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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 22 April 2026.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 22 April 2026:
a. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive.
On pages 9-16 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues against the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims. Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One; does recite a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two; and/or does recite significantly more than an abstract idea under Step 2B.
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. With regards to the analysis at Step 2A, Prong One; Applicant asserts that the Office “mischaracterizes the scope and scale of the claimed subject matter” and that “The specification repeatedly emphasizes handling "highly connected" data, "huge data sets", and "billions of relationships"” (remarks, paragraph spanning pages 13-14). Applicant then concludes “Such complex, large-scale data structures and the operations performed on them are clearly far beyond the capacity of a human mind with "pencil and paper"” (Ibid.). Applicant is advised of the following:
“Claims in a pending application must be ‘given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’” MPEP § 2111 citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP § 2111.01.
With regards to subject matter eligibility analysis, “It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. The BRI sets the boundaries of the coverage sought by the claim and will influence whether the claim seeks to cover subject matter that is beyond the four statutory categories or encompasses subject matter that falls within the exceptions.” MPEP 2106(II).
Applicant has failed to construe claim 1 under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), resulting in a flawed subject matter eligibility analysis at Step 2A, Prong One. Although Applicant’s specification mentions "highly connected" data, "huge data sets", and "billions of relationships," these embodiments are not claimed. Claim 1 does not specify nor place any constraints upon the number of connections, the size of the data sets, nor the number of relationships. Firstly, it should be noted that the claims do not recite any “relationships” nor any “relations” but rather recite “connections.” Secondly, under the BRI, the claimed “one or more graph data models having a plurality of elements connected using a plurality of connections” encompasses a single graph data model having just a couple of elements and connections. In claim 1, the “graph data model” is generated “from a first data including a first set of elements in a structured format and a first connection information, and from a second data including one or more text segments, the one or more text segments including one or more potential elements.” The BRI of this limitation encompasses a simple case in which the first data comprises just a couple of elements and the second data includes one single text segment. Claim 1 also describes the graph model as including one or more nodes and one or more edges, the nodes and edges being as described in the claim. A human could mentally “generate” such a simple graph data model by visualizing it in the mind and/or drawing it out on a piece of paper. Hence, generating the claimed “graph data model” is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
Continuing with the analysis at Step 2A, Prong One; Applicant cites the claimed generating of the graph model, the text similarity analysis, and the newly-added “name [sic] entity recognition” as claim elements that are “inherently technical,” “sophisticated,” and unable to be performed mentally (remarks, page 14, first full paragraph). As set forth above, when interpreted under the BRI, generating the graph model is a mentally-performable abstract idea. With regards to named entity recognition (note the correct spelling of this well-known technical term), it is important to note that claim 1 does not recite any details about how the named entity recognition analysis is to be performed. Under the BRI, claim 1’s “name entity recognition analysis” encompasses any analysis of the second data (i.e. one or more text segments) that results in detection of a second set of elements and second connection information, as recited in claim 1. For example, the BRI of claim 1’s “name entity recognition analysis” encompasses a human looking at a paragraph of text and extracting from the text two entities and a connection between them (e.g. a corporation and its CEO, a country and its president, an employer and an employee, etc.). A human can mentally perform this “name entity recognition analysis” as claimed, and hence this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. With regards to text similarity, claim 1 recites the following:
“executing, by the at least one processor, a text-similarity detection to identify, using the graph data model, one or more second elements in the plurality of elements related to the at least one first element and one or more connections in the plurality of connections associated with at least one of the one or more second elements and the at least one first element, the one or more second elements are stored as unstructured data elements, the one or more connections are identified using a similarity score determined based on the text-similarity detection and being above a similarity threshold.”
It is important to note that this limitation does not specify how the text similarity detection is to be performed, other than a similarity score being determined above a similarity threshold. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, perform text similarity detection in the manner claimed. For example, a human could look at the graph data model drawn out on a piece of paper and identify a second element that is similar to the first element, based on computing similarity scores between the elements and identifying those elements having similarity scores above a threshold. A human could also identify from the graph data model a connection between the identified first and second elements. Hence, the claimed text-similarity detection is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. In conclusion, when properly interpreting the claim under its BRI, claim 1’s generating of a graph data model, named entity recognition, and text similarity detection are all mentally performable abstract ideas.
With regards to the analysis at Step 2A, Prong Two; Applicant cites paragraphs 0002-0003 and 0020-0021 of the instant specification (see pages 11-12 of Applicant’s remarks) and characterizes the recognized problem in the prior art as “data structure rigidity, inefficient querying of relationships, missed connections, scalability, and the manual effort required to define relationships and update models” (remarks, page 11, second-to-last paragraph). Applicant asserts that claim 1 recites a practical application manifested as solutions to the aforementioned problems, as follows:
i) automatically generating graph models, and in particular, “creation of graph models that integrate elements from both structured and unstructured data”;
ii) application of named entity recognition analysis;
iii) use of text similarity analysis;
iv) implementation on a cloud-based system, addressing scalability issues;
v) enabling faster relationship-based searches and generating more accurate query results; and
vi) providing visualization tools.
Remarks, paragraph spanning pages 12-13.
As set forth above, elements (i), (ii), and (iii) are mentally performable abstract idea limitations, and hence these elements cannot, on their own, be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept1. Element (iv) is recited in claim 1 at a very high level of generality. Claim 1 recites “the graph database is a cloud-based graph database storing data in a plurality of storage locations,” and no other mention of cloud-based architecture is made anywhere else in the claim. The limitations “cloud-based” and “storing data in a plurality of storage locations” amount to generally linking the abstract to a field of use and/or technological environment, which cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h). As to element (v), claim 1 does not recite any “search” nor any “relationship,” let alone any “relationship-based search.” Claim 1 does recite a query and a graph model having edges that correspond to connections. However, as set forth above, the BRI of claim 1 encompasses a simple graph having just a few nodes and edges. It is not apparent how the purported advantage of “more accurate query results” applies to such a simple graph. Hence, this purported advantage is not reflected in the claim when the claim is interpreted under its BRI. As to element (vi), claim 1 does not recite any “visualization,” and it appears that Applicant intends by “visualization tools” the following limitation of claim 1: “generating a display of the at least one first element and the selected at least one second element in a hierarchical structure and presenting the display on a user interface.” This limitation amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, merely outputting/displaying elements of a graph in the manner recited in the claims is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity2. Hence, element (vi) cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; field of use and/or technological environment; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to a practical application nor an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
With regards to the analysis at Step 2B, Applicant points to the claimed “cloud-based graph database” and the claimed generating of a display in a hierarchical structure (remarks, page 15). Regarding the former, Applicant asserts that it is “a critical enabling technology for processing of the "huge data sets" and "billions of relationships" that the current subject matter is designed to handle” (remarks, page 15, first paragraph). Once again, Applicant fails to construe the claim under its BRI, resulting in a flawed analysis. As set forth above, the BRI of claim 1 encompasses a simple data set and a graph model having just a few nodes and edges. Hence, Applicant’s argument with respect to “processing of the "huge data sets" and "billions of relationships"” is unpersuasive because it is not directed to the BRI of the claim. Regarding generating of a display in a hierarchical structure, Applicant asserts that “it is a sophisticated visualization tool (e.g. Tom Sawyer ®)” and that it enables manipulating the data, focusing on specific information, narrowing down results, and tailoring results (remarks, page 15, second paragraph). Once again, Applicant has improperly imported limitations from the specification into the claim, resulting in a flawed analysis. Claim 1 does not recite nor does it require any “sophisticated” visualization, manipulation of data, narrowing down results, or tailoring results. These are all limitations improperly imported from the specification into the claim. Claim 1 recites “generating a display of the at least one first element and the selected at least one second element in a hierarchical structure and presenting the display on a user interface.” This limitation encompasses any user interface that displays the first element and the selected second element in a hierarchical structure (e.g. a tree structure). Under the BRI, this display could be as simple as the first element displayed above the selected second element with an arrow connecting them. This limitation is recited at a very high level of generality and amounts to mere data outputting, which is insignificant extra solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter for the reasons detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; field of use and/or technological environment; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to a practical application nor an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 14 and 20 recite limitations similar to those of claim 1 and are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claim 1 is ineligible, as set forth above.
Claims 2-13 and 15-19 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claims 1, 14, and 20 are ineligible, as set forth above, and for the additional reasons detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
b. Rejections of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1, 14, and 20, these claims recite “data stored in a graph database, the data being stored using one or more graph data models having a plurality of elements connected using a plurality of connections.” The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of this limitation encompasses a simple case of just two elements connected by just two connections. The claims also recite identifying a graph data model associated with a received query. The claimed identifying amounts to no more than an evaluation or judgement, which can be mentally performed by a human with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with a pencil and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In these claims, the “graph data model” is generated “from a first data including a first set of elements in a structured format and a first connection information, and from a second data including one or more text segments, the one or more text segments including one or more potential elements.” The BRI of this limitation encompasses a simple case in which the first data comprises just a couple of elements and the second data includes one single text segment. A human could mentally “generate” such a simple graph data model by visualizing it in the mind and/or drawing it out on a piece of paper. Hence, generating the claimed “graph data model” is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
The claims also recite “applying a name entity recognition analysis to the second data to detect a second set of elements and a second connection information, the second set of elements is detected from the one or more potential elements and the second connection information indicates one or more connections between one or more of the second set of elements.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, analyze the data to recognize named entities and detect elements in the manner claimed. Under the BRI, the claimed “name entity recognition analysis” encompasses any analysis of the second data (i.e. one or more text segments) that results in detection of a second set of elements and second connection information, as recited in the claims. For example, the BRI of the claimed “name entity recognition analysis” encompasses a human looking at a paragraph of text and extracting from the text two entities and a connection between them (e.g. a corporation and its CEO, a country and its president, an employer and an employee, etc.). A human can mentally perform this “name entity recognition analysis” as claimed. Hence, the claimed applying of a name entity recognition analysis is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
The claims also recite “wherein the graph model includes one or more nodes and one or more edges from the first set of elements and the second set of elements, wherein each node includes an element from the first set of elements or the second set of elements, and each edge connects one of the nodes to another one of the nodes using at least one of: the first connection information, the second connection information, or any combination thereof.” The BRI of this limitation encompasses a simple graph model having just a few nodes and edges. Given that the BRI encompasses such a simple case, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, generate a graph model that is as recited in these claims. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
The claims also recite executing a text-similarity detection to identify one or more second elements in the plurality of elements related to the at least one first element and one or more connections in the plurality of connections associated with at least one of the one or more second elements and the at least one first element. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could mentally perform the claimed text-similarity detection with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, a human could mentally determine that the first element is similar to the second element. Hence, this limitation also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These claims also recite “the one or more connections are identified using a similarity score determined based on the text-similarity detection and being above a similarity threshold.” Given that the BRI of claims encompass a simple case, as set forth above, a human could mentally determine a similarity score and judge whether or not that score is above a similarity threshold, as recited in these claims. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Alternatively, this limitation may be deemed an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping, because computing the similarity score and judging whether or not it’s above a similarity threshold are mathematical calculations/operations.
These claims also recite selecting at least one second element in the one or more second elements and at least one connection in the identified one or more connections responsive to the query. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could mentally perform the claimed selecting with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, a human could look at a graph drawn out on a piece of paper to answer the query “Which nodes are connected to element A in the graph?” For the simple graph encompassed by the BRI of the claims, it would be easy to select at least one element and connection in the graph that satisfy the query. Hence, this limitation is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
These claims also recite the following: “the at least one first element is stored as a structured data element” and “the one or more second elements are stored as unstructured data elements.” These limitations are interpreted in light of the instant specification, which describes structured data as data that conforms to a certain format (see para. 0022 of Applicant’s published specification) and describes unstructured data such as text that is not organized in a predefined manner (see para. 0024 of Applicant’s published specification). Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, specifying that certain data elements are structured and others are unstructured does not change the fact that a human can mentally perform the claim limitations described above. Hence, the claim limitations described above are abstract ideas under the “Mental Processes” and/or “Mathematical Concepts” groupings, as set forth above. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following:
a) “receiving, by at least one processor, a query for retrieving data stored in a graph database, the data being stored using one or more graph data models having a plurality of elements connected using a plurality of connections, the query identifying at least one first element in the plurality of elements
stored in the graph database for retrieval, the at least one first element is stored as a structured data element” (claim 1 and similar limitations of claims 14 and 20);
b) “the graph database is a cloud-based graph database storing data in a plurality of storage locations” (claim 1 and similar limitations of claims 14 and 20);
c) training at least one model to identify one or more connections in the plurality of connections associated with at least one of: one or more second elements in the plurality of elements related to the at least one first element, the one or more second elements are stored as unstructured data elements, and the at least one first element, the one or more connections are identified using a similarity score determined based on a text-similarity detection and being above a similarity threshold (claim 14);
d) outputting the at least one first element and the selected at least one second element, and generating a display of the at least one first element and the selected at least one second element in a hierarchical structure and presenting the display on a user interface;
e) at least one processor;
f) at least one non-transitory storage media storing instructions.
Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitation (b) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use and/or technological environment, which cannot be deemed a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Limitation (c) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, which cannot provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Limitation (d) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitations (e) and (f) are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computing 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. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; field of use and/or technological environment; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); 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); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Limitation (b) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use and/or technological environment, which cannot be deemed significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Limitation (c) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, which cannot be deemed significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Limitation (d) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, merely outputting elements of a graph in the manner recited in the claims is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity3. Hence, none of elements (a) through (d) provide an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional elements (e) and (f) amount to no more than mere field of use limitations and instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using conventional computer components and functions cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; field of use and/or technological environment; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 2-3 and 15, these claims merely recite more details of the claimed training of a model. However, these claims remain at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, which cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As to dependent claims 4 and 16, these claims merely recite details of the type of data stored. This amounts to no more than description of a field of use and/or technological environment, which cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As to dependent claims 5-7 and 17, these claims merely recite more details of the claimed similarity detection. However, given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple graph, as set forth above, nothing in these claims goes beyond what a human could mentally perform with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, these claims remain directed to an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” and/or “Mathematical Concepts” groupings, without reciting significantly more.
As to dependent claims 8 and 10, these claims merely recite more details of the claimed selecting. However, given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple graph, as set forth above, nothing in these claims goes beyond what a human could mentally perform with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, these claims remain directed to an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping, without reciting significantly more.
As to dependent claims 9 and 11, these claims merely recite more details of the received query. However, the “receiving a query” limitations of the independent claims remains insignificant extra-solution in the form of mere data gathering, which cannot provide a practical application, as set forth above in the discussion of the parent claims. Furthermore, receiving a query as described in these claims still remains well-understood, routine, and conventional activity based on the court cases set forth above in the parent claims. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor an inventive concept.
As to dependent claims 12 and 13, these claims merely recite more details of the identified connections. However, given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple graph, as set forth above, nothing in these claims goes beyond what a human could mentally perform with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, these claims remain directed to an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping, without reciting significantly more.
As to dependent claim 18, see the discussions of claims 8 and 9 above.
As to dependent claim 19, see the discussions of claims 10 and 11 above.
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAR MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 am to 6:30 pm.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on (571) 272-4078. 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.
/Umar Mian/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements…In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception.”
MPEP 2106.05(a), (emphasis added).
2 See the following:
Leida et al., U.S. PGPub. No. 20130262443 A1, para. 0013;
Grinstein et al. U.S. PGPub. No. 20060218563 A1, para. 0024;
Lee et al. U.S. PGPub. No. 20090198725 A1, para. 0003; and/or
Tran, Bao U.S. PGPub. No. 20050182755 A1, para. 0078.
3 See the following:
Leida et al., U.S. PGPub. No. 20130262443 A1, para. 0013;
Grinstein et al. U.S. PGPub. No. 20060218563 A1, para. 0024;
Lee et al. U.S. PGPub. No. 20090198725 A1, para. 0003; and/or
Tran, Bao U.S. PGPub. No. 20050182755 A1, para. 0078.
Prosecution Insights