Detailed Action
This action is in response to application filed on 10/12/2022, and amendments filed on 12/02/2022.
This application claims benefit to provisional application no. 63/254951 filed on 10/12/2021.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 12/02/2022 are accepted.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to A method for analyzing a plurality of regulations, comprising:
creating a first work request for first source data being associated with a first version of a first regulation and being received from a first data source system;
processing the first work request by associating first regulation version text and a first version date with the first version of the first regulation;
storing the processed first version of the first regulation with the first regulation version text and the first version date in a database circuit;
creating a second work request for second source data being associated with a second version of the first regulation and being received from a second data source system;
processing the second work request by associating second regulation version text and a second version date with the second version of the first regulation, the second version date being different from the first version date;
storing the processed second version of the first regulation with the second regulation version text and the second version date in the database circuit;
receiving a user query regarding the first regulation; and
in response to the user query, retrieving the stored first and second versions of the first regulation from the database circuit;
comparing the retrieved first and second versions of the first regulation to identify at least one change to the first regulation between the first version date and the second version date; and
generating a report with a description for identifying the at least one change to the first regulation based upon said comparing, wherein the report provides insight for a functional regulatory compliance program
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts pre-internet activities which are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely,
Mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”).
Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) ; commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform a method for analyzing a plurality of regulations, comprising: processing mentally and/or via pen/paper the first work request by associating first regulation version text and a first version date with the first version of the first regulation; creating/recording/storing the processed first version of the first regulation with the first regulation version text and the first version date in a document repository; processing mentally and/or via pen/paper the second work request by associating second regulation version text and a second version date with the second version of the first regulation, the second version date being different from the first version date; creating/storing/recording the processed second version of the first regulation with the second regulation version text and the second version date in a document repository; comparing mentally and/or via pen/paper the retrieved first and second versions of the first regulation to identify at least one change to the first regulation between the first version date and the second version date; and generating/creating a report with a description for identifying the at least one change to the first regulation based upon said comparing, wherein the report provides insight for a functional regulatory compliance program
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “creating a first work request for first source data being associated with a first version of a first regulation and being received from a first data source system; [storing document/content] in database circuit; creating a second work request for second source data being associated with a second version of the first regulation and being received from a second data source system; receiving a user query regarding the first regulation; and in response to the user query, retrieving the stored first and second versions of the first regulation from the database circuit”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “creating a first work request for first source data being associated with a first version of a first regulation and being received from a first data source system; [storing document/content] in database circuit; creating a second work request for second source data being associated with a second version of the first regulation and being received from a second data source system; receiving a user query regarding the first regulation; and in response to the user query, retrieving the stored first and second versions of the first regulation from the database circuit”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Accordingly, the above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 16, and 17 are product and system claims corresponding to method claim 1 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 16 and 17 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-15, and 18-20 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1, 16, and 17. In particular, claims 2-15, and 18-20 describe mental steps with aid of paper/pen to processing first, second, third work requests; associating regulation version with dates; comparing regulations version; generating reports/summaries based on identified changes; parsing/reading work requests; reviewing work request; mapping work request, as well as additional elements of first, second, thirds work request for first/second/third source data from first/second/third data source; first, second, third versions of regulations; receiving query with data information, retrieving stored versions (e.g. mere gathering of data), which does not impose meaningful limitation to abstract idea (Per prong 2, Step 2A, and Step 2B) and same analysis and conclusion apply as noted for claims 2-15, and 18-20.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al. (US 20190286741 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Greisen (US 20230011529 A1, referred hereinafter as D2).
As per claim 1, D1 discloses,
A method for analyzing a plurality of regulations, comprising, (D1, abstract).
creating a first work request for first source data being associated with a first version of a first regulation and being received from a first data source system, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading or providing links to two or more document having different version of a regulation to be compared with each other via system of D1 and differences detected in response to user providing step which reads on creating a first work request for first source data being associated with a first version of a first regulation and being received from a first data source system.).
processing the first work request by associating first regulation version text and a first version date with the first version of the first regulation, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses uploading of documents versions associated with or having different temporal attributes, where D1 specifically discloses one version of the document will be referred to herein as the original document and a subsequent version of the document will be referred to herein as the revision or new version of the document…. the original document merely indicates that it is version of the document that is earlier than the revision or new version of the document.).
storing the processed first version of the first regulation with the first regulation version text and the first version date in a database circuit, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading, to system/storage of D1, two or more document having different version of a regulation to be compared with each other and difference detected in response to user providing step which reads on creating a first work request for first source data being associated with a first version of a first regulation and being received from a first data source system.).
creating a second work request for second source data being associated with a second version of the first regulation and being received from a second data source system, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading or providing links to two or more document having different version of a regulation to be parsed/read/ and compared with each other via system of D1 and differences detected in response to user providing step which reads on creating a second work request for second source data being associated with a second version of the first regulation and being received from a second data source system.).
processing the second work request by associating second regulation version text and a second version date with the second version of the first regulation, the second version date being different from the first version date, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses uploading of documents versions associated with or having different temporal attributes, where D1 specifically discloses one version of the document will be referred to herein as the original document and a subsequent version of the document will be referred to herein as the revision or new version of the document…. the original document merely indicates that it is version of the document that is earlier than the revision or new version of the document.).
storing the processed second version of the first regulation with the second regulation version text and the second version date in the database circuit, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading/storing, to system/storage of D1, two or more document having different version of a regulation to be compared with each other and difference detected in response to user providing step which reads on creating a first work request for first source data being associated with a first version of a first regulation and being received from a first data source system.).
receiving a user query regarding the first regulation; and in response to the user query, 0025-0028 discloses in response to user uploading/query, to system/storage of D1, two or more document having different version, comparing the documents.).
retrieving the stored first and second versions of the first regulation from the database circuit; comparing the retrieved first and second versions of the first regulation to identify at least one change to the first regulation between the first version date and the second version date, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading/storing, to system/storage of D1, two or more document having different version of a regulation, and retrieving and reading/comparing the documents with each other to determine differences.).
and generating a report with a description for identifying the at least one change to the first regulation based upon said comparing, wherein the report provides insight for a functional regulatory compliance program, (D1, fig.1, 3a-3b, 0025-0028, 0039, discloses user uploading/storing, to system/storage of D1, two or more document having different version of a regulation, and retrieving and reading/comparing the documents with each other to determine differences.).
As noted above, D1 arguably discloses associating first/second regulation version text and a first/second version date as well as receiving a user query regarding the first regulation; nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, D2 (fig 3, 0051) explicitly shows/discloses - associating first regulation version text and a first version date with the first version of the first regulation, associating second regulation version text and a second version date with the second version of the first regulation, the second version date being different from the first version date and receiving a user query regarding the first regulation to compared with second regulation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would been obvious with predicable results of providing users with interface functionality to allow a user to request/view different version of regulations/laws based on date as well its determined differences as disclosed by D2.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein said creating the second work request comprises creating the second work request for the second source data being received from the second data source system after the first source data is received from the first data source system, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading or providing links to first and second document having different version of a regulation to be parsed/read/ and compared with each other via system of D1 and differences detected in response to user providing step which reads on creating a second work request for second source data being associated with a second version of the first regulation and being received from a second data source system. The examiner notes order of document being upload for analysis maybe at whim of user. Additionally, D2, fig 3, 0051, also allows for creating the second work request/making selection for the second source data being received from the second data source system after the first source data is received from the first data source system to be compared with already loaded/selected version of regulation/law.).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the second data source system comprises the first data source system, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading or providing links to first and second document having different version of a regulation to be parsed/read/ and compared with each other via system of D1. Additionally, D2, fig 1, 3, 0035, 0051, also allows for creating the second work request/making selection for the second source data being received from a first/second data source, where data sources maybe the same.).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the first source data is associated with a historic version of the first regulation, and wherein the second source data is associated with a current version of the first regulation, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading or providing links to first and second document having different version of a regulation to be parsed/read/ and compared with each other via system of D1. Additionally, D2, fig 1, 3, 0035, 0051 also shows various version laws/regulation and comparing thereof.).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein said receiving the user query includes receiving the user query with first inquiry date information and second inquiry date information, and wherein said retrieving the stored first and second versions of the first regulation from the database circuit comprises retrieving the stored first version of the first regulation… and retrieving the stored second version of the first regulation… , (D1, 0025-0028 discloses uploading of documents versions associated with or having different temporal attributes, where D1 specifically discloses one version of the document will be referred to herein as the original document and a subsequent version of the document will be referred to herein as the revision or new version of the document…. the original document merely indicates that it is version of the document that is earlier than the revision or new version of the document, and based on uploading the documents, retrieving/reading the stored first and second versions of the first regulation from the database circuit comprises retrieving the stored first version of the first regulation to detect differences).
As noted above, D1 arguably discloses wherein said receiving the user query includes receiving the user query with first inquiry date information and second inquiry date information; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose –… based upon the first inquiry date information and… based upon the second inquiry date information [retrieving and comparing the version].
D2 (fig 3, 0051) explicitly shows/discloses - wherein said receiving the user query includes receiving the user query with first inquiry date information (e.g. selecting of regulation/law with firs associated date to be compared) and second inquiry date information (e.g. second version associated with second date)… based upon the first inquiry date information and retrieving the stored second version of the first regulation based upon the second inquiry date information and comparing the versions.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would been obvious with predicable results of providing users with interface with functionality to allow a user to request/view different version of regulations/laws as well its differences as disclosed by D2.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
creating a third work request for third source data being associated with a third version of the first regulation and being received from a third data source system; processing the third work request by associating third regulation version text and a third version date with the third version of the first regulation, the third version date being between the first version date and the second version date; and storing the third version of the first regulation with the third regulation version text and the third version date in the database circuit, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses uploading of documents versions associated with or having different temporal attributes, where D1 specifically discloses one version of the document will be referred to herein as the original document and a subsequent version of the document will be referred to herein as the revision or new version of the document…. the original document merely indicates that it is version of the document that is earlier than the revision or new version of the document. Additionally, D2, fig 1, 3, 0035, 0051 also shows various version laws/regulation and comparing thereof.).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the third data source system comprises at least one of the first and second data source systems, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading or providing links to any number of documents having different version of a regulation to be parsed/read/ and compared with each other via system of D1. Additionally, D2, fig 1, 3, 0035, 0051, also allows for creating the any number of work request/making selection for the first, second, third source data being received from a first/second/third data source, where data sources maybe the same.).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the third version of the first regulation is received… with at least one of the first version of the first regulation and the second version of the first regulation, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading or providing links to first, second, third document having different version of a regulation to be parsed/read/ and compared with each other via system of D1 and differences detected in response to user providing step which reads on creating a second work request for second source data being associated with a second version of the first regulation and being received from a second data source system. The examiner notes order of document being upload for analysis maybe at whim of user. Additionally, D2, fig 3, 0051, also allows for creating the second work request/making selection for the second source data being received from the second data source system after the first source data is received from the first data source system to be compared with already loaded/selected version of regulation/law.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – concurrently.
However, the examiner takes official notice that concurrently providing/receiving multiple document/content/regulations was notoriously well known before effective filing of invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include concurrently receiving. This would been obvious with predicable results of receiving content/documents/regulations concurrently or in parallel as known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein said creating the first work request includes creating the first work request for first source data being associated with a first version of a second regulation and being received from a third data source system, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading or providing links to two or more document having different versions of second regulation to be compared with each other via system of D1 and differences detected in response to user providing step which reads on use case scenario of creating the first work request includes creating the first work request for first source data being associated with a first version of a second regulation and being received from a third data source system. Additionally, D2, fig 1, 3, 0035, 0051, also allows for creating the any number of work request/making selection for the first, second, third source data being received from a first/second/third data source having various associated dates, where data sources maybe the same).
wherein said processing the first work request includes associating first regulation version text and a first version date with the first version of the second regulation, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses uploading of documents versions having regulation texts and associated with or having different temporal attributes, where D1 specifically discloses one version of the document will be referred to herein as the original document and a subsequent version of the document will be referred to herein as the revision or new version of the document…. the original document merely indicates that it is version of the document that is earlier than the revision or new version of the document.).
wherein said creating the second work request includes creating the second work request for second source data being associated with a second version of the second regulation and being received from a fourth data source system, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading or providing links to two or more document having different versions of second regulation to be compared with each other via system of D1 and differences detected in response to user providing step which reads on use case scenario of creating the second work request includes creating the second work request for second source data being associated with a second version of the second regulation and being received from a fourth data source system.).
wherein said processing the second work request includes associating second regulation version text and a second version date with the second version of the second regulation, the second version date of the second regulation being different from the first version date of the second regulation, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses uploading of documents versions having regulation texts and associated with or having different temporal attributes, where D1 specifically discloses one version of the document will be referred to herein as the original document and a subsequent version of the document will be referred to herein as the revision or new version of the document…. the original document merely indicates that it is version of the document that is earlier than the revision or new version of the document.).
and storing the first version of the first regulation with the first regulation version text and the first version date and the second version of the first regulation with the second regulation version text and the second version date in the database circuit, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses uploading, to storage system of D1, of documents versions having regulation texts and associated with or having different temporal attributes.).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein said receiving the user query include receiving the user query regarding the first and second regulations, wherein said retrieving includes retrieving the stored first and second versions of the second regulation from the database circuit, wherein said comparing includes comparing the retrieved first and second versions of the second regulation to identify at least one change to the second regulation between the first version date and the second version date of the second regulation, and wherein said generating the report includes generating the report with a description for identifying the at least one change to the second regulation based upon said comparing, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading/storing, to system/storage of D1, two or more document having different version of a regulation, and based on the uploading/query, retrieving and reading/comparing the documents with each other to determine differences and providing differences to user for review. Additionally, D2 (fig 3, 0051) explicitly shows/discloses user making various selections and receiving a user query regarding the first regulation to compared with second regulation, and determining/displaying the differences).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the third data source system comprises at least one of the first and second data source systems, and wherein the fourth data source system comprises at least one of the first, second and third data source systems, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading or providing links to first and second document having different version of a regulation to be parsed/read/ and compared with each other via system of D1, where D1 disclose use case scenarios of user/system providing the regulation/content maybe a first, second, third and/or fourth system, where the first, second, third, and fourth system maybe the same or different system/user. Additionally, D2, fig 1, 3, 0035, 0051, also allows for creating the second work request/making selection for the second source data being received from a first/second/third/fourth data sources, where data sources maybe the same.).
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein said processing the first work request includes parsing the first work request, and wherein said processing the second work request includes parsing the second work request, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading/storing, to system/storage of D1, two or more document having different version of a regulation, and retrieving and reading/comparing the documents with each other to determine differences as part of/in response to work request. Additionally, D2, fig 1, 3, 0035, 0051, also allows for creating the any number of work request/making selection for the first, second, third source data being received from a first/second/third data source, comparing documents/laws/regulations and to determine differences.).
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein said processing the first work request includes reviewing the parsed first work request, and wherein said processing the second work request includes reviewing the parsed second work request, (D1, 0025-0028 discloses user uploading/storing, to system/storage of D1, two or more document having different version of a regulation, and retrieving and reading/comparing the documents with each other to determine differences as part of/in response to work request, and further providing user with parsed/detected differences for review. Additionally, D2, fig 1, 3, 0035, 0051, also allows for creating the any number of work request/making selection for the first, second, third source data being received from a first/second/third data source, comparing documents/laws/regulations and to determine differences for user review.).
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 12 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein said processing the first work request includes mapping the parsed first work request, and wherein said processing the second work request includes mapping the parsed second work request, (D1, 0025-0028, 0030-0032 discloses user uploading/storing, to system/storage of D1, two or more document having different version of a regulation, and retrieving and reading/comparing the documents including mapping/aligning the parsed first work request/regulations, and wherein said processing the second work request includes mapping/aligning the parsed second work request so that the two regulations can be parsed/compared to determine differences.).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein said processing the first work request includes reviewing the mapped first work request, and wherein said processing the second work request includes reviewing the mapped second work request, (D1, 0025-0028, 0030-0032 discloses user uploading/storing, to system/storage of D1, two or more document having different version of a regulation, and retrieving and reading/comparing the documents including mapping/aligning the parsed first work request/regulations, and wherein said processing the second work request includes mapping/aligning the parsed second work request so that the two regulations can be parsed/reviewed and/or compared to determine differences.).
As per claims 16-18:
Claims 16-18 are medium and system claims corresponding method claims 1, and 3 and are substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 16-18 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1, and 3.
As per claim 19, the rejection of claim 17 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein at least one of the first data source system and the second data source system is remote from said processor circuit, (D1, 0025-0028, 0054 discloses user uploading/storing, to system/storage of D1, two or more document having different version of a regulation, where D1 (0054) contemplates user computing system being remote from server where the processing of the request is performed. Additionally, D2, fig 1, 3, 0035, 0051, also allows for creating the any number of work request/making selection for the first, second, third source data being received from a first/second/third data source, comparing documents/laws/regulations and to determine differences for user review, where version control system connected via network (e.g. remote).).
As per claim 20, the rejection of claim 17 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein said processor circuit is configured to communicate with a user processing device for receiving the user query, (D1, 0025-0028, 0054 discloses user uploading/storing, to system/storage of D1, two or more document having different version of a regulation, where D1 (0054) contemplates user computing system being remote from server where the processing of the request for comparing is performed is performed. Additionally, D2, fig 1, 3, 0035, 0051, also allows for creating the any number of work request/making selection for the first, second, third source data being received from a first/second/third data source, comparing documents/laws/regulations and to determine differences for user review, where version control system connected via network (e.g. remote) from the user device requesting version control comparisons.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Information Database For Government Organization, Stores Laws Of Different Versions In Association With Different Temporal Information Indicating Applicability Of Laws With Respect To Time
DOCUMENT ID
US 20030135520 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2003-07-17
Abstract
Information collections defining a common subject such as a codified or uncodified body of law are stored on a computer readable medium in association with temporal information indicating the state or status with respect to time of parts of the information collection, including different versions of the same part. Parts that are different versions of each other have different temporal information associated therewith and can be accessed based on the temporal information. Thus, the temporal information may be used to control access to and display of parts of the subject in a computer system based on time as a search or request parameter. Parts of the common subject may be organized and stored according to various schemes, including hierarchical schemes such as topic trees, a relational database, a file system or a structured document system (e.g., using XML). Parts of the common subject and temporal and other information may be associated in various ways, including linking (e.g., hyperlinking), with pointers, or by including them in the same file, record or document. A hierarchical arrangement of hyperlinked, structured documents collectively provide a table of contents (TOC) to the subject. In the preferred embodiment, the subject is a statutory body of law such as the United States Code. Sections of the Code are stored in associated with temporal information such as date of enactment, effective date and termination date. A researcher can then access the version of the code in effect at any particular time. For example, historical and current versions of a section of the United States Code can be viewed, as accessed hierarchically or directly by identification of the section and a date. Other information, stored in association with a part of a body of law may include historical information, commentary, annotations, descriptive information, legislative history, references, and/or links to laws, judicial decisions and other information.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194