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 .
Claims 1 – 6 and 9 – 21 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 3 – 5, 9, 11 – 13, 15 and 17 – 19 have been amended.
Claims 7 and 8 have been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
With respect to 101:
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues that the claims allegedly provide an improvement to the technological field of improving the accuracy and efficiency of predicative modeling in a manner not previously performed in the art, as stated on pages 15 – 17 of the remarks.
Examiner’s answer:
Regarding the Applicant’s assertion that the claim as a whole is directed to an improvement to the accuracy and efficiency of predicative modeling in a manner not previously performed in the art, the Examiner respectfully disagrees on pages 15 – 17 of the Applicant’s remarks. The Applicant points to the following paragraphs of their specification to prove improvement, [0050 – 0059]: recites the use case of the ML model at a high-level of generality and does not provide specific steps to that an ordinary artisan would see as an improvement to the art. Thus, the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to 103:
The Examiner has found the arguments with respect to 103 persuasive and the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 – 6 and 9 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following sections follow the 2019 PEG guidelines for analyzing subject matter eligibility.
The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”)
and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial
Intelligence, 89 Fed. Reg. 58128-58138 (July 17, 2024) (“2024 AI SME Update”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined
whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the
statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed
to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first
prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception
(e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If
it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis
proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the
claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A,
Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the
analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the
exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of
elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception
into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
generating a dataset using a plurality of topics associated with a plurality of historical records, respectively, the plurality of historical records are associated with a plurality of user identifiers of different users, the generating including: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
mining transitive relations across the plurality of historical records of the plurality of user identifiers by forming, from the plurality of historical records, each of the pairs of data comprising an antecedent topic associated with a historical record corresponding to a preceding event and a consequent topic associated with a historical record corresponding to an event that occurred after the preceding event (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
aggregating the pairs of data formed from the plurality of historical records of the plurality of user identifiers of different users to create the dataset representing the transitive relations mined jointly across the plurality of user identifiers; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
processing the dataset to generate a filtered dataset comprising transitive relations selected among the aggregated pairs of data, the processing including: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
filtering the pairs of data by comparing a computed support value for each pair to a first user-configurable threshold, and retaining pairs with support values exceeding the first user-configurable threshold (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
filtering the retained pairs by comparing a computed confidence value for each pair to a second user-configurable threshold, and preserving pairs with confidence values exceeding the second user-configurable threshold (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
filtering the preserved pairs by comparing a computed lift value for each pair to a third user-configurable threshold, and retaining final pairs with lift values exceeding the third user-configurable threshold, and including the final pairs in the filtered dataset; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating, one or more predictions of one or more next record topics for a next record corresponding to the user identifier, based on consequent topics included in the pairs of data that include an antecedent topic corresponding to the input topic, wherein the next record corresponds to a second event; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
inputting, into a machine learning (ML) model operating across the plurality of user identifiers, the filtered dataset and an input topic, among the plurality of topics, the input topic being which is associated with a record of a particular user, the record of the particular user corresponding to a first event and being associated with a user identifier for the particular user; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
generating, by the ML model using the transitive relations represented in the filtered dataset and mined across the plurality of user identifiers (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting the one or more predictions to an external device, wherein receiving the one or more predictions by the external device causes the external device to transmit, to a user device, a message corresponding to at least one of the one or more predictions, (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
wherein the antecedent topic and the consequent topic are included in the plurality of topics. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
inputting, into a machine learning (ML) model operating across the plurality of user identifiers, the filtered dataset and an input topic, among the plurality of topics, the input topic being which is associated with a record of a particular user, the record of the particular user corresponding to a first event and being associated with a user identifier for the particular user; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
generating, by the ML model using the transitive relations represented in the filtered dataset and mined across the plurality of user identifiers (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting the one or more predictions to an external device, wherein receiving the one or more predictions by the external device causes the external device to transmit, to a user device, a message corresponding to at least one of the one or more predictions, (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
wherein the antecedent topic and the consequent topic are included in the plurality of topics. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a method of predictive modeling, this is nothing more than using machine learning models to classify the provided data. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 incorporates the rejections of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated.
forming each of the pairs of data to include a first topic of the topics that is associated with a first time point on the timeline and a second topic of the topics that is associated with a second time point on the timeline that is later in time than the first time point, as the antecedent topic and the consequent topic, respectively. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
obtaining historical reports for the plurality of user identifiers, respectively, each respective historical report including topics associated with a respective historical record for one of the plurality of user identifiers, the topics being arranged in a sequence based on a timeline, wherein the topics are included in the plurality of topics (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
obtaining historical reports for the plurality of user identifiers, respectively, each respective historical report including topics associated with a respective historical record for one of the plurality of user identifiers, the topics being arranged in a sequence based on a timeline, wherein the topics are included in the plurality of topics (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Claim 3 incorporates the rejections of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated.
wherein the same first topic corresponds to the antecedent topic or the consequent topic, and the same second topic corresponds to the antecedent topic or the consequent topic. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
computing a support value for each of the pairs of data, based on a total number of the plurality of historical records and a first number of the pairs of data that include a same first topic and a same second topic, to obtain the computed support value (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
computing a support value for each of the pairs of data, based on a total number of the plurality of historical records and a first number of the pairs of data that include a same first topic and a same second topic, to obtain the computed support value (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 4 incorporates the rejections of claim 3.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 3 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 3 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 3, these steps cover mental processes based on associating data points with each other.
Therefore, claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea – mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
computing a confidence value for each of the retained pairs of data based on a second number of the pairs of data that include a same antecedent topic followed by a same consequent topic, and a third number of historical records among the plurality of historical records that include the same antecedent topic to obtain the computed confidence value (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein the filtering the preserved pairs further comprises computing a lift value for each of the preserved pairs of data based on the computed confidence value associated with each of the preserved pairs of data and a fourth number of historical records among the plurality of historical records that include the same consequent topic. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
computing a confidence value for each of the retained pairs of data based on a second number of the pairs of data that include a same antecedent topic followed by a same consequent topic, and a third number of historical records among the plurality of historical records that include the same antecedent topic to obtain the computed confidence value (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein the filtering the preserved pairs further comprises computing a lift value for each of the preserved pairs of data based on the computed confidence value associated with each of the preserved pairs of data and a fourth number of historical records among the plurality of historical records that include the same consequent topic. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 5 incorporates the rejections of claim 4.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 4 are incorporated.
generating the one or more predictions based on the input topic and one or more consequent topics included in one or more pairs of data among the final pairs of data that include the antecedent topic corresponding to the input topic. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein the inputting the filtered dataset further comprises inputting, into the ML model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
the computed confidence value and the computed lift value that correspond to each of the final pairs of data, and the generating the one or more predictions further comprises: (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the inputting the filtered dataset further comprises inputting, into the ML model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
the computed confidence value and the computed lift value that correspond to each of the final pairs of data, and the generating the one or more predictions further comprises: (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 6 incorporates the rejections of claim 5.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 5 are incorporated.
wherein the one or more pairs of data are included in a plurality of pairs of data, and the generating the one or more predictions further comprises: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
ordering the plurality of pairs of data in an order of decreasing confidence values (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
identifying, as a first result group, first pairs of data among the plurality of pairs of data that have greatest confidence values, wherein a number of the first pairs of data is defined to be greater than 1 and smaller than a predetermined first number (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
identifying, as a second result group, second pairs of data from the first result group that have greatest lift values, wherein a number of the second pairs of data is defined to be not smaller than 1 and smaller than the predetermined first number, (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating the one or more predictions based on the second pairs of data. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “calculating and removing pairs that do not meet a threshold” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exceptions (i.e., “calculating and removing pairs that do not meet a threshold” of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
generating a dataset using a plurality of topics associated with a plurality of historical records, respectively, the plurality of historical records are associated with a plurality of user identifiers of different users, the generating including: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
mining transitive relations across the plurality of historical records of the plurality of user identifiers by forming, from the plurality of historical records, each of the pairs of data comprising an antecedent topic associated with a historical record corresponding to a preceding event and a consequent topic associated with a historical record corresponding to an event that occurred after the preceding event (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
aggregating the pairs of data formed from the plurality of historical records of the plurality of user identifiers of different users to create the dataset representing the transitive relations mined jointly across the plurality of user identifiers; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
processing the dataset to generate a filtered dataset comprising transitive relations selected among the aggregated pairs of data, the processing including: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
filtering the pairs of data by comparing a computed support value for each pair to a first user-configurable threshold, and retaining pairs with support values exceeding the first user-configurable threshold (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
filtering the retained pairs by comparing a computed confidence value for each pair to a second user-configurable threshold, and preserving pairs with confidence values exceeding the second user-configurable threshold (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
filtering the preserved pairs by comparing a computed lift value for each pair to a third user-configurable threshold, and retaining final pairs with lift values exceeding the third user-configurable threshold, and including the final pairs in the filtered dataset; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating, one or more predictions of one or more next record topics for a next record corresponding to the user identifier, based on consequent topics included in the pairs of data that include an antecedent topic corresponding to the input topic, wherein the next record corresponds to a second event; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
one or more data processors; (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform a method including: (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
inputting, into a machine learning (ML) model operating across the plurality of user identifiers, the filtered dataset and an input topic, among the plurality of topics, the input topic being which is associated with a record of a particular user, the record of the particular user corresponding to a first event and being associated with a user identifier for the particular user; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
generating, by the ML model using the transitive relations represented in the filtered dataset and mined across the plurality of user identifiers (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting the one or more predictions to an external device, wherein receiving the one or more predictions by the external device causes the external device to transmit, to a user device, a message corresponding to at least one of the one or more predictions, (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
wherein the antecedent topic and the consequent topic are included in the plurality of topics. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
one or more data processors; (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform a method including: (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
inputting, into a machine learning (ML) model operating across the plurality of user identifiers, the filtered dataset and an input topic, among the plurality of topics, the input topic being which is associated with a record of a particular user, the record of the particular user corresponding to a first event and being associated with a user identifier for the particular user; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
generating, by the ML model using the transitive relations represented in the filtered dataset and mined across the plurality of user identifiers (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting the one or more predictions to an external device, wherein receiving the one or more predictions by the external device causes the external device to transmit, to a user device, a message corresponding to at least one of the one or more predictions, (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
wherein the antecedent topic and the consequent topic are included in the plurality of topics. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a method of predictive modeling, this is nothing more than using machine learning models to classify the provided data. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 incorporates the rejections of claim 9.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 9 are incorporated.
forming each of the pairs of data to include a first topic of the topics that is associated with a first time point on the timeline and a second topic of the topics that is associated with a second time point on the timeline that is later in time than the first time point, as the antecedent topic and the consequent topic, respectively. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
obtaining historical reports for the plurality of user identifiers, respectively, each respective historical report including topics associated with a respective historical record for one of the plurality of user identifiers, the topics being arranged in a sequence based on a timeline, wherein the topics are included in the plurality of topics (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
obtaining historical reports for the plurality of user identifiers, respectively, each respective historical report including topics associated with a respective historical record for one of the plurality of user identifiers, the topics being arranged in a sequence based on a timeline, wherein the topics are included in the plurality of topics (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Claim 11 incorporates the rejections of claim 9.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 9 are incorporated.
comparing the support value to a first predetermined threshold value; (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.)
wherein the same first topic corresponds to the antecedent topic or the consequent topic, and the same second topic corresponds to the antecedent topic or the consequent topic. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
computing a support value for each of the pairs of data, based on a total number of the plurality of historical records and a first number of the pairs of data that include a same first topic and a same second topic, to obtain the computed support value (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
computing a support value for each of the pairs of data, based on a total number of the plurality of historical records and a first number of the pairs of data that include a same first topic and a same second topic, to obtain the computed support value (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 12 incorporates the rejections of claim 11.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 11 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 11 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 11, these steps cover mental processes based on associating data points with each other.
Therefore, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea – mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
computing a confidence value for each of the retained pairs of data based on a second number of the pairs of data that include a same antecedent topic followed by a same consequent topic, and a third number of historical records among the plurality of historical records that include the same antecedent topic to obtain the computed confidence value (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein the filtering the preserved pairs further includes computing a lift value for each of the preserved pairs of data based on the computed confidence value associated with each of the preserved pairs of data and a fourth number of historical records among the plurality of historical records that include the same consequent topic. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
computing a confidence value for each of the retained pairs of data based on a second number of the pairs of data that include a same antecedent topic followed by a same consequent topic, and a third number of historical records among the plurality of historical records that include the same antecedent topic to obtain the computed confidence value (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein the filtering the preserved pairs further includes computing a lift value for each of the preserved pairs of data based on the computed confidence value associated with each of the preserved pairs of data and a fourth number of historical records among the plurality of historical records that include the same consequent topic. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 13 incorporates the rejections of claim 12.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 12 are incorporated.
generating the one or more predictions based on the input topic and one or more consequent topics included in one or more pairs of data among the final pairs of data that include the antecedent topic corresponding to the input topic. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein the inputting the filtered dataset further includes inputting, into the ML model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
the computed confidence value and the computed lift value that correspond to each of the final pairs of data, and the generating the one or more predictions further includes: (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the inputting the filtered dataset further includes inputting, into the ML model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
the computed confidence value and the computed lift value that correspond to each of the final pairs of data, and the generating the one or more predictions further includes: (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 14 incorporates the rejections of claim 13.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 13 are incorporated.
wherein the one or more pairs of data are included in a plurality of pairs of data, and the generating the one or more predictions further includes: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
ordering the plurality of pairs of data in an order of decreasing confidence values (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
identifying, as a first result group, first pairs of data among the plurality of pairs of data that have greatest confidence values, wherein a number of the first pairs of data is defined to be greater than 1 and smaller than a predetermined first number (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
identifying, as a second result group, second pairs of data from the first result group that have greatest lift values, wherein a number of the second pairs of data is defined to be not smaller than 1 and smaller than the predetermined first number, (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating the one or more predictions based on the second pairs of data. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “calculating and removing pairs that do not meet a threshold” of base claim 13) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exceptions (i.e., “calculating and removing pairs that do not meet a threshold” of base claim 13) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory machine-readable media, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
generating a dataset using a plurality of topics associated with a plurality of historical records, respectively, the plurality of historical records are associated with a plurality of user identifiers of different users, the generating including: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
mining transitive relations across the plurality of historical records of the plurality of user identifiers by forming, from the plurality of historical records, each of the pairs of data comprising an antecedent topic associated with a historical record corresponding to a preceding event and a consequent topic associated with a historical record corresponding to an event that occurred after the preceding event (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
aggregating the pairs of data formed from the plurality of historical records of the plurality of user identifiers of different users to create the dataset representing the transitive relations mined jointly across the plurality of user identifiers; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
processing the dataset to generate a filtered dataset comprising transitive relations selected among the aggregated pairs of data, the processing including: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
filtering the pairs of data by comparing a computed support value for each pair to a first user-configurable threshold, and retaining pairs with support values exceeding the first user-configurable threshold (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
filtering the retained pairs by comparing a computed confidence value for each pair to a second user-configurable threshold, and preserving pairs with confidence values exceeding the second user-configurable threshold (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
filtering the preserved pairs by comparing a computed lift value for each pair to a third user-configurable threshold, and retaining final pairs with lift values exceeding the third user-configurable threshold, and including the final pairs in the filtered dataset; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating, one or more predictions of one or more next record topics for a next record corresponding to the user identifier, based on consequent topics included in the pairs of data that include an antecedent topic corresponding to the input topic, wherein the next record corresponds to a second event; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
inputting, into a machine learning (ML) model operating across the plurality of user identifiers, the filtered dataset and an input topic, among the plurality of topics, the input topic being which is associated with a record of a particular user, the record of the particular user corresponding to a first event and being associated with a user identifier for the particular user; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
generating, by the ML model using the transitive relations represented in the filtered dataset and mined across the plurality of user identifiers (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting the one or more predictions to an external device, wherein receiving the one or more predictions by the external device causes the external device to transmit, to a user device, a message corresponding to at least one of the one or more predictions, (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
wherein the antecedent topic and the consequent topic are included in the plurality of topics. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
inputting, into a machine learning (ML) model operating across the plurality of user identifiers, the filtered dataset and an input topic, among the plurality of topics, the input topic being which is associated with a record of a particular user, the record of the particular user corresponding to a first event and being associated with a user identifier for the particular user; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
generating, by the ML model using the transitive relations represented in the filtered dataset and mined across the plurality of user identifiers (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting the one or more predictions to an external device, wherein receiving the one or more predictions by the external device causes the external device to transmit, to a user device, a message corresponding to at least one of the one or more predictions, (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
wherein the antecedent topic and the consequent topic are included in the plurality of topics. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a method of predictive modeling, this is nothing more than using machine learning models to classify the provided data. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 incorporates the rejections of claim 15.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory machine-readable media, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 15 are incorporated.
forming each of the pairs of data to include a first topic of the topics that is associated with a first time point on the timeline and a second topic of the topics that is associated with a second time point on the timeline that is later in time than the first time point, as the antecedent topic and the consequent topic, respectively. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
obtaining historical reports for the plurality of user identifiers, respectively, each respective historical report including topics associated with a respective historical record for one of the plurality of user identifiers, the topics being arranged in a sequence based on a timeline, wherein the topics are included in the plurality of topics (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
obtaining historical reports for the plurality of user identifiers, respectively, each respective historical report including topics associated with a respective historical record for one of the plurality of user identifiers, the topics being arranged in a sequence based on a timeline, wherein the topics are included in the plurality of topics (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Claim 17 incorporates the rejections of claim 15.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory machine-readable media, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 15 are incorporated.
wherein the same first topic corresponds to the antecedent topic or the consequent topic, and the same second topic corresponds to the antecedent topic or the consequent topic. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
computing a support value for each of the pairs of data, based on a total number of the plurality of historical records and a first number of the pairs of data that include a same first topic and a same second topic, to obtain the computed support value (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
computing a support value for each of the pairs of data, based on a total number of the plurality of historical records and a first number of the pairs of data that include a same first topic and a same second topic, to obtain the computed support value (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 18 incorporates the rejections of claim 17.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory machine-readable media, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 17 are incorporated. Please see the analysis of claim 17 above. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 17, these steps cover mental processes based on associating data points with each other.
Therefore, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea – mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
computing a confidence value for each of the retained pairs of data based on a second number of the pairs of data that include a same antecedent topic followed by a same consequent topic, and a third number of historical records among the plurality of historical records that include the same antecedent topic to obtain the computed confidence value (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein the filtering the preserved pairs further includes computing a lift value for each of the preserved pairs of data based on the computed confidence value associated with each of the preserved pairs of data and a fourth number of historical records among the plurality of historical records that include the same consequent topic. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
computing a confidence value for each of the retained pairs of data based on a second number of the pairs of data that include a same antecedent topic followed by a same consequent topic, and a third number of historical records among the plurality of historical records that include the same antecedent topic to obtain the computed confidence value (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
wherein the filtering the preserved pairs further includes computing a lift value for each of the preserved pairs of data based on the computed confidence value associated with each of the preserved pairs of data and a fourth number of historical records among the plurality of historical records that include the same consequent topic. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 19 incorporates the rejections of claim 18.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory machine-readable media, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 18 are incorporated.
generating the one or more predictions based on the input topic and one or more consequent topics included in one or more pairs of data among the final pairs of data that include the antecedent topic corresponding to the input topic. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein the inputting the filtered dataset further includes inputting, into the ML model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
the computed confidence value and the computed lift value that correspond to each of the final pairs of data, and the generating the one or more predictions further includes: (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the inputting the filtered dataset further includes inputting, into the ML model (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
the computed confidence value and the computed lift value that correspond to each of the final pairs of data, and the generating the one or more predictions further includes: (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 20 incorporates the rejections of claim 19.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory machine-readable media, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 19 are incorporated.
wherein the one or more pairs of data are included in a plurality of pairs of data, and the generating the one or more predictions further includes: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
ordering the plurality of pairs of data in an order of decreasing confidence values (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
identifying, as a first result group, first pairs of data among the plurality of pairs of data that have greatest confidence values, wherein a number of the first pairs of data is defined to be greater than 1 and smaller than a predetermined first number (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
identifying, as a second result group, second pairs of data from the first result group that have greatest lift values, wherein a number of the second pairs of data is defined to be not smaller than 1 and smaller than the predetermined first number, (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating the one or more predictions based on the second pairs of data. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “calculating and removing pairs that do not meet a threshold” of base claim 19) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exceptions (i.e., “calculating and removing pairs that do not meet a threshold” of base claim 19) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 21 incorporates the rejections of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated.
the mining further comprises forming topic sequences, each of the topic sequences including an antecedent topic and at least two consequent topics corresponding to historical records occurring after the antecedent topic, the pairs of data being included in the topic sequences (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
the generating the one or more predictions further comprises using the topic sequences to predict a sequence of two or more potential next record topics following the input topic and outputting an ordered list of the predicted sequence of the two or more potential next record topics. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications. (Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “calculating and removing pairs that do not meet a threshold” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exceptions (i.e., “calculating and removing pairs that do not meet a threshold” of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ALLMAN THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6 a.m. - 3 p.m. ET..
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/K.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights