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 .
Status
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 8/1/2025. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-20 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18, 20 are amended. No claims have been added. Claims 4, 13, have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued “As noted in previous responses, the system, method, and computer readable medium described in the specification provides improved techniques of providing A/B tests to users of online software products to decrease the runtime of the A/B test iterations and to provide faster predictions of the outcomes whereby less waiting is required to collect the user reactions to the A/B test, thereby improving the efficiency of A/B tests executed on an A/B test server. For example, as described in paragraph [0046] of the specification, existing A/B testing systems re-expose highly engaged users to the same test hundreds of times while less engaged users are exposed only once. The claimed system improves the efficiency of existing A/B testing systems by only exposing highly engaged users only a handful of times or even just once if that is all that is needed. From that data, the reaction of less engaged users may be predicted, thus resulting in a decreased number of users required and a decreased runtime for the A/B test exposures required to collect data sufficient to satisfy the metric for the new product feature being tested by the A/B testing. Also, the claimed system can be intelligent in that exposures to highly engaged users may be treated as very valuable and the information return (similar to monetary return or return on investment) from these highly engaged users may be optimized to maximize the information output.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s invention appears to be a market study. Although the study is online does not make the claims eligible. The focus of the claims is on the data and not on a technical improvement of the test. The advantage of the claimed test is in doing less tests by using a data correlation. This is no different than using historical data as a predictive feature. Applicant’s invention involves providing a product, clustering users based on data, providing an A/B test related to a new product feature, correlating results of an A/B test, allocating additional A/B tests to those people who are highly representative of the entire user base, collecting the additional information, and providing a product feature based on the additional tests of the humans that are highly representative of the entire user base. It appears as though the invention provides a test to all users and correlates data of all users and then goes back and gives additional tests to a segment of users. At most applicant’s invention specifies which human to allocate additional tests to after providing the tests to the same group and those who are at the time of providing that of lower engagement. Further the online product feature “may include varied copy text, layouts, images, and colors for online website features,” changing the color of a website is not a technical improvement and at most would be considered a design choice.
The applicant has argued “The claimed subject matter is thus directed to improvements to A/B testing technologies in the form of intelligent predictive A/B testing that integrate user correlation with A/B test evaluation to decrease the runtime of A/B tests by efficiently allocating A/B tests to highly engaged users to obtain faster and more accurate A/B test results. The claimed methods determine to whom to present the A/B tests to enable an accurate prediction of the A/B test results without providing the A/B tests to all users. The A/B tests are viewed as part of an auction system in which the A/B platform delivers highly engaged user A/B test exposures more efficiently as a result of integrating user correlation techniques. The claimed subject matter improves the operation of the A/B test server by decreasing the number of users required and decreasing the runtime of the A/B test exposures required to collect data sufficient to satisfy the metric for a new product feature, irrespective of the nature of the product features.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The system itself at most picks a person who logs in or interacts more with a product. The applicant at most is picking the “best” human option to perform a test this may be an improvement in the selection of a user, but that would not necessarily be an efficiency to the existing technology. If a highly engaged user is only exposed just once this would be an improvement. Further, the applicant has argued that the system can be intelligent. Inferring that someone may be interested in an item or a feature therefore showing a possible new product feature to an inferred interested party does not make the technologies intelligent nor is it an improvement to the technology. It would merely be an improvement to the abstract idea. Making an assumption or deducing a conclusion may improve upon the data, which is not enough for patent eligibility. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[P]atent law does not protect such claims[, i.e., claims to an asserted advance in the realm of abstract ideas], without more, no matter how groundbreaking the advance.”). Further the language of the auction process is not clear. It does not appear as though a traditional auction is being conducted. Looking at applicant’s specification although the language of auction does appear in the originally filed specification to mean anything beyond a standard auction. Auctions are known tools in a public sale in which goods or property are sold to the highest bidder. This would also not be an improvement to the technology.
The applicant has argued “Applicant notes that it is the allocation of the A/B tests that is improved upon so that the results of the A/B tests may be obtained faster to reduce the work of the processor and to enable new software features to be distributed faster and more efficiently.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear how the invention allows for receiving the results faster and/ or reduce the work of the processor. There is nothing in the claims specifically pointing to either of these argued benefits of the invention. The use of a computer is known in the art to retain values of tests faster. It is unclear how the invention distributes new software features faster and more efficiently.
The applicant has argued “It is this predictive behavior through correlation of the A/B test results that provides the technical improvement in the administration of the A/B testing to yield the improved results whereby fewer users and a decreased runtime of the A/B test exposures are required to collect the data sufficient to satisfy the A/B testing metrics for the new product feature…” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the correlated data may allow for a statistical analysis this is not a technical improvement. Even if the invention takes less time to complete this is not also not a technical improvement. Accordingly, there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
The applicant has argued “The efficiency is based on the fact that the A/B testing of highly engaged users is more valuable in predicting the overall results of the A/B testing than less engaged users and that the responses from the less engaged users may be predicted from correlations with the highly engaged users. The A/B tests results may be obtained from fewer A/B test exposures to fewer users, thus improving the efficiency of the A/B testing system.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the applicant may be providing fewer tests there is no difference between what the applicant is doing and using historical data as a predictive feature. By weighing a more engaged users data more heavily the invention may be doing more tests, however, this is not a technical improvement or an improvement to the technology. Specifically, A/B testing is a way to compare two versions of something to figure out which performs better. In this application the testing is comparing a feature such as the color of a screen. The claimed invention is a method that allows for users optimize A/B test exposures to help in implementing a new product feature (customer relations and marketing) which is a commercial and legal interaction. The applicant is also using a generic computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
The applicant has argued “Subsequent USPTO guidance (see below) has made it clear that a practical application that provides an improvement in a technical field may overcome such rejections. As noted above, the claimed subject matter improves the operation of an A/B test server by providing predictive capability of the A/B testing system whereby user correlation is integrated so that fewer A/B test exposures to fewer users are required to obtain comprehensive A/B test results. The correlation and A/B test exposure auctioning based on the correlation lead to improved operation of the A/B test server, which, in turn, leads to faster and more efficient updating of software features, irrespective of the nature of those features.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s specification describes that the variants may include varied copy text, layouts, images, and colors for online website features. Although these features may involve visual improvements they are not directed to features that improve the distributing of new product features or the efficient processing of the features. There is also no support in the originally filed disclosure for how varied copy text, layouts, images, and colors for online website features would result in an improvement to the technology.
The applicant has argued “Again, as noted above, the technical improvement is an improvement in the operation of A/B test server whereby new product features may be distributed more efficiently. The nature of the distributed features is not relevant to the improved operation of the A/B test server itself but is relevant to Applicant's assertion that the technological environment is an online software environment as opposed to a customer relations and marketing environment." The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. Using a computer to process the data is not a technological improvement. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
The applicant has argued “Again, as noted above, the claimed subject matter relates to how the user correlations may be used to obtain A/B test results sooner and more efficiently. The A/B testing systems are improved by providing a predictive capability by integrating user correlations whereby fewer A/B tests may be used to obtain comprehensive A/B test result through prediction of the results of A/B testing of correlated users of highly engaged users.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant is using data points about a human to make a determination about who might a high engagement user. Those high engagement users data is weighed more heavily when making a determination to run options about online software past such as the color of the screen. The decisions about the feature (color) is done by a human, the determination of who is a high engagement and who is a low engagement user is not claimed. Therefore it appears as though the system is using pre-calculated data points (the information about the users engagement) to provide a feature (a color) to the user and use the data to make a determination about reactions. It appears as though the improvement concerns an improvement to the data itself, and not an improvement to computer functionality or a technological improvement. Claim 1 does not recite any improvement to the way in which databases store or organize information analogous to the self-referential table in Enfish, which provided a specific improvement to the way computers operate. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. In this case, the Applicant’s claimed invention may result in better data for implementing product features, but this improvement is not an improvement to computer functionality itself. In this regard, the recitation does not affect an improvement in the functioning of the data processing system or other technology, does not recite a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims, and does not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Thus, claim 1 is directed to judicial exceptions that are not integrated into a practical application and thus is directed to “abstract ideas.”
The applicant has argued “Contrary to the examiner's assertions, the system does not use pre-calculated data points to provide a product feature and to use the data to make a determination about reactions. Rather, the users are grouped by activity levels and correlated to determine to whom to apply A/B test exposures for optimal results.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention involves testing features. The technical features of the additional features themselves are not dynamically changing as the information is being received. The invention takes behavior information to combine a group of people, exposes that group of people to a new feature, decides based on the input that the people like the feature, and includes that previously programmed feature as part of the product. It appears as though the applicant is merely taking a survey and adding a feature based on the results on the survey. “[T]he inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer eligibility. . . . ‘[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.’” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(quoting Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still encompassed by the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures, 838 F.3d at 1318 (“[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(Holding that computer-implemented method for “anonymous loan shopping” was an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer.”); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(“Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind.”); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372−73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Holding that the incidental use of “computer” or “computer readable medium” does not make a claim otherwise directed to a process that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” patent eligible.).
The applicant has argued “Thus, the subject matter of the amended claims recite techniques for improving the efficiencies of A/B testing for, in turn, modifying online software products by not only reducing the number of users required for A/B testing, but also simultaneously providing a significant acceleration in the time frame for A/B testing, thereby enabling the online software products to be more efficiently modified. The techniques further enable correlation and evaluation to work together to produce A/B test results, enabling the A/B testing to become faster as well as more reliable. As noted in paragraph [0051] of the specification, creating a new paradigm in which A/B test exposures are allocated in an efficient, optimized manner in order to fast track results may provide testing power that is significantly improved with respect to conventional A/B testing, thus enabling more efficient modifications to the online software products. The claimed system thus does not merely make an assumption or deduce a conclusion to "improve upon the data." Instead, the claimed system uses modified A/B testing incorporating correlation results to more efficiently complete A/B testing and to more efficiently determine which new product features to provide to users of online software products.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant merely uses known data about groups of people to provide a test and takes the results realizes they are similar and proceeds to give an additional test to one group. This does not improve the functioning of a computer or the system. Limitations that are indicative of “integration into a practical application” include: 1. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field—see MPEP § 2106.05(a); 2. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine—see MPEP § 2106.05(b); 3. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing—see MPEP §2106.05(c); and 4. Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception—see MPEP § 2106.05(e). In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of “integration into a practical application” include: 1. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea— see MPEP § 2106.05(f); 2. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception—see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and 3. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use—see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Claim 1 involves providing software, clustering users into groups, providing a test related to a feature, correlating results of the test, allocating additional tests, collecting information about the test, and providing the new feature. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. It is also noted that the claim does not actually appear to claim directly that a new product feature is tested. It appears that the claim is testing something “related” to the at least one product feature.
The applicant has argued “Applicant again submits that a human mind alone cannot determine an online activity level of users with an online software product, provide A and B variants of features of the online software product to the users, implement intelligent predictive A/B testing to allocate A/B test exposures and to collect the user response data required to satisfy a metric for the new product feature and then provide the better performing test variant of the online software product to the user as recited.” The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.” 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of “anonymous loan shopping” recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer”). The applicant is merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. Claim 1 involves proving a product to users, clustering the users based on behavior, providing an A/B test, correlating the results of the test, allocating additional A/B test exposures, collecting any information output, and providing a new product feature. The limitations of claim 9 include the words “wherein the at least one A/B test related to the new product feature of lens personalization of social media application software, further comprising tracking a lens send and a lens swipe as results of the at least one A/B test.” It is unclear how the A/B test relates to a product feature of “lens personalization.” There are no further details in the specification as to how the limitations are connected. Is the applicant claiming that the “new feature” is lens personalization? It is also unclear how “lens send” and “lens swipe” combined with a color would be a technical improvement, it appears to merely be a user offering an opinion as a design choice.
The applicant has argued “Such steps provide a practical application (intelligent predictive A/B testing that integrates user correlation with A/B test evaluation to efficiently allocate A/B tests to highly engaged users to obtain faster and more accurate A/B test results and to enable an accurate prediction of the A/B test results without providing the A/B tests to all users) that may not be performed exclusively in the human mind (plus generic computer components) as the examiner suggests.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. As was argued previously, the applicant has defined various variants to be copy text, layouts, images, and colors for online website features. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention the applicant is merely displaying color options of a website and asking the opinion of pre-classified (higher or lower engagement) individuals to determine the reactions. After the reactions are the same the claim, based on it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, allocates additional color options to those users pre-classified as high engagement. Data somehow related to the additional A/B test exposures is collected and a new product feature is provided. The applicant is arguing specifics that are not in the claimed invention, therefore the argued improvements are not actualized by the claimed invention.
The applicant has argued “Also, the claimed process is not simply the automation of a known process or known "mental process" using a general purpose computer. The claimed process has not heretofore been performed by hand, on pencil and paper, or mentally. Thus, even if implemented on a computer, the computer is not used as a tool to implement a "known mental process" as the claimed process is not a "known process." Organizing Human Activity The claimed subject matter addresses the technical problem of providing more efficient A/B testing whereby results required to satisfy a metric for a new product feature may be obtained with fewer A/B test exposures to provide faster and more efficient results that may then be used to provide faster and more efficient updates to online software products and further enable the A/B test server to be used for more A/B tests in a given time frame. Applicant again submits that the claims do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform the business practice on a computer. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in the network, device, and application specifics of providing online software products and using A/B testing of a new product feature to determine what variants of the online software product to provide to users to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of the Internet (e.g., determining what variants of an online software product to provide by implementing A/B testing of new online software product features).” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Doing market studies and clustering data is something that can be done manually. Taking a known data set and giving it more weight then another data set is a known way to run fewer calculations. The invention is merely grouping data applying a greater value to the high engagement users in an assumption that the high engagement users would represent a greater population of data points and therefore fewer users would need to be exposed to an A/B test. The applicant is merely using statistical testing to identify a provide a new product feature.
The applicant has argued, “As noted above, the claims recite the practical application of intelligent predictive A/B testing that integrates user correlation with A/B test evaluation to decrease the runtime of A/B tests by efficiently allocating A/B tests to highly engaged users to obtain faster and more accurate A/B test results and determining to whom to present the A/B tests to enable an accurate prediction of the A/B test results without providing the A/B tests to all users. The A/B tests are used to determine the variant of the online software product to provide to the user, which is then provided to the user. The claimed subject matter improves the computer functionality of the A/B test server and, as a by- product, improves the updating and operation of an online software product on a computer system.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s invention appears to be merely a market study. Having the study is online does not make the claims eligible. The focus of the claims is on the data and not on a technical improvement of the test. The advantage of the claimed test is in doing less tests by using a data correlation. This is no different than using historical data as a predictive feature. Applicant’s invention involves providing a product, clustering users based on data, providing an A/B test related to a new product feature, correlating results of an A/B test, allocating additional A/B tests to those people who are highly representative of the entire user base, collecting the additional information, and providing a product feature based on the additional tests of the humans that are highly representative of the entire user base. It appears as though the invention provides a test to all users and correlates data of all users and then goes back and gives additional tests to a segment of users. At most applicant’s invention specifies which human to allocate additional tests to after providing the tests to the same group and those who are at the time of providing that of lower engagement. Further the online product feature “may include varied copy text, layouts, images, and colors for online website features,” changing the color of a website is not a technical improvement and at most would be considered a design choice.
The applicant has argued “Applicant submits that the additional elements of the A/B testing system including the user correlation engine and the intelligent A/B exposure management system recite a specific improvement over prior art A/B test server systems by using identified correlations to allocate A/B test exposures using a probability algorithm adapted to auction the A/B test exposures to the high engagement users "so as to decrease a number of users required and to decrease a runtime of the A/B test exposures required to collect data sufficient to satisfy the metric for the at least one new product feature" as claimed. Thus, as in Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., No. 22-1654 (Fed. Cir. 2024), the claimed subject matter is specifically directed to improving a technology (A/B testing) by addressing the problems with the technology as recited in the specification. Applicant thus submits that the claims are eligible under Step 2A, Prong 2, because the claims are not directed to a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Arguably the only advantage is doing fewer tests because the data is correlated and weighed. Applicant’s invention is no different than using historical data as a predictive feature. Running fewer tests because some users are weighed more heavily is not a technological improvement.
The applicant has argued “Finally, to sustain the rejections under Step 2B, the examiner must provide sufficient evidence that the recited combination of features as claimed is "well-understood, routine and conventional" as required by Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d. at 1369. As recited in the April 19, 2018 memorandum from Robert W. Bahr relating to Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. (Berkheimer memorandum), MPEP 2106.05(d)(I) specifies that "an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. This memorandum clarifies that such as conclusion must be based upon a factual determination.... As the Federal Circuit explained:"[w]hether a particular technology is well- understood, routine, and conventional goes beyond what was simply known in the prior art. The mere fact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example, does not mean it was well- understood, routine, and conventional." Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1369.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., Examiner’s should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1317; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional”); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as “well-known”, “common” and “conventional”); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as “either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.”). In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. It is noted that the Examiner did not find any additional element or combination of elements in the rejected claims that are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Berkheimer does not require the Examiner make a factual finding that all claim elements are well-understood, routine or conventional. Rather, a Berkheimer factual finding is required for additional elements or a combination of additional elements outside of the identified abstract idea. The previous 101 rejection is updated and maintained below.
The applicant has argued “Applicant submits that such factual evidence is required to sustain the rejections under Step 2B and that, absent such evidence, the patent eligibility rejections may not be maintained. Such factual evidence has not been provided by the examiner. Rather, the examiner dodged this evidentiary requirement by concluding at page 23 of the Official Action that any additional elements in the claims "are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea" and that, accordingly, the Berkheimer analysis is not required. Applicant again submits that the examiner must provide sufficient evidence that the recited combination of features including the user correlation engine, the A/B exposure management module, and the A/B test server as claimed are "well-understood, routine and conventional" as required by Berkheimer. Applicant further submits that such features that are NOT well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as reflected by the lack of cited art and the lack of anything identified by the examiner under Berkheimer to suggest that any of these elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the Examiner did not find any additional element or combination of elements in the rejected claims that are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. However, Berkheimer does not require the Examiner make a factual finding that all claim elements are well-understood, routine or conventional. The examiner went through applicant’s specification and could not identify anything that would be significantly more than the judicial exception.
The applicant has argued “Finally, Applicant again submits that the recited elements in combination are not directed wholly to any purported abstract idea as the claims recite a specific combination of features and elements that are not directed to a mental process or organizing human activities for at least the reasons noted above. Moreover, the claims are not directed to "well-understood, routine, conventional activities" and amount to "significantly more" than "mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components" as the examiner alleges. The recited elements provide the practical application of intelligent predictive A/B testing that integrates user correlation with A/B test evaluation to decrease the runtime of A/B tests by efficiently allocating A/B tests to highly engaged users to obtain faster and more accurate A/B test results and determining to whom to present the A/B tests to enable an accurate prediction of the A/B test results without providing the A/B tests to all users. The A/B tests are efficiently allocated to the users of an online software product to efficiently obtain results that are then used to determine the variant of the online software product to present to the user, which is then provided to the user. Consideration of the combination of elements under Berkheimer is appropriate and is again requested.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears as though the applicant is arguing that the invention processes data faster while using a computer and assigning specific tests to specific users. Although arguably the use of a computer combined with the knowledge of who to determine who to send the test to may be an improvement to the abstract idea but this is not directed to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. The use of a computer in a generic/ usual capacity is not an improvement to the invention. It may arguably be an improvement to the calculation and therefore an improvement to the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the previous 101 rejection has been updated.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued the 112(a), 1st paragraph rejection of claim 9. Although the applicant had support in the originally filed claim for a lens send and a lens swipe the applicant does not have support in the originally filed claim or in the originally filed specification for “wherein the at least one A/B test related to the variants of the at least one new product feature provides lens personalization variants, further comprising tracking a lens send and a lens swipe as user responses to the lens personalization variants presented by the at least one A/B test.” The applicant has made a general statement about how it is consistent with the original claim 9, which the examiner respectfully disagrees with. The applicant has not pointed to any portions of the specifications or drawings or any other area that might have support for these limitations. Although the applicant does have support in the originally filed disclosure for tracking a lens send and a lens swipe, the applicant does not describe in the originally filed disclosure details about a lens personalization in view of new product features providing lens personalization variants. Therefore the 112(a), 1st paragraph rejection of claim 9 is maintained and updated in view of the amendments.
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 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 5-9 are directed to a method, claims 10-12, 14-17 are directed to a system, and claims 18-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 10, and 18 recite generating or updating a map of a dining environment layout, constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals including social activities. Claim 1 recites abstract limitations including “determining an online activity level of the plurality of users, wherein a user with high engagement is determined to be a user in a first group comprising a predetermine percentage of users that are most active in multiple periods of activity whereas a user with lower engagement is determined to be a user in a first group comprising a predetermined percentage of users that are most active in a few periods of activity; clustering the plurality of users into behavioral clusters based on an the online activity level of the plurality of users, the behavioral clusters including at least the first group of high engagement users and the second group of lower engagement users; providing, at least one A/B test comprising an A variant and a B variant of the at least one new product feature relative to the metric for the at least one new product feature to at least the high engagement and lower engagement users during use of the product; correlating, results of the at least one A/B test for the high engagement and lower engagement users to identify correlations between at least one high engagement user and at least one lower engagement user indicating that the at least one high engagement user and at least one lower engagement user selected the same A variant or B variant of the at least one A/B test; allocating, additional A/B test exposures for at least one additional A/B test related to additional A and B variants of the at least one new product feature to at least the at least one high engagement user based on the identified correlations during use of the product using a probability algorithm adapted to auction the additional A/B test exposures for the at least one additional A/B test to the at least one high engagement user so as to decrease a number of users required and to decrease a runtime of the A/B test exposures required to collect data sufficient to satisfy the metric for the at least one new product feature; collecting and analyzing information output by the additional A/B test exposures to determine an outcome of the at least one additional A/B test wherein the outcome of the at least one additional A/B test is indicative of which A or B variant performs better relative to the metric for the at least one new product feature; and providing, the A or B variant of the at least one new product feature that performed better relative to the metric for the at least one new product feature to at least some of the plurality of users based on the outcome of the at least one additional A/B test. Claim 10 recites abstract limitations including “providing at least one A/B test comprising and A variant and a B variant of at least one new product feature relative to the metric for the at least one new product feature to users of the product, collecting and analyzing information output by the at least one A/B test to determine an outcome of the at least one A/B test, wherein the outcome of the at least one A/B test is indicative of which A or B variant performs better relative to the metric for the at least one new product feature, wherein third instructions to perform operations including determining an online activity level of the plurality of users with the product, wherein a user with high engagement is determined to be a user in a first group comprising a predetermined percentage of users that are most active in multiple periods of activity whereas a user with lower engagement is determined to be a user in a second group comprising a predetermined percentage of users that are least active in a few periods of activity… clusters the plurality of users into behavioral clusters based on the an online activity level of the plurality of users with the product, the behavioral clusters including at least the first group of high engagement users and a second group of lower engagement users, and that correlates results of the at least one A/B test for the high engagement and lower engagement users to identify correlations between at least one high engagement user and at least one lower engagement user indicating that the at least one high engagement user and at least one lower engagement user selected the same A variant or B variant of the at least one A/B test, executes fourth instructions to perform operations including that allocates additional A/B test exposures for at least one additional A/B test related to additional A and B variants of the at least one new product feature to at least the at least one high engagement user based on the identified correlations during use of the product using a probability algorithm adapted to auction the additional A/B test exposures for the at least one additional A/B test to the at least one high engagement user so as to decrease a number of users required and to decrease a runtime of the A/B test exposures required to collect data sufficient to satisfy the metric for the at least one new product feature, provides the variant of the at least one new product feature that performed better relative to the metric for the at least one new product feature to at least some of the plurality of users based on the outcome of the at least one additional A/B test.” Claim 18 recites abstract limitations including “providing the product to a plurality of users, the product having product features; determining an online activity level of the plurality of users with the product, wherein a user with high engagement is determined to be a user in a first group comprising a predetermined percentage of users that are most active in multiple periods of activity whereas a user with lower engagement is determined to be a user in a second group comprising a predetermined percentage of users that are least active in a few periods of activity; clustering the plurality of users into behavioral clusters based on an the online activity level of the plurality of users with the online software product, the behavioral clusters including at least the first group of high engagement users and the second group of lower engagement users; providing at least one A/B test comprising an A variant and a B variant of the at least one new product feature relative to the metric for the at least one new product feature to at least the high engagement and lower engagement users during use of the product; correlating results of the at least one A/B test for the high engagement and lower engagement users to identify correlations between at least one high engagement user and at least one lower engagement user indicating that the at least one high engagement user and the least one lower engagement user selected the same A variant or B variant of the at least one A/B test; allocating additional A/B test exposures for at least one additional A/B test related to additional A and B variants of the at least one new product feature to the at least one high engagement user based on the identified correlations during use of the product using a probability algorithm to adapted to auction the additional A/B test exposures for the at least one additional A/B test to the at least one high engagement user so as to decrease a number of users required and to decrease a runtime of the A/B test exposures required to collect data sufficient to satisfy the metric for the at least one new product feature; collecting and analyzing information output by the additional A/B test exposures to determine an outcome of the at least one additional A/B test, wherein the outcome of the at least one additional A/B test is indicative of which A or B variant performs better relative to the metric for the at least one new product feature; and providing the A or B variant of the at least one new product feature that performed better relative to the metric for the at least one new product feature to at least some of the plurality of users based on the outcome of the at least one additional A/B test.” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the language of “using the at least one processor,” covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using the at least one processor,” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the “using the at least one processor” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to a mental process and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 11, 15-17, 19, 20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 9, 12, 14, will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 12, and 18 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a method comprising “an online software product, by an A/B test server, by a user correlation engine, by an A/B exposure management module, an application server.” Claim 10 is a system that recites limitations performed “an application server, A/B test server, a processor, wherein the at least one second processor further executes third instructions to perform operations including determining an online activity level, user correlation engine, an A/B test exposure management module, online software product, executing an A/B test exposure management module, the A/B test server, application server.” Claim 18 is a non-transitory computer readable medium that comprises “at least one processor; and memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to, online software product.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claimed invention is a method that allows for users to auction A/B test exposures to help in implementing a new product feature (customer relations and marketing). See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-8, 11, 15-17, 19, 20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 9 introduces the additional element of “wherein the at least one A/B test related to the variants of the at least one new product feature provides lens personalization variants, further comprising tracking a lens send and a lens swipe as user responses to the lens personalization variants presented by the at least one A/B test.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Therefore, this limitation is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claim 12 introduces the additional element of “a second processor.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 14 introduces the additional element of “wherein the A/B test exposure management module further comprises auctioning software.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 10, and 18 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, claim 1 is a method comprising claims 1, 12, and 18 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a method comprising “an online software product, by an A/B test server, by a user correlation engine, by an A/B exposure management module, an application server.” Claim 10 is a system that recites limitations performed “an application server, A/B test server, a processor, wherein the at least one second processor further executes third instructions to perform operations including determining an online activity level, user correlation engine, an A/B test exposure management module, online software product, executing an A/B test exposure management module, the A/B test server, application server.” Claim 18 is a non-transitory computer readable medium that comprises “at least one processor; and memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to, online software product.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-8, 11, 15-17, 19, 20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 9 introduces the additional element of “wherein the at least one A/B test related to the variants of the at least one new product feature provides lens personalization variants, further comprising tracking a lens send and a lens swipe as user responses to the lens personalization variants presented by the at least one A/B test.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Therefore, this limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 12 introduces the additional element of “a second processor.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 14 introduces the additional element of “wherein the A/B test exposure management module further comprises auctioning software.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant has amended claim 9 to include the limitations of “wherein the at least one A/B test related to the variants of the at least one new product feature provides lens personalization variants, further comprising tracking a lens send and a lens swipe as user responses to the lens personalization variants presented by the at least one A/B test.” The applicant has support in the originally filed disclosure for social media application software and claim 9 previously had language of lens personalization, lens send, and lens swipe. However, the applicant does not have support in the originally filed disclosure details about a lens personalization in view of new product features providing lens personalization variants. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 10, 18, the phrase using a probability algorithm adapted to auction the additional A/B test exposures for the at least one additional A/B test to the at least one high engagement user so as to decrease a number of users required and to decrease a runtime of the A/B test exposures required to collect data sufficient to satisfy the metric for the at least one new product feature renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the applicant means by auction. A known definition in the art is a public sale where goods or property are sold to the person who offers the highest price through a competitive bidding process. Based on the known definition it is unclear how this type of auction in the claimed invention. The language of the originally filed specification states “While auctions usually involve third parties, as used herein "auction" means an internal auction of sorts in which different A/B tests are given the opportunity to expose users.” It is unclear what the applicant means by an internal auction “of sorts” and how having an opportunity to expose users would be an auction or how this auction would work. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claims 5, 14, the phrase “wherein the A/B test exposure management module comprises further auctioning …that allocates additional A/B test exposures across the at least one A/B test as well as the at least one high engagement users.” A known definition in the art for the term auction is a public sale where goods or property are sold to the person who offers the highest price through a competitive bidding process. The language of the originally filed specification states “While auctions usually involve third parties, as used herein "auction" means an internal auction of sorts in which different A/B tests are given the opportunity to expose users.” It is unclear what the applicant means by an internal auction “of sorts” and how auctioning can be applied “across the at least one additional A/B test as well as the at least one high engagement users.” It appears as though the applicant is auctioning users. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “an A/B test server having at least one second processor that executes second instructions to perform operations including providing at least one A/B test comprising and A variant and a B variant of at least one new product feature relative to the metric for the at least one new product feature of the online software product to users of the online software product, collecting and analyzing information output by the at least one A/B test to determine an outcome of the at least one A/B test…” The language is unclear how a A/B test can be comprising “and A variant and a B variant.” The language seems inconsistent, clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “auctioning the additional A/B test exposures across the at least one A/B test as well as the at least one high engagement users.” A known definition in the art for the term auction is a public sale where goods or property are sold to the person who offers the highest price through a competitive bidding process. The language of the originally filed specification states “While auctions usually involve third parties, as used herein "auction" means an internal auction of sorts in which different A/B tests are given the opportunity to expose users.” It is unclear what the applicant means by an internal auction “of sorts” and how auctioning can be applied “across the at least one additional A/B test as well as the at least one high engagement users.” It appears as though the applicant is auctioning users. Clarification is requested.
All the dependent claims are also rejected based on a dependence on previously rejected claims.
Pertinent prior art includes Ivaniuk et al. (US 20200104160 A1) which discloses techniques for evaluating targeting conditions for A/B tests. Gui et al. (US 20160253683 A1) various sampling options within a/b testing. Ivaniuk et al. (US 20200104383 A1) which discloses during an A/B test, one set of users may be assigned to a treatment group that is exposed to a treatment variant, and another set of users may be assigned to a control group that is exposed to a control variant. Daboll et al. (US 20110208585 A1) which discloses measuring engagement levels of users. Zhu et al. (US 20170221089 A1) which discloses a/b testing strategies. The prior art in combination and/or individually fails to teach using only low and high engagement users for the at least one new product feature and allocating additional A/B test exposures for at least one additional A/B test related to the at least one new product feature to at least the high engagement users based on the identified correlations during use of the online software product using a probability algorithm to optimize information output by the A/B test exposures for at least the high engagement users.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights