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 of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on April 15, 2026. The Applicants’ Amendment and Request for Reconsideration has been received and entered.
Claims 21- 24, 27-33, and 38 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 21, 33, and 38 have been amended. Claims 34-35, 37, and 39-40 have been canceled.
The previous rejection of claims 21-24, 27-35, and 37-40 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the amendment filed on April 15, 2026, is not in compliance with Rule 1.121(c). For example, claims 21, 33, and 38 contain the phrase “in a computationally efficient manner” with no markings. However, this phrase was deleted in the previous amendment filed October 22, 2025.
The Examiner waives this requirement and is entering this amendment as-filed.
Applicants are respectfully requested to carefully review their current claims for other such discrepancies.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 15, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection of claims 21-24, 27-35, and 37-40 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendments.
Applicants’ arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue at pages 12-13 of Applicants’ Reply dated April 15, 2026 (hereinafter “Applicants’ Reply”) that a “human cannot ‘parse’ an EDI 832 file into a common machine-processable format. This is fundamentally different from the Examiner’s characterization of the formatting step as being analogous to ‘translating data from one language to another’ by a bilingual human….The parsing of specific electronic data interchange standards is a technical operation rooted in computer technology, not a mental process.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner notes that the conventional definition of “parsing” is separating data or sentences into different words or parts. However, per paragraph [0058] of Applicants’ published application, “the healthcare information system interface circuitry 212 may be configured to accept such data in each different formats and parse or process such data into a format usable by the healthcare information system analysis circuitry 214.” Thus, the word “parse” is defined by Applicants as a synonym for “process into different formats.” The Examiner respectfully asserts that, therefore, parsing a file into a different format is analogous to formatting/reformatting data.
As the Examiner has previously noted, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Thus, merely reciting the use of a computer is not sufficient to recite a technological improvement. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) further indicates “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
With this in mind, the Examiner notes that, both at least in the previous office action and below, the Examiner has identified the system or the circuitry as being recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claimed invention is a concept performed in the human mind and applicants are merely claiming that concept performed on a generic computer.
Further, regarding the formatting/reformatting of data, Applicants are respectfully referred to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) to the discussion of transforming of binary data to a different format. Per the MPEP (emphasis added):
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Mental processes performed by humans with the assistance of physical aids such as pens or paper are explained further below with respect to point B.
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts 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." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[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.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (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"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.
With this in mind, the Examiner respectfully asserts that reformatting data from one format to another is a mental process that may be done by a human user with the aid of a pen and paper or a general purpose computer. For example, if the data was in another language and it needed to be translated to English, this could be accomplished by a bilingual human using a pen and paper or a general purpose computer. Similarly, if the data included a price in Euros instead of dollars, a human using a pen and paper or a general purpose computer could reformat/translate these prices into dollars. Thus, the Examiner respectfully asserts that “parsing” data, i.e., processing data into a different format, is a mental process.
Applicants further argue at page 13 of Applicants’ Reply that “mapping each real-world item to a HCO-agnostic product identifier ‘by generating a confidence index for each mapping, the confidence index being a weighted value based on how closely product data elements of the electronic information match corresponding product data elements in the third-party product database, and confirming the mapping responsive to the confidence index exceeding a predetermined threshold value”…is a specific algorithmic technique…[that] requires programmatic comparison of multiple product data elements…across two separate databases, weighted computation of match quality, and comparison against a numeric threshold….This operation is not practicably performable in the human mind.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner respectfully asserts claim 21 does not recite an automated method of generating a confidence index. There is very little detail regarding the comparison and the rules for determining when there is a match. For example, how is the weighted value actually determined based on how “closely” elements match? Is there a certain percentage of the names of the products that must match, a certain number of traits that must match, etc.? There is no actual recited algorithm for determining a match and therefore no objective way for the system to automatically determine the weighted value.
Applicants further argue at pages 13-14 of Applicants’ Reply that “monitoring, by the healthcare information analysis system electronic network traffic over the network between the HCO information system and a procurement information system to obtain current electronic transaction data” is a “fundamentally technological operation.” The Examiner respectfully asserts that this is irrelevant. Monitoring traffic to obtain data is merely receiving data. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), elements such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory are considered to be computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPG2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); 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)). Thus, receiving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function.
Applicants further argue at page 14 of Applicants’ Reply that the reconciling step recites “the specific mechanism by which duplicates are identified: two or more HCO records resolving to the same organization-agnostic identifier in the third party database. Similarly, obsolete entries are identified by programmatic cross-reference against the third-parry database’s current supplier availability data. These operations require real-time electronic communication between the healthcare information analysis system, the item master database, and the third-party product database.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the reconciling step does not recite an automated method of identifying duplicate and obsolete entries because it provides very little detail as to how duplicate entries and obsolete entries are actually identified. For example, in order for two items to be determined to be “duplicates”, what percentage of the item name/features/other information must match? For example, how are obsolete entries actually identified? Are items considered obsolete based on time, inventory level, sales, etc.? There is no actual recited algorithm for determining duplicate or obsolete entries and therefore no objective way for the system to automatically identify these.
Further, claim 21 does not recite any interaction or communication between the different elements of the system, i.e., there is no interaction between the various databases and components of the system to determine a match or lack of a match between entries or analysis of entries and the actual storing or removing of the duplicate and obsolete entries. Instead, everything is merely performed “by the healthcare information system” and is generic to that specific technological environment.
Applicants further argue at page 14 of Applicants’ Reply that claim 21 recites “calculating a data quality score for the item master database by applying a formula incorporating weighted values for at least a number of the identified duplicate entries, a number of the identified obsolete entries, and a total number of records in the item master database” and assert that this “is a specific computational metric derived from the programmatic analysis described above” and that it “is not merely an observation about data quality” and thus “is not a mental process.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner notes that the calculating step does not recite an automated method of calculating the data quality score because it provides very little detail as to how the score is actually determined. For example, no formula is actually recited and no indication of what the weights are and how they are determined is actually recited. There is no actual recited algorithm for determining a data quality score and therefore no objective way for the system to automatically calculate it.
Applicants further argue at page 15 of Applicants’ Reply that the claims recite an improvement to computer functionality and that the claims “provide technological improvements to existing healthcare information systems by providing novel electronic interfaces and communication techniques between various healthcare information systems and in particular, procurement systems” and cite paragraph [0033] of the specification, particularly that “identification and removal of duplicate product entries and obsolete/defunct product entries may improve the speed of database accesses, by reducing the number of records to be searched for a given query.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the previous Office Action, the Examiner asserted “that the alleged improvement to the speed of database access is merely a bare assertion of an improvement. There is no discussion in the specification about an actual improvement, i.e., no comparison of the speed of database access before and after any duplicate/obsolete entries are removed with any improvement attributable to the removal of the entries. In fact, no improvements to the functionality of the computer or to how the computer performs are actually described. As a result, there is no difference in the operation of the computer as a result of the claimed invention.”
Applicants note at pages 15-16 of Applicants’ Reply that the “MPEP does not require empirical benchmarking data to establish a technical improvement” and state that it “would be self-evident to one of ordinary skill in the art that a database containing fewer records (after removal of duplicate and obsolete entries) can be searched more quickly than the same database before such removal.” The Examiner respectfully asserts that, while this may be true, this is not a technological improvement. No improvements or changes to the functionality of the computer or database are actually made. In fact, the computer operates the same way as it did before. Instead, searching a smaller database is analogous to having a more energy efficient home by not turning on the lights in various rooms. The home is not more energy efficient—instead, the rooms are dark.
Applicants further argue at page 16 of Applicants’ Reply that the claims recite “a Specific Technical Architecture, Not Generic Computer Implementation”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, claim 21 does not recite any interaction or communication between the different elements of the system,. Instead, all of the steps are merely performed “by the healthcare information system” and is generic to that specific technological environment.
Applicants further argue at page 17 of Applicants’ Reply that the “generating and outputting steps produce a user interface that includes not merely raw data, but interactive interface elements for computed metrics and a display of the calculated data quality score—a composite algorithmically derived value. The user interface provides an integrated analytical dashboard that allows users to view, interact with, and act upon the results of the multi-system analysis.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner notes that merely displaying data—regardless of how it is calculated—is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, as discussed above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Further, the particulars of the user interface are not described in the claim and no user interaction with such an interface is currently recited in the claim and thus this argument is currently irrelevant.
Applicants further argue at page 18 of Applicants’ Reply that claim 21 “is not routine or conventional. The Examiner has not cited any evidence (e.g., publications, patents, or other references) demonstrating that this specific combination of operations is well-understood, routine, or conventional.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ interpretation of the rejection.
First, the Examiner has never asserted that claim 21 as a whole is well-understood, routine, or conventional and thus, this argument is irrelevant. Further, regarding evidence of the invention being routine or conventional, per MPEP 2106.05(I): “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government's invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a Claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQe2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.”
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicants’ remaining arguments have been fully considered but they have either been addressed above or they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21- 24, 27-33, and 38 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.
Claims 21- 24, 27-33, and 38: Claim 21 recites, in the mapping step, “a third-party product database that indexes products in an organization-agnostic manner.” This limitation is unclear. The metes and bounds of this claim are unclear such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine how to avoid infringement. It is unclear what is meant by an organization-agnostic manner” and the specification does not provide a definition of “an organization-agnostic manner.” For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 21 as reciting ““a third-party product database that indexes products using an organization-agnostic identifier.”
Further, claim 21 recites, in the executing a search step, “the search performed in a computationally efficient manner.” This limitation is unclear. The metes and bounds of this claim are unclear such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine how to avoid infringement. It is unclear what is meant by a "computationally efficient manner" and the specification does not provide a definition of what method or process would result in something computationally efficient versus inefficient.
Claims 33 and 38 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 22-24 and 27-32 inherit the deficiencies of claims 21 and 33.
Claims 22-24: Claim 22 recites “monitoring the electronic traffic over the network.” It is unclear if this is intended to be part of the monitoring step that was recited in claim 21 or if this is a separate monitoring. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this step as being part of the monitoring previously recited in claim 21.
Claims 23-24 inherit the deficiencies of claim 22.
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 21-24, 27-33, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 21, 33, and 38 recite a method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for searching a database. With respect to claim 21, claim elements identifying data, parsing electronic information, , analyzing the parsed data, determining a format of the electronic information, formatting the electronic information, mapping the real-world items to a product identifier by generating a confidence index, reconciling the electronic information with item master database by matching product identifiers, removing duplicate and obsolete entries, calculating a data quality score for the item master database, determining metrics, indexing the database, and executing a search of the database, as drafted, illustrate a series of steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process. That is, other than reciting that a device or processor performs the method, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Claims 33 and 38 recite similar limitations.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 21, 33, and 38 each recite receiving, monitoring (receiving) and transmitting (outputting) data and generating a user interface (displaying data). These limitations are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, claim 21 recites a system and a database and claims 33 and 38 each recite circuitry and a database. These elements are recited at a high level of generality i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. 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.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite receiving, monitoring (receiving), and transmitting (outputting) data and generating a user interface (displaying data). Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), elements such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory are considered to be computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPG2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); 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)).
Further, as discussed above, claim 21 recites a system and a database and claims 33 and 38 each recite circuitry and a database. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 22-24 and 27-32 depend from claims 21 and 33. Claim 22 is directed to monitoring traffic and updating the metrics and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 23 is directed to causing an update to be displayed and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 24 is directed to updating the database based on the updated metrics and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 27 is directed to analyzing the metrics, determining a quantity of items, and generating a recommendation and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 28 is directed to the association of various entities and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 29-30 are directed to the type of electronic information and items and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 31-32 are directed to the type of entity hosting/associated with the database and are further directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-24, 27-33, and 38 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
In the event the claims are amended, they will be subject to further examination.
With respect to claim 21, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither anticipates nor renders obvious, a method comprising: receiving, by a device a healthcare information analysis system that is separate and distinct from a healthcare organization (HCO) information system, via electronic communication over a network with the HCO information system, a request corresponding to a status check of available real- world items for at least one healthcare location; identifying, by the healthcare information analysis system, data for a plurality of real-world items in an item master database of the HCO information system, the item master database comprising electronic information for the plurality of real-world items in at least one of an EDI 832 catalog price file format, a comma separated values format, or an extensible markup language format, each of the plurality of real-world items corresponding to an item category; parsing, by the healthcare information analysis system, the electronic information from the at least one of the EDI 832 catalog price file format, the comma separated values format, or the extensible markup language format into a common format usable by healthcare information system analysis circuitry of the healthcare information analysis system; analyzing, by the healthcare information analysis system, the parsed data, and determining, based on the analysis, a format of the electronic information for each of the real- world items, the format being an initial format that is different than a format for the item master database; formatting, by the healthcare information analysis system, the determined format of the electronic information for each of the real-world items into the format of the item master database, the format of the item master database being an electronic format the HCO is electronically capable of processing; mapping, by the healthcare information analysis system, using a set of third-party product data stored in a third-party product database that indexes products in an organization-agnostic manner, each of the real-world items to a respective HCO-agnostic product identifier by generating a confidence index for each mapping, the confidence index being a weighted value based on how closely product data elements of the electronic information match corresponding product data elements in the third-party product database, and confirming the mapping responsive to the confidence index exceeding a predetermined threshold value; monitoring, by the healthcare information analysis system, electronic network traffic over the network between the HCO information system and a procurement information system to obtain current electronic transaction data for each item category, the electronic transaction data comprising a metric of electronic traffic over the network corresponding to at least some of the real-world items within at least some of the item categories; reconciling, by the healthcare information analysis system, the electronic information within the item master database with the current electronic transaction data by matching the HCO- agnostic product identifiers, the reconciling comprising identification of duplicate entries within the item master database based on two or more of the real-world items mapping to the same HCO- agnostic product identifier, and identification of obsolete entries based on real-world items mapping to products no longer available from at least one supplier as indicated in the third-party product database; removing, by the healthcare information analysis system, the identified duplicate and obsolete entries within the item master database; calculating, by the healthcare information analysis system, a data quality score for the item master database by applying a formula incorporating weighted values for at least a number of the identified duplicate entries, a number of the identified obsolete entries, and a total number of records in the item master database; determining, by the healthcare information analysis system, based on the reconciled data, metrics for at least some of the real-world items in the item master database, the metrics providing a current indication of usage and need for the real-world items at the at least one healthcare location; indexing, by the healthcare information analysis system, the item master database based on the determined metrics, the indexing performed in accordance with the HCO-agnostic product identifiers for the real-world items; generating, by the healthcare information analysis system, a user interface (UI), the UI comprising interactive interface elements for each determined metric of the plurality of real- world items and a display of the data quality score; outputting, by the healthcare information analysis system, the UI to a device associated with the HCO, the output causing the UI to be displayed on a display of the HCO device; executing, by the healthcare information analysis system, a search of the indexed item master database, the search performed based on a query received via the output UI, the search performed on the formatted electronic information within the indexed item master database, the search performed in a computationally efficient manner based at least on the reconciling and the removal of the duplicate and obsolete entries; and outputting, by the healthcare information analysis system, within the UI, results from the search.
With respect to claims 33 and 38, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither anticipates nor renders obvious a system and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium reciting similar limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights