DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 02/26/2026. Claims 1, 9-11, 13 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7, 9-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-4, 7-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract without significantly more.
3. Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claim 17 recites a process (i.e., a series of acts or steps), claims 1 and 13 recite a manufacture (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
4. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites:
“receive…two or more incoming correspondence files from a customer to an entity;”, “receive…two or more outgoing correspondence files to the customer from the entity;”, “register…each of the two or more incoming correspondence files and each of the two or more outgoing correspondence files;”, “record each registration…;”, “transfer each of the two or more incoming correspondence files and each of the two or more outgoing correspondence files…;”, “record each transfer…;”, “pre-process each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files;”, “convert each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files to a single format;”, “create a complete file for each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files; store each complete file…;”, “analyze…each complete file;”, “create…a correspondence plan between the entity and the customer;”, “implement the correspondence plan;” and “when the customer selects… before an end time, modify the correspondence plan;”, “wherein: pre-processing each correspondence file comprises capturing metadata; each complete file comprises: one correspondence file; one pre-processed correspondence file; and one formatted correspondence file; the analysis comprises: evaluating a source of each incoming correspondence file; evaluating a type of each incoming correspondence file; evaluating the metadata; evaluating a location of where each incoming correspondence file was transmitted to the entity by the customer;”, and “evaluating a date and time of transmission of each incoming correspondence file;”
Claim 13 recites:
“receive two or more incoming correspondence files from a customer to an entity;”, “receive two or more outgoing correspondence files to the customer from the entity;”, “register each of the two or more incoming correspondence files and each of the two or more outgoing correspondence files;”, “record each registration;”, “transfer each of the two or more incoming correspondence files and each of the two or more outgoing correspondence files…;” and “record each transfer…;”, “pre-process each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files;”, “convert each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files to a single format;”, “create a complete file for each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files;” and “store each complete file…;” and “analyze each complete file;”, “create a correspondence plan between the entity and the customer;” and “implement the correspondence data plan.”
Claim 17 recites:
“receiving…two or more incoming correspondence files from the customer to an entity;”, “receiving…two or more outgoing correspondence files to the customer from the entity;” “registering…each of the two or more incoming correspondence files and each of the two or more outgoing correspondence files;”, “recording…each registration;”, “transferring each of the two or more incoming correspondence files and each of the two or more outgoing correspondence files;”, “recording…each transfer;”, “pre-processing…each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files;”, “converting…each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files to a single format;”, “creating…a complete file for each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files;”, “storing each complete file;”, “analyzing…each complete file;”, “creating…a correspondence plan between the entity and the customer;” and “implementing…the correspondence plan;”, “wherein: each complete file comprises: one correspondence file; one pre-processed correspondence file; and one formatted correspondence file;”
The limitations above demonstrate the independent claims recite the abstract idea of managing how a correspondence plan is generated and implemented for communicating one or more paperless benefits from a business to a customer which encompasses commercial interactions (i.e., advertising, sales or marketing activities, business relations) and mental processes (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgements, opinions.) See MPEP 2106.04 II
The Applicant’s Specification in at least [002] Entities may include individuals, corporations,
partnerships, non-profits, government agencies or branches, and other groups of people. Entities may be any size, including small (one member or employee) or large (thousands of employees or members). Entities may have customers. Customers may be internal or external. Internal customers may include, inter alia, employees, vendors, disparate business units, and disparate franchises. [003] Many entities, especially larger entities, may have, and generate, numerous correspondence files between the entity and its customers, or about particular customers. Correspondence files may be of any supported type. Correspondence files may be incoming, outgoing, or internal. Correspondence files may be located in disparate data centers or physical storage centers. Correspondence may include transactions, such as checks and contracts. [004] Larger entities may have multiple different incoming and outgoing correspondence data streams (e.g., paper letters, texts, phone calls, emails, etc.). [005] Many entities may also prefer paperless communications and data storage to paper communications and physical storage. Paperless may be more efficient, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly. However, some customers may prefer paper communications, for record-keeping, lack of trust, or other purposes.
[006] Currently, there is no apparatus or method available to automatically gather all correspondence between an entity and a customer in a single hub, evaluate the correspondence for approaches to convince the customer to switch to paperless, and then implement those approaches. [007] Therefore, it would be desirable for apparatus and methods to collect, combine, store, and analyze correspondence with customers, to encourage adoption of paperless transactions by the customers.
As such, the limitations when viewed as a whole recite advertising, marketing, or sales activities because the claims pertain to managing how a correspondence plan for customer is generated and implemented to communicate offerings to the customer on behalf of entity, i.e., business. The limitations also recite mental processes for parsing and evaluating data from incoming and outgoing correspondences between customers and businesses, where the evaluation consists of collecting and comparing known data from the correspondences to recommend offerings for a customer to consider may be performed in the human mind or with pen/paper. Therefore, the identified limitations may be reasonably characterized as subject matter falling within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. The claim recites an abstract idea.
5. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a correspondence data hub computer program product, the computer program product comprising executable instructions stored on non-transitory memory of a computer system, the executable instructions when executed by a processor on the computer system”, “at the computer system”, “by the program”, “within a database at the computer system”, “to a pre-processing folder”, “a traceable log”, “one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning ("AI/ML") algorithms”, “by one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning ("AI/ML") algorithms”, “the paperless option”, - see claim 1, “an apparatus for a correspondence data hub”, “a central server”, “a communication link;”, “a processor;” and “a non-transitory memory configured to store”, “at least a server operating system;”, “a correspondence data hub application”, “an integrated data sourcing and provisioning module;”, “an automatic data quality check module;” and “an integrated actionable insight module comprising one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning ("AI/ML") algorithms;”, “the integrated data sourcing and provisioning module is configured to:”, “within a database”, “the automatic data quality check module”, “within the database”, “the automatic data quality check module is configured to”, “the integrated actionable insights module is configured to”, “the correspondence data hub application is configured to automatically” - see claim 13
“an integrated data sourcing and provisioning module”, “a correspondence data hub application”, “a centralized server”, “at a database”, “an automatic data quality check module”, “, at an integrated actionable insights module”, “automatically”, “through one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning (“AI/ML”) algorithms”, – see claim 17, is/are recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification [¶ 0075] – discusses any suitable AI/ML algorithms may be used, [¶ 0129] – discusses aspects of the invention may be described in the general context of computer-executable instructions, such as program modules, being executed by a computer.] The specification describes the identified additional elements in general terms without describing any of the particulars, such that the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computer components being used to perform the abstract idea. At best, the recited additional elements are adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The other additional elements of: “a graphical display option to present a paperless option to the customer; a start time to implement the correspondence plan; an end time to end the correspondence plan;”, “the correspondence plan communicates one or more benefits of paperless transactions to the customer.” – see claims 1 and 13 “the correspondence plan comprises: a graphical display option to present a paperless option to the customer; a start time to implement the correspondence plan; an end time to end the correspondence plan; and one or more benefits to the customer of opting in to paperless transactions.” – see claim 17 merely adds insignificant-extra solution activity to the judicial exception, [i.e., data transmission/output], as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)
The other additional elements of: “a method for incentivizing a customer to opt in to paperless transactions” recited in the preamble is an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (h)
6. Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
7. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a correspondence data hub computer program product, the computer program product comprising executable instructions stored on non-transitory memory of a computer system, the executable instructions when executed by a processor on the computer system”, “at the computer system”, “by the program”, “within a database at the computer system”, “to a pre-processing folder”, “a traceable log”, “one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning ("AI/ML") algorithms”, “by one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning ("AI/ML") algorithms”, “the paperless option”, - see claim 1, “an apparatus for a correspondence data hub”, “a central server”, “a communication link;”, “a processor;” and “a non-transitory memory configured to store”, “at least a server operating system;”, “a correspondence data hub application”, “an integrated data sourcing and provisioning module;”, “an automatic data quality check module;” and “an integrated actionable insight module comprising one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning ("AI/ML") algorithms;”, “the integrated data sourcing and provisioning module is configured to:”, “within a database”, “the automatic data quality check module”, “within the database”, “the automatic data quality check module is configured to”, “the integrated actionable insights module is configured to”, “the correspondence data hub application is configured to automatically” - see claim 13
“an integrated data sourcing and provisioning module”, “a correspondence data hub application”, “a centralized server”, “at a database”, “an automatic data quality check module”, “, at an integrated actionable insights module”, “automatically”, “through one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning (“AI/ML”) algorithms” – see claim 17, at best amount to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are ineligible at Step 2B.
The other additional elements of: “a graphical display option to present a paperless option to the customer; a start time to implement the correspondence plan; an end time to end the correspondence plan;”, “the correspondence plan communicates one or more benefits of paperless transactions to the customer.” – see claims 1 and 13 “the correspondence plan comprises: a graphical display option to present a paperless option to the customer; a start time to implement the correspondence plan; an end time to end the correspondence plan; and one or more benefits to the customer of opting in to paperless transactions.” – see claim 17 were considered insignificant extra-solution activity above. At Step 2B, the evaluation of insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is routine, well-known, or conventional.
As discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II), the Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs, Alice court decisions held that “arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price”, and “presenting offers and gathering statistics” are computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional when they are merely claimed in a generic manner. As such, the limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim(s) are ineligible at Step 2B.
8. Claims 2-4, 7-12, 15-16, 18, 20 are dependents of claims 1, 13 and 17.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the single format is text” further describes the type data/information recited in the abstract idea, but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 3 recites “wherein the single format is xml.” further describes the type data/information recited in the abstract idea, but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 4, recites “wherein a source of each of the incoming correspondence data files is one of: a text message; an email; a phone call; a video call; a letter; a fillable form; or a chatbot conversation.” further describes the type data/information recited in the abstract idea, but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 7 recite “wherein the instructions transmit the correspondence plan to a system administrator.” adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., data transmission, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (g), Claim 8 recites “wherein the instructions implement the correspondence plan” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 9 recites “wherein the correspondence plan is implemented by modifying a future outgoing correspondence file.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 10 recites “wherein the correspondence plan is implemented by checking all future outgoing correspondence files to the customer against the correspondence plan” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 11 recites “wherein when the customer agrees to one or more paperless transactions, the instructions modify the correspondence plan.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 12 recites “wherein the database is encrypted” where the database is an additional element recited at a high-level of generality. In this case, encrypted refers to how the data/information in the database maybe stored which does not make the claimed invention any less abstract or lead towards eligibility. Claim 15 recites “wherein the correspondence plan comprises one or more benefits to the customer of opting in to paperless transactions.” further describes the data/information recited in the abstract idea but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 16 “wherein the correspondence plan is automatically implemented by the correspondence data hub application.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 18 “wherein the database is located away from the central server.” recites the additional elements at a high-level generality as they merely serve as a tool(s) to implement the abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 20 recites “wherein the customer is granted access…by a system administrator.” Further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Accordingly, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that provide an inventive concept or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. Claim(s) 1-4, 7-13, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman (US 2012/0266219 A1) in view of Bennett (US 2014/0337188 A1) in further view of Simard (US 2009/0119324 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Coleman discloses
a correspondence data hub computer program product (¶ 0025, 0030, 0090: discloses a centralized document management service 107. The document management service is a smart, cloud-based system which intelligently gathers, stores, and initiate actions for a variety of user documents, i.e., bills, etc.),
the computer program product comprising executable instructions stored on non-transitory memory of a computer system, the executable instructions when executed (¶ 0091) by a processor (¶ 0086: discloses a processor) on the computer system (¶ 0084, 0090: discloses computer system 700):
receive, at the computer system, two or more incoming correspondence files from a customer to an entity (¶ 0025: discloses the document management system 107 provides functions and mechanisms for retrieving documents with respect to a particular user account.);
receive, at the computer system, two or more outgoing correspondence files to the customer from the entity (¶ 0028: discloses the document service provider interfaces with one or more service providers to access data needed to facilitate and support electronic billing.);
register, by the program, each of the two or more incoming correspondence files and each of the two or more outgoing correspondence files (¶ 0033-0034: discloses the document management service 107 includes various executable modules including the organization module 109 that can be used to group the user’s bills, statements, and document in specific ways.);
record each registration within a database at the computer system (¶ 0033-0034, 0036, 0057: discloses the organization module 109 of the document management service groups/sorts vital documents within the data store 127.);
transfer each of the two or more incoming correspondence files and each of the two or more outgoing correspondence files to a pre-processing folder (¶ 0029: discloses all of the transmission mediums enable data to be pushed to the document management service 107);
record each transfer within the database (¶ 0040: discloses billing statements and other vital documents and/or correspondence between the user and service provider are stored for the user in the data store.);
pre-process each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files (¶ 0035: discloses the parsing module 125 of the document management service 107 dissects the vital documents.); convert each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files to a single format (¶ 0035, 0054-0055, 0076: discloses the parser 125 includes Extensible Markup Language (XML) parsers can translate the data into object code for effective use by the various use of other modules);
create a complete file for each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files (¶ 0054: discloses generating an output such as schema data 171);
store each complete file within the database (¶ 0054: discloses the generated output data is stored by a the storage module 161.);
analyze each complete file (¶ 0036: discloses the analysis module 115 analyzes documents and data stored in the data store.); and wherein:
pre-processing each correspondence file comprises capturing metadata (¶ 0035: discloses the parsing module 125 dissects vital documents from various transmission mediums thereby determining the inherent makeup of the data within the document, contextual features, inherent data structure underlying the document.);
each complete file comprises: one correspondence file; one pre-processed correspondence file; and one formatted correspondence file (¶ 0034: discloses the document management service groups user’s bills, statements, and documents in specific ways.);
The Coleman reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Bennett reference is related to an electronic invoice and payment system that provides billing services on behalf of multiple billers (¶ 0066) and teaches:
create a correspondence plan between the entity and the customer (¶ 0073, 0076-0078, 0081-0082: discloses the electronic invoice and payment system 100 provides a biller portal which each biller can control the experience of its own customers. Each biller can use the biller portal to set business rules related to customer communications. Business rules enable a biller to specify that customers can enroll in paperless billing for water and sewer bills.); implement the correspondence plan (¶ 0066, 0076, 0097, 0268-0269: discloses email notifications are automatically sent from the electronic invoice and payment system to customers of biller on behalf of the biller. if a customer enrolls in paperless billing for one type of invoice, the customer will be enrolled in paperless billing for all types of invoices.)
when the customer selects the paperless option before an end time (¶ 0074, 0081, 0090, 0099: discloses customer is presented with a checkbox allowing the customer to enroll in paperless billing.), modify the correspondence plan (¶ 0097: discloses if a customer enrolls in paperless billing for one type of invoice, the customer will be enrolled in paperless billing for all types of invoices.); correspondence plan comprises a graphical display option to present a paperless option to the customer (Figs 18A-18C, ¶ 0073, 0076-0078, 0081-0082, 0255, 0259: discloses paperless options: allow paperless billing and payment scheduling: allowing scheduled payments; a button for create may flex pay schedule);
a start time to implement the correspondence plan (Figs 18A-18C, ¶ 0073, 0076-0078, 0081-0082, 0255, 0259: discloses the customer can specify a date 1802 for the first payment of the flex pay schedule.);
an end time to end the correspondence plan (Figs 18A-18C, ¶ 0073, 0076-0078, 0081-0082, 0255, 0259: discloses the customer can specify a date 1804 for the last payment of the flex pay schedule.); and
communicates one or more benefits of paperless transactions to the customer. (¶ 0073, 0076-0078, 0081-0082,0255, 0259, 0268-0269: discloses the electronic invoice and payment system can automatically send email notifications to customers of a biller on behalf of the biller. Email notifications can be triggered by a variety of events including a customer enrolling in paperless billing. Business rules enable a biller to specify that customers can enroll in paperless billing for water and sewer bills. Each biller can control the experience of its own customers.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the document management service of Coleman to include create a correspondence plan between the entity; the correspondence plan comprises: a graphical display option to present a paperless option to the customer; a start time to implement the correspondence plan; an end time to end the correspondence plan; and communicates one or more benefits of paperless transactions to the customer, as disclosed by the teachings of Bennett to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Bennett, the motivation for the combination would have been to allow customers the convenience of online bill paying and so that each customer can establish payment methods and schedules that suit their needs as expressly suggested by Bennett (¶ 0044-0046)
The combination of Coleman and Bennett does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Simard reference is related to systems and methods that facilitate implementing a paperless environment with automatic document filing using a manager component (¶ 0005) and teaches:
analyze, through one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms, each complete file (¶ 0024-0025, 0051: discloses the manager component 102 can infer and generate additional metadata in order to identify content, a context, a purpose, a detail of each document. The manager component 102 can employ machine learning techniques to identify characteristics. The manager component can determine the document is a bill.)
create, by the one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning (“AI/ML”) algorithms, a correspondence plan between the entity and entity and the customer (¶ 0024-0026: discloses the manager component 102 can provide automatic notification to an entity based on the identified content. The manager component 102 can notify an entity such as department, manager, user, worker, an email based on the document being relevant to such entity;)
the analysis comprises: (¶ 0024, 0051: discloses machine learning, inference techniques, intelligence, and the like can be evaluate metadata from incoming document(s).)
evaluating a source of each incoming correspondence file (¶ 0024, 0051: discloses the manager component 102 can evaluate metadata related to a document such as the origin, source);
evaluating a type of each incoming correspondence file ¶ 0024, 0051: discloses the manager component 102 can evaluate metadata related to a document such as the type of document);
evaluating the metadata (¶ 0024, 0051: discloses the manager component can evaluate metadata related to the document); evaluating a location of where each incoming correspondence file was transmitted to the entity by the customer (¶0024, 0051: discloses the manager component can evaluate location); and evaluating a date and time of transmission of each incoming correspondence file (¶ 0024, 0051: discloses the manager component can evaluate date);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods of Coleman and Bennett to employ the machine learning techniques as disclosed by the teachings of Simard, to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Simard, the motivation for the combination would have been to leverage the machine learning techniques for a personalized notification experience that delivers information in a way that is most relevant and useful to each entity. (¶ 0005, 0025-0026)
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Coleman, Bennett, Simard discloses the correspondence data hub computer program product of claim 1
wherein the single format is text. (¶ 0054: Colman discloses the document management service generates a hypertext of the documents, i.e., bills)
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Coleman, Bennett, Simard discloses the correspondence data hub computer program product of claim 1
wherein the single format is xml. (¶ 0054: Coleman discloses the generated output may be in XML format.)
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Coleman, Bennett, Simard discloses the correspondence data hub computer program product of claim 1
wherein a source of each of the incoming correspondence data files is one of: a text message; an email (¶ 0028-0029: Coleman discloses data transmission/submission mediums include e-mail messages. All of the transmission mediums enable data to be pushed to the document management service.); a phone call; a video call; a letter (¶ 0028-0029: Coleman discloses data transmission/submission mediums include bill postings); a fillable form; or a chatbot conversation.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Coleman, Bennett, and Simard discloses the correspondence data hub computer program product of claim 1
wherein the instructions transmit the correspondence plan to a system administrator. (¶ 0071: Bennett discloses the centralized server enables the electronic invoice and payment system to provide individual billing services to multiple independent unrelated billers.)
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Coleman, Bennett, and Simard discloses the correspondence data hub computer program product of claim 1
wherein the instructions implement the correspondence plan. (¶ 0073, 0077, 0099: Bennett discloses for displaying paperless options a biller can allow a paperless options menu item on the customer portal, paperless tab in the biller portal, or both.)
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Coleman, Bennett, and Simard discloses the correspondence data hub computer program product of claim 1
wherein the correspondence plan is implemented by modifying a future outgoing correspondence file. (¶ 0068, 0268-0269: Bennett discloses the electronic invoice and payment system can automatically send email notifications to customers of a biller on behalf of the biller. Each biller can edit the content of the templates that are provided for one or more types of email notifications.)
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Coleman, Bennett, and Simard discloses the correspondence data hub computer program product of claim 1
wherein the correspondence plan is implemented by checking all future outgoing correspondence files to the customer against the correspondence plan. (¶ 0076, 0097: Bennett discloses each biller can specify business rules to be applied to one or more types of invoices issued by the billers. A biller that issues multiple types of invoices can enable a setting such that if a customer enrolls in paperless billing for one type of invoice, the customer will be enrolled in paperless billing for all types of invoices.)
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Coleman, Bennett, and Simard discloses the correspondence data hub computer program product of claim 1
wherein when the customer agrees to one or more paperless transactions, the instructions modify the correspondence plan. (¶ 0200: Bennett discloses customers who enroll in paperless billing through the system receive an email alerting them than invoice has been issued by the biller.)
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Coleman, Bennett, and Simard discloses the correspondence data hub computer program product of claim 1
wherein the database is encrypted. (¶ 0072: Bennett discloses the data maintained in the database can be encrypted for security.)
With respect to claim 13, Coleman discloses
an apparatus for a correspondence data hub (¶ 0025, 0030, 0090: discloses a centralized document management service 107. The document management service is a smart, cloud-based system which intelligently gathers, stores, and initiate actions for a variety of user documents, i.e., bills, etc.),
the apparatus comprising:
a central server (¶ 0025, 0094: discloses a server host 792),
the central server including:
a communication link (¶ 0093: discloses network link 758);
a processor (¶ 0086: discloses processor 702); and
a non-transitory memory (¶ 0087: discloses a memory 704) configured to store at least: a server operating system ¶ 0025, 0094) and a correspondence data hub application (¶ 0025: discloses document management service 107) comprising:
an integrated data sourcing and provisioning module (¶ 0033); an automatic data quality check module (¶ 0033); and an integrated actionable insight module (¶ 0033);
wherein: the integrated data sourcing and provisioning module is configured to: receive two or more incoming correspondence files from a customer to an entity (¶ 0025, 0040: discloses the document management system 107 provides functions and mechanisms for retrieving documents with respect to a particular user account.); receive two or more outgoing correspondence files to the customer from the entity (¶ 0028, 0040: discloses the document service provider interfaces with one or more service providers to access data needed to facilitate and support electronic billing.);
register each of the two or more incoming correspondence files and each of the two or more outgoing correspondence files (¶ 0033-0034: discloses the document management service 107 includes various executable modules including the organization module 109 that can be used to group the user’s bills, statements, and document in specific ways.);
record each registration within a database (¶ 0033-0034, 0036: discloses the organization module 109 of the document management service groups/sorts vital documents within the data store 127.);
transfer each of the two or more incoming correspondence files and each of the two or more outgoing correspondence files to the automatic data quality check module (¶ 0029: discloses all of the transmission mediums enable data to be pushed to the document management service 107); and
record each transfer within the database (¶ 0040: discloses billing statements and other vital documents and/or correspondence between the user and service provider are stored for the user in the data store.);
the automatic data quality check module is configured to:
pre-process each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files (¶ 0035: discloses the parsing module 125 of the document management service 107 dissects the vital documents.);
convert each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files to a single format (¶ 0035, 0054-0055, 0076: discloses the parser 125 includes Extensible Markup Language (XML) parsers can translate the data into object code for effective use by the various use of other modules);
create a complete file for each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files (¶ 0054: discloses generating an output such as schema data 171); and store each complete file within the database (¶ 0054: discloses the generated output data is stored by a the storage module 161.); and
the integrated actionable insights module is configured to:
analyze each complete file (¶ 0036: discloses the analysis module 115 analyzes documents and data stored in the data store.);
The Coleman reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Bennett reference is related to an electronic invoice and payment system that provides billing services on behalf of multiple billers (¶ 0066) and teaches:
create a correspondence plan between the entity and the customer comprising: (¶ 0073, 0076-0078, 0081-0082: discloses each biller can create a customized branded customer portal and set business rules related to customer payments, communications, or other features, or a combination of any two of them.)
a graphical display option to present a paperless option to the customer (Figs 18A-18C, ¶ 0073, 0076-0078, 0081-0082, 0255, 0259: discloses paperless options: allow paperless billing and payment scheduling: allowing scheduled payments; a button for create may flex pay schedule);
a start time to implement the correspondence plan (Figs 18A-18C, ¶ 0073, 0076-0078, 0081-0082, 0255, 0259: discloses the customer can specify a date 1802 for the first payment of the flex pay schedule.);
an end time to end the correspondence plan (Figs 18A-18C, ¶ 0073, 0076-0078, 0081-0082, 0255, 0259: discloses the customer can specify a date 1804 for the last payment of the flex pay schedule.); and
the correspondence data hub application is configured to automatically implement the correspondence data plan (¶ 0066, 0076, 0097, 0268-0269: discloses email notifications are automatically sent from the electronic invoice and payment system to customers of biller on behalf of the biller. if a customer enrolls in paperless billing for one type of invoice, the customer will be enrolled in paperless billing for all types of invoices.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the document management service of Coleman to include create a correspondence plan between the entity comprising: a graphical display option to present a paperless option to the customer; a start time to implement the correspondence plan; an end time to end the correspondence plan, the correspondence data hub application is configured to automatically implement the correspondence data plan, as disclosed by the teachings of Bennett to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Bennett, the motivation for the combination would have been to allow customers the convenience of online bill paying and so that each customer can establish payment methods and schedules that suit their needs as expressly suggested by Bennett (¶ 0044-0046)
The combination of Coleman and Bennett do not explicitly disclose the following limitations. However, Simard teaches:
one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning (“AI/ML”) algorithms (¶ 0024-0025-0026, 0051: discloses the manager component 102 can infer and generate additional metadata in order to identify content, a context, a purpose, a detail of each document. The manager component 102 can employ machine learning techniques to identify characteristics. The manager component can determine the document is a bill. The manager component 102 can provide automatic notification to an entity based on the identified content. The manager component 102 can notify an entity such as department, manager, user, worker, an email based on the document being relevant to such entity)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods of Coleman and Bennett to employ the machine learning techniques as disclosed by the teachings of Simard, to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Simard, the motivation for the combination would have been to leverage the machine learning techniques for a personalized notification experience that delivers information in a way that is most relevant and useful to each entity. (¶ 0005, 0025-0026)
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Coleman, Bennett, and Simard discloses the apparatus of claim 13
wherein the correspondence plan comprises one or more benefits to the customer of opting in to paperless transactions. (¶ 0099, 0268-0269: Bennett discloses the electronic invoice and payment system can automatically send email notifications to customers of a biller on behalf of the biller. Each biller can edit the content of the email notifications to change the wording of text or to include a locally relevant message. A biller can allow a paperless options menu item on the customer portal.)
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Coleman, Bennett, and Simard discloses the apparatus of claim 15
wherein the correspondence plan is automatically implemented by the correspondence data hub application. (¶ 0066, 0076, 0268-0269: Bennett discloses email notifications are automatically sent from the electronic invoice and payment system to customers of biller on behalf of the biller.)
With respect to claim 17, Coleman discloses
a method for incentivizing a customer to opt in to paperless transactions (¶ 0040: discloses coordinating paperless billing and payment services for users who have not previously established paperless billing), the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, at an integrated data sourcing and provisioning module (¶ 0033) of a correspondence data hub application on a centralized server (¶ 0025, 0030, 0090: discloses a centralized document management service 107.),
two or more incoming correspondence files from the customer to an entity (¶ 0025, 0040: discloses the document management system 107 provides functions and mechanisms for retrieving documents with respect to a particular user account.);
receiving, at the integrated data sourcing and provisioning module, two or more outgoing correspondence files to the customer from the entity (¶ 0028, 0040: discloses the document service provider interfaces with one or more service providers to access data needed to facilitate and support electronic billing.);
registering, by the integrated data sourcing and provisioning module, each of the two or more incoming correspondence files and each of the two or more outgoing correspondence files (¶ 0033-0034: discloses the document management service 107 includes various executable modules including the organization module 109 that can be used to group the user’s bills, statements, and document in specific ways.);
recording, at a database, each registration (¶ 0033-0034, 0036: discloses the organization module 109 of the document management service groups/sorts vital documents within the data store 127.);
transferring each of the two or more incoming correspondence files and each of the two or more outgoing correspondence files from the integrated data sourcing and provisioning module to an automatic data quality check module of the correspondence data hub application (¶ 0029: discloses all of the transmission mediums enable data to be pushed to the document management service 107);
recording, by the correspondence data hub application each transfer within the database (¶ 0040: discloses billing statements and other vital documents and/or correspondence between the user and service provider are stored for the user in the data store.);
pre-processing, at the automatic data quality check module, each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files (¶ 0035: discloses the parsing module 125 of the document management service 107 dissects the vital documents.);
converting, at the automatic data quality check module, each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files to a single format (¶ 0035, 0054-0055, 0076: discloses the parser 125 includes Extensible Markup Language (XML) parsers can translate the data into object code for effective use by the various use of other modules);
creating, at the automatic data quality check module, a complete file for each of the incoming and outgoing correspondence files (¶ 0054: discloses generating an output such as schema data 171); storing each complete file within the database (¶ 0054: discloses the generated output data is stored by a the storage module 161.);
wherein: each complete file comprises: one correspondence file; one pre-processed correspondence file; and one formatted correspondence file (¶ 0034: discloses the document management service groups user’s bills, statements, and documents in specific ways.);
analyzing, at an integrated actionable insights module of the correspondence data hub application, each complete file (¶ 0036: discloses the analysis module 115 analyzes documents and data stored in the data store.);
The Coleman reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Bennett reference is related to an electronic invoice and payment system that provides billing services on behalf of multiple billers (¶ 0066) and teaches:
creating, at the integrated actionable insights module, a correspondence plan between the entity and the customer (¶ 0073, 0076: discloses the electronic invoice and payment system 100 provides a biller portal which each biller can control the experience of its own customers. Each biller can use the biller portal to set business rules related to customer communications.); and
automatically implementing, by the correspondence data hub application, the correspondence plan (¶ 0066, 0076, 0097, 0268-0269: discloses email notifications are automatically sent from the electronic invoice and payment system to customers of biller on behalf of the biller. if a customer enrolls in paperless billing for one type of invoice, the customer will be enrolled in paperless billing for all types of invoices.);
and the correspondence plan (¶ 0073, 0076-0078, 0081-0082: discloses each biller can create a customized branded customer portal and set business rules related to customer payments, communications, or other features, or a combination of any two of them.) comprises: a graphical display option to present a paperless option to the customer (Figs 18A-18C, ¶ 0073, 0076-0078, 0081-0082, 0255, 0259: discloses paperless options: allow paperless billing and payment scheduling: allowing scheduled payments; a button for create may flex pay schedule); a start time to implement the correspondence plan (Figs 18A-18C, ¶ 0073, 0076-0078, 0081-0082, 0255, 0259: discloses the customer can specify a date 1802 for the first payment of the flex pay schedule.), an end time to end the correspondence plan (Figs 18A-18C, ¶ 0073, 0076-0078, 0081-0082, 0255, 0259: discloses the customer can specify a date 1804 for the last payment of the flex pay schedule.); and one or more benefits to the customer of opting in to paperless transactions. (¶ 0073, 0076-0078, 0081-0082,0255, 0259, 0268-0269: discloses the electronic invoice and payment system can automatically send email notifications to customers of a biller on behalf of the biller. Email notifications can be triggered by a variety of events including a customer enrolling in paperless billing. Business rules enable a biller to specify that customers can enroll in paperless billing for water and sewer bills. Each biller can control the experience of its own customers.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the document management service of Coleman to include create a correspondence plan between the entity; the correspondence plan comprises: to present a paperless option to the customer; a start time to implement the correspondence plan; an end time to end the correspondence plan; and one or more benefits to the customer of opting in to paperless transactions, as disclosed by the teachings of Bennett to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Bennett, the motivation for the combination would have been to allow customers the convenience of online bill paying and so that each customer can establish payment methods and schedules that suit their needs as expressly suggested by Bennett (¶ 0044-0046)
The combination of Coleman and Bennett does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. However, Simard teaches:
analyzing, through one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms, each complete file (¶ 0024-0025, 0051: discloses the manager component 102 can infer and generate additional metadata in order to identify content, a context, a purpose, a detail of each document. The manager component 102 can employ machine learning techniques to identify characteristics. The manager component can determine the document is a bill.)
creating, through one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning (“AI/ML”) algorithms, a correspondence plan between the entity and entity and the customer (¶ 0024-0026: discloses the manager component 102 can provide automatic notification to an entity based on the identified content. The manager component 102 can notify an entity such as department, manager, user, worker, an email based on the document being relevant to such entity. The examiner notes the notification has to be created prior to being provided.;) implementing, through one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning (“AI/ML”) algorithms, the correspondence plan (¶ 0024-0026: discloses the manager component can provide automatic notification to an entity based on the identified content from employing machine learning techniques.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods of Coleman and Bennett to employ the machine learning techniques as disclosed by the teachings of Simard, to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Simard, the motivation for the combination would have been to leverage the machine learning techniques for a personalized notification experience that delivers information in a way that is most relevant and useful to each entity. (¶ 0005, 0025-0026)
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Coleman, Bennett, Simard discloses the method of claim 17 wherein the database is located away from the central server. (¶ 0030: Coleman discloses the document management and billing service may be a hosted solution whereby shared servers provide resources, software, and data to user devices on demand.)
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Coleman, Bennett, Simard discloses the method of claim 17 wherein the customer is granted access to the correspondence data hub application by a system administrator. (¶ 0066, 0073-0074: Bennett discloses each biller can design its own branded customer portal accessible through the web or through a mobile device that is hosted by the system and is visible to the biller’s customers.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
WITH RESPECT TO REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “As is evident from the claims, applicant respectfully asserts that the claims are integrated into a practical application and do not monopolize any judicial exception. The claims, as amended and as previously amended, recite numerous technical aspects, that when taken together evidence that the claims are integrated into a practical application.” “Below is a list of the technical aspects taken from page 5 of the Office Action: additional elements of: "an integrated data sourcing and provisioning module", "a correspondence data hub application", "a centralized server", "at a database", "an automatic data quality check module", ", at an integrated actionable insights module", "automatically", "through one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning ("AI/ML") algorithms", - see claim 17 , "a correspondence data hub computer program product, "a processor", "a computer system", "through one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning ("AI/ML") algorithms", "by one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning ("AI/ML") algorithms" - see claim 1, "an apparatus for a correspondence data hub", "a central server", "a communication link"; "a non-transitory memory" , "a server operating system", "a correspondence data hub application integrated data sourcing and provisioning module;", "an automatic data quality check module;" "an integrated actionable insight module comprising one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning ("AI/ML") algorithms - see claim 13 is/are recited at a high-level of generality in light of The technical aspects included with the claims may be general as they may be performed on any suitable computer. However, when the technical aspects are included with what the claims actually do: create a specifically tailored correspondence data plan that includes multiple aspects, and then (as amended) implement the correspondence data plan, applicant respectfully asserts that the claims are integrated into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Here, the Applicant’s reply above concedes the technical aspects included with the claims may be general as they may be performed on any suitable computer. The Specification in at least [¶ 0075, 0128-0129] also confirms the combination of additional elements are nothing more generic computer components and known techniques and/algorithms used a tools to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, the combination of additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223–24 (“[W]holly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo,566 U.S. at 77)). Additionally, the features relied upon (such as create and implement a correspondence plan) are part of identified limitations that recite the judicial exception. Thus the features of the judicial exception cannot be used alone to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(a) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Office Action also states that the previously amended elements of "the correspondence data plan comprises: a graphical display option; a start time; an end time; and one or more benefits to the customer..." are "insignificant-extra solution activity." (Office Action at 5). Applicant respectfully disagrees as these elements are not insignificant at all, rather, they are the purpose of the invention. These elements, especially the end-time and the benefits are essential to the invention. The 'benefits' are self-evidently important as one goal of the disclosure is "incentivizing a customer to opt in to paperless transactions." (Claim 17). The end-time is required so that the system may iterate and propose 'better' correspondence data plan(s) if the initial offering does not convince the customer to opt-in. These elements, therefore, go beyond "insignificant extra-solution activity" and integrate the claims into a practical solution. For at least these reasons, applicant submits that the claims are patent eligible, and respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejections under § 101.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner asserts the presentation of data even in a particular formatted manner constitutes post-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g) which cannot support the claim as having either a practical application or an inventive concept. See Apple, 842 F.3d at 1242 As for the alleged benefits of adding an end time, these benefits are not considered improvements in computer technology. At best the end time merely serves as a feature on the display, but it does not improve the generic computing equipment and known techniques and/or algorithms being used to perform the judicial exception. Thus, the alleged benefits do not add any meaningful limits to the claimed invention. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
WITH RESPECT TO REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 103
Applicant argues “The Office Action rejected claims 1-4, 7-13, 15-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over various combinations of Coleman, Bennett, Simard, and Crouse. Coleman and Bennett appear to be the main references. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejection and renews its previously made arguments. Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 13 to further point out that the invention automatically implements the correspondence data plan. Applicant respectfully maintains that the cited references do not teach the claim elements, whether or not the cited references teach away from the claim elements (as argued at 35-36 of the Office Action).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the instant case, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention by reciting the invention automatically implements the correspondence data plan without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Thus, the rejections under 103 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Applicant respectfully asserts that the cited references simply do not teach creating a correspondence data plan that includes the various elements in the claims and thus do not present a prima facie case of obviousness. The alleged "other desirable alternatives disclosed in the prior art" are not alternatives to the pending claims, because, among other reasons, allowing a customer to start and end billing payments has nothing to do with creating a correspondence plan to communicate with a customer and starting and ending that correspondence plan.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the remarks merely argue the previous rejection did not establish obviousness of claim 1. The Examiner asserts the requirements for a proper response to a rejection may be found in 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07. The remarks do not provide any specific reasons as to why either the findings of fact or the legal conclusion of obviousness is allegedly in error. Thus, the remarks in response to the obviousness rejection do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07.
Next, it is important for Applicant to note the Bennett reference is from the same field of endeavor (i.e., ¶ 0073, 0076-0078, 0081-0082: discloses the electronic invoice and payment system 100 provides a biller portal which each biller can control the experience of its own customers. Each biller can use the biller portal to set business rules related to customer communications. Business rules enable a biller to specify that customers can enroll in paperless billing for water and sewer bills.) and does not teach away from the claimed invention. Under the BRI, the Bennett reference teaches or suggests the system can enroll a customer in paperless billing for water and sewer bills. Bennett’s system creates a customized customer portal and implements rules that control customer communications in the same manner that the correspondence plan is generated and implemented as claimed. Thus, the cited passages from the Bennett reference provide findings from the prior art that meet the limitations as claimed. Therefore, the rejections under 103 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The correspondence plan, as claimed, must include "one or more benefits to the customer of opting in to paperless transactions", which has nothing to do with the billing and invoicing of Bennett. Further, the start time and end time, as claimed, is the start time and end time of implementing the correspondence plan, not a time period to pay bills Bennett teaches a graphical display option to present to a customer wherein the customer can choose a time to pay an invoice (see e.g., "the payment screen also enables a biller to allow customers to schedule payments", Bennett at para. 0078, "customers can edit payment features such as the timing..." para. 0255, "a scheduling screen 1800 allows the customer to set up specific scheduling details..." para. 0259). “These "scheduling details" in Bennett are not the same as the start time to implement the correspondence plan and the end time to end the correspondence plan. In any event, Bennett does not teach creating a correspondence plan to attempt to convince a customer to move to paperless transactions, and neither does any other reference. Therefore, there is no prima facie showing of obviousness. The remaining references do not cure these deficiencies in Bennett.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the remarks merely attempt to distinguish features from the Bennett reference from the features being relied upon in the claimed invention. As previously explained in the last Office Action, he intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Here, the prior art structure, i.e., interface, of Bennett is capable of performing the intended use, such that it meets the limitations as claimed.
Also, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the instant case, Bennett teaches that one way of accomplishing the goal of using a graphical user interface for allowing customers to enroll in paperless billing for water and sewer bills. Bennett’s teaching of one way to accomplish the goal does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the teachings of other ways to accomplish the same goal. A suggestion of the claimed invention by the prior art is not necessarily negated by other desirable alternatives disclosed in the prior art. The rejection of record explains why the combination of Coleman, Bennett, and Simard fairly suggests the invention as claimed. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Bennett does not teach away from the claimed invention, and this argument is not found to be convincing. For these reasons, the rejections under 103 are being maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights