each event object separately and can also identify anomalies and trends among the data sets” supports that the “comparing the trends of the events from the trend analysis period with the trends of the events from the previous time periods” could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation as supported by the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Claim 1 recites “identifying trend changes based on the comparison of the trends from the one time period and the trends from the previous time period” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. The instant disclosure of “[a]utomatic trend analysis with a set of search filters can even provide an easier way to obtain meaningful comparison of the data associated with events in two or more data sets than manually reviewing each event object separately and can also identify anomalies and trends among the data sets” supports that the “comparing the trends of the events from the trend analysis period with the trends of the events from the previous time periods” could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation as supported by the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Claim 1 recites “determining that at least one of the trend changes is significant in the identified class of events” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. The instant disclosure of “[a]utomatic trend analysis with a set of search filters can even provide an easier way to obtain meaningful comparison of the data associated with events in two or more data sets than manually reviewing each event object separately and can also identify anomalies and trends among the data sets” supports that the “determining that at least one of the trend changes is significant in the identified class of events” could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation as supported by the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”). It is noted that the “determining…” step is directed to an alternative limitation, that comprises “one of” the “identifying rising parameters” OR “identifying recurring or periodic changes” which reasonably comprises two alternate interpretations. These two alternate interpretations are directed to abstract ideas for the same rationale discussed above.
Claim 1 recites “identifying rising parameters of the event objects associated with the identified class that yield significant shift over time” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. The instant disclosure of “[a]utomatic trend analysis with a set of search filters can even provide an easier way to obtain meaningful comparison of the data associated with events in two or more data sets than manually reviewing each event object separately and can also identify anomalies and trends among the data sets” supports that the “identifying rising parameters of the event objects associated with the identified class that yield significant shift over time” could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation as supported by the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Claim 1 recites “identifying recurring or periodic changes at intervals” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. The instant specification discloses “[a]utomatic trend analysis with a set of search filters can even provide an easier way to obtain meaningful comparison of the data associated with events in two or more data sets than manually reviewing each event object separately and can also identify anomalies and trends among the data sets” (page 45, lines 1-4). The instant disclosure of “[a]utomatic trend analysis with a set of search filters can even provide an easier way to obtain meaningful comparison of the data associated with events in two or more data sets than manually reviewing each event object separately and can also identify anomalies and trends among the data sets” supports that the “identifying recurring or periodic changes at intervals” could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation as supported by the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Claim 1 recites “creating a trend object for the significant trend change; and analyzing the trend object” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. The instant disclosure of “[a]utomatic trend analysis with a set of search filters can even provide an easier way to obtain meaningful comparison of the data associated with events in two or more data sets than manually reviewing each event object separately and can also identify anomalies and trends among the data sets” supports that the “creating a trend object for the significant trend change; and analyzing the trend object” could be practically performed in the human mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil. Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation as supported by the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with the physical aid of paper and pencil but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Claim 11 is directed to a computer-implemented system for claim 1. Claim 11 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements of a “computer-implemented”, “a computing device”, and “database”, where the claim further recite generic elements of the claimed method and computer-implemented system. The “computer-implemented”, “a computing device”, and “database” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation of “obtaining event objects…”, “receiving a trigger…”, “receiving instructions…”, “retrieving those event objects…”, “collecting a set of activity data…” and “storing the plurality of event…” amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. The extra-solution activities of “receiving a trigger”, “retrieving those event objects…”, and “collecting a set of activity data…” (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The last limitation of “a dashboard of a computer that displays the trend object”, “automatically generating…”, “displaying the activity data…”, and “sending the alert…” are an additional element, i.e., the processor performs the necessary software tasks so that the results (i.e., the subset of data) of the abstract mental process are displayed on the user interface (claim 18). The last limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g), which provide examples that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, such as “[p]rinting or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55” and “[s]electing information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”).
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.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “computer-implemented”, “a computing device”, and “database” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation of “obtaining event objects”, “receiving a trigger…”, “collecting a set of activity data…”, and “retrieving those event objects…” amount to no more than to insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, the “receiving” step simply appends well-understood and conventional activity of receiving data over a network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i): “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The last limitation of “a dashboard of a computer that displays the trend object”, “automatically generating…”, “displaying the activity data…”, “storing the plurality of event”, and “sending the alert…” are is also an additional element, i.e., the processor performs the necessary software tasks so that the results (i.e., the subset of data) of the abstract mental process are displayed on the user interface (claim 18). The last limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g), which provide examples that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, such as “[p]rinting or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55” and “[s]electing information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”).
Thus taken alone, the individual elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim 2 recites “applying at least one of spatial filters and temporal filters to the retrieved event objects; matching at least one of the spatial filters and temporal filters with at least one of the event class and the parameter values of the retrieved event objects.” These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Further, claim 2 recites the additional limitation of “displaying a list of the retrieved event objects that match at least one of the spatial filters and temporal filters.” The last limitation of “displaying…” is an additional element, i.e., the processor performs the necessary software tasks so that “a list of the retrieved event objects that match at least one of the spatial filters and temporal filters” of the abstract mental process are displayed on the user interface. The last limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g), which provide examples that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, such as “[p]rinting or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55” and “[s]electing information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). The limitation of “displaying…” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The individual elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim 3 recites computing for each event object the value of each of the parameters using at least one of a tag associated with that event object, structured data, and unstructured data. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites identifying a significant change in performance among two or more of the candidate event objects over the specified period of time…matching the event objects with the requested trends; which further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. Further, the limitation “receiving a request for trends identified during a specified period of time…retrieving candidates of the event objects that match the requested trends…and displaying at least one of the candidate event objects which shows the identified significant change in data as the trend. The limitations of “receiving…”, “retrieving…”, and “displaying…” are insignificant extra-solution activities. As discussed above, extra-solution activities do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, the extra-solution activities are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The individual elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim 5 recites performing fast Fourier analysis to identify rhythms between the event objects. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites reducing a number of the event objects associated with the trend analysis time period by applying one or more filters to the event objects during the trend analysis time period; and determining trends amongst the event objects that satisfy the filters. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites comprising at least one of: when a number of the event objects that satisfy the filters is below a threshold value, ignoring the determined trend for those event objects; and when a number of the event objects that satisfy the filters is above a threshold value, compare the determined trend for those event objects with the event objects associated with the previous time periods. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites identifying one or more of the trend changes between the event objects that satisfy the threshold value and the event objects associated with the previous time periods; and determining a size of the trend change. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites ignoring the trend change between the event objects that satisfy the threshold value and the event objects associated with the previous time periods when the determined size of the trend change is small. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 10 recites creating the trend object for the trend change between the event objects 3 that satisfy the threshold value and the event objects associated with the previous 4 time periods when the determined size of the trend change is significantly large. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 11-20 recite a system comprising the above the discussed abstract idea. These claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1-11, supra.
Status of Prior Art
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the claimed invention individually or in combination the limitation of “receiving a trigger for notifying a beginning of an event, wherein the trigger comprises one of an alarm, phone call, and detection by sensor; generating an event object representing the event in response to the trigger; assigning the event class from a plurality of event classes to the event object, the event class being associated with a predefined set of parameters; and creating a set of activity data for the event object, each activity data comprising structured and unstructured data describing an event activity occurred during the event” as set forth in claims 1 and 11.
CONCLUSION
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO's PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
For all other customer support, please call the USPTO Call Center (UCC) at 800-786-9199. The USPTO's official fax number is 571-272-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Dune Ly, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0716. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil, can be reached on 571-270-0474.
/Cheyne D Ly/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
12/13/2025