DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 21-29 submitted on 05/22/2026 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, and 20 have been cancelled.
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 .
Priority
No foreign priority or domestic benefit was claimed by the applicant and the application has been examined with respect to its filing date of 06/07/2023.
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, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 21-23 are directed to a process, claims 8, 10, 11, 14, and 24-26 are directed to an article of manufacture, and claims 15, 17, 18, and 27-29 are directed to a machine (see MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
a method for performing a search using a plurality of decentralized entities in a system without a central repository, the method comprising:
receiving, from a client, a search request for information about a vehicle;
queuing, the search request into a first request queue configured to store the search request for a first period of time, wherein the first period of time is based on asynchronous dispatch of at least two of the plurality of decentralized entities;
for each entity of the plurality of decentralized entities, wherein the decentralized entities comprise one or more search entities and one or more physical search entities, the one or more search entities, and the one or more physical search entities:
transmitting, the search request to the respective entity, wherein the respective entity is configured to poll the first request queue for the search request, and wherein the respective entity is configured to be dispatched based on the search request;
receiving, respective retrieved information about the vehicle from the dispatched respective entity; and
queuing, the respective retrieved information into a second queue configured to store retrieved information for a second period of time, wherein the second period of time is based on the retrieved information being received from a dispatched entity asynchronously from another retrieved information received from another dispatched entity;
dequeuing, the search request from the first request queue, based on the first period of time and the dispatching of each entity of the plurality of decentralized entities;
generating, a graphical user interface (GUI) each retrieved information stored in the second queue about the vehicle;
dequeuing, the each retrieved information from the second queue, based on the second period of time; and
transmitting, the GUI to the client for display.
The above limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that it recites a commercial interaction. See ¶¶0002-0003 of the instant specification which describes the invention as improving the sale of vehicles. Claims 8 and 15 recites similar limitations as claim 1.
Thus, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 1 includes the following additional elements that are bolded:
a computer implemented method for performing a search using a plurality of decentralized entities in a system without a central repository, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more computing devices and from a client device, a search request for information about a vehicle;
queuing, by the one or more computing devices, the search request into a first application programming interface (API) request queue configured to store the search request for a first period of time, wherein the first period of time is based on asynchronous dispatch of at least two of the plurality of decentralized entities;
for each entity of the plurality of decentralized entities, wherein the decentralized entities comprise one or more computerized search entities and one or more physical search entities, the one or more computerized search entities including at least one of a computer or a database, and the one or more physical search entities including at least one of a robot, an autonomous vehicle, or an aerial drone:
transmitting, by the one or more computing devices, the search request to the respective entity, wherein the respective entity is configured to poll the first API request queue for the search request, and wherein the respective entity is configured to be dispatched based on the search request;
receiving, by the one or more computing devices, respective retrieved information about the vehicle from the dispatched respective entity; and
queuing, by the one or more computing devices, the respective retrieved information into a second queue configured to store retrieved information for a second period of time, wherein the second period of time is based on the retrieved information being received from a dispatched entity asynchronously from another retrieved information received from another dispatched entity;
dequeuing, by the one or more computing devices, the search request from the first API request queue, based on the first period of time and the dispatching of each entity of the plurality of decentralized entities;
generating, by the one or more computing devices, a graphical user interface (GUI) by batch processing each retrieved information stored in the second queue about the vehicle;
dequeuing, by the one or more computing devices, the each retrieved information from the second queue, based on the second period of time and the batch processing; and
transmitting, by the one or more computing devices, the GUI to the client device for display.
Claims 8 and 15 include the same additional elements as claim 1. In addition, claim 8 includes additional elements such as a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device of a system without a central repository, causes the at least one computing device to perform operations for performing a search using a plurality of decentralized entities, the operations comprising. In addition, claim 15 includes a computing system without a central repository, wherein the computing system is configured to perform a search using a plurality of decentralized entities, the computing system comprising: one or more memories; and at least one processor, each coupled to at least one of the one or more memories.
The additional elements recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 merely invoke such elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Figs. 1 and 4 and ¶¶0040-0041).
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and, thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As noted above, while the recitation of the additional elements in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are acknowledged, claims 1, 8, and 15 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1, 8, and 15 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 8, and 15 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 merely further define the abstract limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 do not introduce any further additional elements. Thus, dependent claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are ineligible.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims recite additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15: a mobile software application (7 and 14). However, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 7 and 14 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cumberland et al. (US 2016/0225045 A1 [previously cited]) in view of Simoudis et al. (US 12,002,309 B2 [previously cited]) in view of Donlan et al. (US 9,037,825 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cumberland et al., hereinafter, Cumberland discloses a computer implemented method for performing a search using a plurality of decentralized entities in a system without a central repository, the method comprising (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶0041[The central communication server 104 determines which of the Vendor C-D devices 110c-d are located within the particular geographic area or are associated with the particular geographic area, e.g., when the Vendor C retail location is within the particular geographic area and, during time period T.sub.B, sends a request for a manual inventory inquiry to the determined devices. The central communication server 104 may send the request for the manual inventory inquiry to vendors which do not have electronic inventory databases or which have electronic inventory databases that are not integrated with the central communication server 104.] in view of ¶0031[The central communication server may retrieve the inventory information from a central server, from multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these]; ¶0012 of the instant specification states that “does not attempt to aggregate information into a central database or repository. Rather, the system allows the decentralized entities to search for the data requested directly from the physical locations, computers, databases, dealerships, etc. that are selling the vehicles”, Examiner notes that a system without a repository for product availability of all associated vendors is comparable to the system without a central repository as described in the specification of the applicant):
receiving, by one or more computing devices and from a client device, a search request for information about a product (¶0048[For instance, the second device 114 may include an inventory application specific to the central communication server 104 that allows the second device 114 to receive search results from the central communication server 104 and present the search results to a user, e.g., the same user who requested the search results with the first device 102]);
queuing, by the one or more computing devices, the search request into a first queue configured to store the search request for a first period of time, wherein the first period of time is based on asynchronous dispatch of at least two of the plurality of decentralized entities (¶0045[one or more of the Vendor C-D devices 110c-d may be included in an automated search device, e.g., a robot. The robot may receive the request for a manual inventory inquiry, determine where the specific product is typically located in the retail location, and scan bar codes of products at the retail location to determine whether or not the specific product is in stock.] in view of ¶0082[If at least one of the vendors for which results have been received has the requested commerce object in inventory, the process asynchronously receives and aggregates search results into groups (412) and ¶0077[The central communication server may place any vendor retail locations that are currently not open in the second group. In some examples, the central communication server may determine that some of the vendor retail locations in the third group will be open within a maximum search time period, and wait to send an inventory inquiry to those vendor retail locations once the respective vendor retail locations are open.]);
for each entity of the plurality of decentralized entities, wherein the decentralized entities comprise one or more computerized search entities and one or more physical search entities, the one or more computerized search entities including at least one of a computer or a database, and the one or more physical search entities including at least one of a robot, an autonomous vehicle, or an aerial drone (Fig. 1; ¶¶0029-0031[the central communication server accesses databases for some retailers and may request a manual inventory inquiry for other retailers and provides inventory information to the consumer… The central communication server may retrieve the inventory information from a central server, from multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these]):
transmitting, by the one or more computing devices, the search request to the respective entity, , and wherein the respective entity is configured to be dispatched based on the search request (Fig. 1; ¶¶0030-0031[the consumer may search for a television using their desktop computer, request information from a central communication server about what retail locations have the television in stock, and then receive and view inventory information on his smart phone from the central communication server, e.g., via text messaging or a mobile application… The central communication server may retrieve the inventory information from a central server, from multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these. The inventory information is for multiple different retailers that each may have the requested product, e.g., television, in stock. The inventory information may include stock levels, e.g., when the consumer requests multiple of the same product.] in view of ¶0043[The Vendor C-D devices 110c-d each receives a respective request and prompt an entity to perform a manual search for the specific product or type of product.]; Examiner notes that prompting an entity to perform a search is comparable to dispatching an entity);
receiving, by the one or more computing devices, respective retrieved information about the product from the dispatched respective entity (Fig. 1; ¶0043[The smart phone may receive input from the employee indicating whether or not the product is in stock, the amount of the product at the Vendor D retail location, if the Vendor D retail location has any comparable products in stock, or a combination of two or more of these.] in view of ¶0103[The central communication server allows the other server to provide product inventory information to one or more users that request the product inventory information, e.g., for different products, from the other server.]); and
by the one or more computing devices, the respective retrieved information, wherein the retrieved information being received from a dispatched entity asynchronously from another retrieved information received from another dispatched entity (Fig. 1; ¶0103[The central communication server allows the other server to provide product inventory information to one or more users that request the product inventory information, e.g., for different products, from the other server.] in view of ¶0082[If at least one of the vendors for which results have been received has the requested commerce object in inventory, the process asynchronously receives and aggregates search results into groups] and ¶0031[The central communication server may retrieve the inventory information from a central server, from multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these]);
by the one or more computing devices, the search request, based on the dispatching of each entity of the plurality of decentralized entities (Fig. 1; ¶0103[The central communication server allows the other server to provide product inventory information to one or more users that request the product inventory information, e.g., for different products, from the other server.] in view of ¶0082[If at least one of the vendors for which results have been received has the requested commerce object in inventory, the process asynchronously receives and aggregates search results into groups] and ¶0031[The central communication server may retrieve the inventory information from a central server, from multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these]);
generating, by the one or more computing devices, a graphical user interface (GUI) each retrieved information (Figs. 1 and 3; ¶0060[FIG. 3 is an example of a mobile device user interface 300 for displaying inventory search results. For instance, the mobile device may receive search results from the central communication server 104 as the search results become available and present the search results in the mobile device user interface 300.]);
by the one or more computing devices, the each retrieved information, based on (Figs. 1 and 3; ¶0060[FIG. 3 is an example of a mobile device user interface 300 for displaying inventory search results. For instance, the mobile device may receive search results from the central communication server 104 as the search results become available and present the search results in the mobile device user interface 300.]): and
transmitting, by the one or more computing devices, the GUI to the client device for display (Figs. 1-3; ¶¶0060-0063[FIG. 3 is an example of a mobile device user interface 300 for displaying inventory search results… the mobile device will periodically receive data from the central communication server 104 and use the data to present messages about product inventory updates on a display]).
Although Cumberland discloses receiving a search request about a product, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose a request for information about a vehicle.
Although Cumberland discloses receiving information about a product from dispatched entities, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose receiving information about a vehicle.
Although Cumberland discloses retrieved information being received from dispatched entities, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose queuing, into a second queue configured to store retrieved information for a second period of time, the second period of time is based on the retrieved information being received.
Although Cumberland discloses a search request and dispatching entities, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose dequeuing, from the first queue based on the first period of time and the dispatching.
Although Cumberland discloses generating a GUI with retrieved information, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose information stored in the second queue about the vehicle.
Although Cumberland discloses a search request and dispatching entities, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose dequeuing, from the second queue based on the second period of time and the generating.
However, Simoudis et al., hereinafter, Simoudis, teaches receiving information about a vehicle, queuing information for a period of time, storing information in a queue, and dequeuing or removing information form a queue (Col. 21, lines 13-45[For instance, a requesting application (e.g., insurance application) may send to the OEM system associated with a target vehicle (or group of vehicles) a request indicating the type of data and the frequency of such data are needed from the target vehicle… Upon receiving the request, the data orchestrator may push the request to a queue and send back a response message to the OEM system to acknowledge receipt of the request. The OEM system may then send a message to the requesting application indicating the request has been logged… in addition to passing the request/response message, the OEM system/application may send a message to the data orchestrator instructing the data orchestrator to delete the transmission request from the queue when a transmission period is completed (e.g., upon receiving a completion message from the data orchestrator). The data orchestrator may then delete the entry from the queue and send a message to the OEM system indicating the entry is deleted]).
The method of Simoudis is applicable to the method of Cumberland as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to generating and managing data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the search request and dispatch of entities as disclosed by Cumberland to include queuing information about a vehicle and removing information from a queue as taught by Simoudis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Cumberland in order to determine which of (which portion of) the vehicle data is to be communicated to which data center or third-party entity, and when such data is transmitted (Col. 2, lines 39-41).
Although Cumberland discloses performing a search using a plurality of entities, Cumberland in view of Simoudis does not explicitly teach an application programming interface (API) request, wherein the respective entity is configured to poll the first API request queue for the search request, an API request, generating by batch processing, based on the batch processing.
However, Donlan et al., hereinafter, Donlan, teaches an application programming interface or API request, wherein an entity is configured to poll the API request queue for a search request, and generating information by batch processing (Fig. 2; Col. 10, lines 25-32[control plane for direct I/O 210 includes a job tracker 230 that is configured to create job records or entries corresponding to customer requests, such as those received from API request handler 218, and monitor the execution of the jobs.], Col. 23, lines 7-12[For example, the data retrieval job may be submitted into a job queue and scheduled for batch processing with other jobs based at least in part on system load], Col. 24, lines 35-39[the status of the retrieval job may be provided upon a polling request, for example, from a customer.]).
The method of Donlan is applicable to the method of Cumberland in view of Simoudis as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to generating and managing data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the search request and dispatch of entities as taught by Cumberland in view of Simoudis to include an API request, polling the API request queue and generating information by batch processing as taught by Donlan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Cumberland in view of Simoudis in order to prevent the unintended loss of data, both due to system malfunctions and user error (Col. 1, lines 17-19).
Regarding Claim 3, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the method of claim 1, Cumberland discloses wherein the respective retrieved information received by the one or more computing devices and from a subset of the decentralized entities is received asynchronously (¶0045[one or more of the Vendor C-D devices 110c-d may be included in an automated search device, e.g., a robot. The robot may receive the request for a manual inventory inquiry, determine where the specific product is typically located in the retail location, and scan bar codes of products at the retail location to determine whether or not the specific product is in stock.] in view of ¶0082[If at least one of the vendors for which results have been received has the requested commerce object in inventory, the process asynchronously receives and aggregates search results into groups (412) and ¶0077[The central communication server may place any vendor retail locations that are currently not open in the second group. In some examples, the central communication server may determine that some of the vendor retail locations in the third group will be open within a maximum search time period, and wait to send an inventory inquiry to those vendor retail locations once the respective vendor retail locations are open.]).
Regarding Claim 4, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the method of claim 1, Cumberland discloses wherein the respective retrieved information received by the one or more computing devices and from a subset of the decentralized entities is received in real-time (¶0069[the central communication server searches the central database, or another database, for vendor retail locations to contact regarding product inventory information for the requested commerce object. Some of these vendor retail locations may have inventory data available in real-time] in view of Claim 1[performing real-time searching for inventory data of the requested commerce object in the central database that has been maintained with up-to-date information about potential vendors' respective inventories via data integration by communicating with the central database in response to receiving the information from the first user device identifying the requested commerce object for which available inventory is sought]).
Regarding Claim 7, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the method of claim 1, Cumberland discloses wherein the search request is received via a mobile software application installed on the client device (Fig. 1; ¶0062[In response to the presentation of the confirmation message, the mobile device may receive input 304 indicating that a user of the mobile device would like to receive product inventory updates on the mobile device. For instance, when the confirmation message indicates that a response of “Go” opts in to receiving product inventory updates, the mobile device may receive data indicating user input 304 of “Go,” e.g., through a software or hardware keyboard or voice input.] in view of ¶0048[For instance, the second device 114 may include an inventory application specific to the central communication server 104 that allows the second device 114 to receive search results from the central communication server 104 and present the search results to a user, e.g., the same user who requested the search results with the first device 102]).
Regarding Claim 8, Cumberland discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that (Fig. 6; ¶¶0133-0137[The processor 652 can execute instructions within the computing device 650, including instructions stored in the memory 664.]), when executed by at least one computing device of a system without a central repository, causes the at least one computing device to perform operations for performing a search using a plurality of decentralized entities, the operations comprising (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶0041[The central communication server 104 determines which of the Vendor C-D devices 110c-d are located within the particular geographic area or are associated with the particular geographic area, e.g., when the Vendor C retail location is within the particular geographic area and, during time period T.sub.B, sends a request for a manual inventory inquiry to the determined devices. The central communication server 104 may send the request for the manual inventory inquiry to vendors which do not have electronic inventory databases or which have electronic inventory databases that are not integrated with the central communication server 104.] in view of ¶0031[The central communication server may retrieve the inventory information from a central server, from multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these]; ¶0012 of the instant specification states that “does not attempt to aggregate information into a central database or repository. Rather, the system allows the decentralized entities to search for the data requested directly from the physical locations, computers, databases, dealerships, etc. that are selling the vehicles”, Examiner notes that a system without a repository for product availability of all associated vendors is comparable to the system without a central repository as described in the specification of the applicant):
receiving, from a client device, a search request for information about a product (¶0048[For instance, the second device 114 may include an inventory application specific to the central communication server 104 that allows the second device 114 to receive search results from the central communication server 104 and present the search results to a user, e.g., the same user who requested the search results with the first device 102]);
queuing the search request into a first queue configured to store the search request for a first period of time, wherein the first period of time is based on asynchronous dispatch of at least two of the plurality of decentralized entities (¶0045[one or more of the Vendor C-D devices 110c-d may be included in an automated search device, e.g., a robot. The robot may receive the request for a manual inventory inquiry, determine where the specific product is typically located in the retail location, and scan bar codes of products at the retail location to determine whether or not the specific product is in stock.] in view of ¶0082[If at least one of the vendors for which results have been received has the requested commerce object in inventory, the process asynchronously receives and aggregates search results into groups (412) and ¶0077[The central communication server may place any vendor retail locations that are currently not open in the second group. In some examples, the central communication server may determine that some of the vendor retail locations in the third group will be open within a maximum search time period, and wait to send an inventory inquiry to those vendor retail locations once the respective vendor retail locations are open.]);
for each entity of the plurality of decentralized entities, wherein the decentralized entities comprise one or more computerized search entities and one or more physical search entities, the one or more computerized search entities including at least one of a computer or a database, and the one or more physical search entities including at least one of a robot, an autonomous vehicle, or an aerial drone (Fig. 1; ¶¶0029-0031[the central communication server accesses databases for some retailers and may request a manual inventory inquiry for other retailers and provides inventory information to the consumer… The central communication server may retrieve the inventory information from a central server, from multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these]):
transmitting the search request to the respective entity, and wherein the respective entity is configured to be dispatch based on the search request (Fig. 1; ¶¶0030-0031[the consumer may search for a television using their desktop computer, request information from a central communication server about what retail locations have the television in stock, and then receive and view inventory information on his smart phone from the central communication server, e.g., via text messaging or a mobile application… The central communication server may retrieve the inventory information from a central server, from multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these. The inventory information is for multiple different retailers that each may have the requested product, e.g., television, in stock. The inventory information may include stock levels, e.g., when the consumer requests multiple of the same product.] in view of ¶0043[The Vendor C-D devices 110c-d each receives a respective request and prompt an entity to perform a manual search for the specific product or type of product.]; Examiner notes that prompting an entity to perform a search is comparable to dispatching an entity);
receiving respective retrieved information about the product from the dispatch respective entity (Fig. 1; ¶0043[The smart phone may receive input from the employee indicating whether or not the product is in stock, the amount of the product at the Vendor D retail location, if the Vendor D retail location has any comparable products in stock, or a combination of two or more of these.] in view of ¶0103[The central communication server allows the other server to provide product inventory information to one or more users that request the product inventory information, e.g., for different products, from the other server.]);
the respective retrieved information, wherein the retrieved information being received from a dispatched entity asynchronously from another retrieved information received from another dispatched entity (Fig. 1; ¶0103[The central communication server allows the other server to provide product inventory information to one or more users that request the product inventory information, e.g., for different products, from the other server.] in view of ¶0082[If at least one of the vendors for which results have been received has the requested commerce object in inventory, the process asynchronously receives and aggregates search results into groups] and ¶0031[The central communication server may retrieve the inventory information from a central server, from multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these]);
the search request, based on the dispatching of each entity of the plurality of decentralized entities (Fig. 1; ¶0103[The central communication server allows the other server to provide product inventory information to one or more users that request the product inventory information, e.g., for different products, from the other server.] in view of ¶0082[If at least one of the vendors for which results have been received has the requested commerce object in inventory, the process asynchronously receives and aggregates search results into groups] and ¶0031[The central communication server may retrieve the inventory information from a central server, from multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these]);
generating a graphical user interface (GUI) each retrieved information (Figs. 1 and 3; ¶0060[FIG. 3 is an example of a mobile device user interface 300 for displaying inventory search results. For instance, the mobile device may receive search results from the central communication server 104 as the search results become available and present the search results in the mobile device user interface 300.]);
the each retrieved information, based on (Figs. 1 and 3; ¶0060[FIG. 3 is an example of a mobile device user interface 300 for displaying inventory search results. For instance, the mobile device may receive search results from the central communication server 104 as the search results become available and present the search results in the mobile device user interface 300.]): and
transmitting the GUI to the client device for display (Figs. 1-3; ¶¶0060-0063[FIG. 3 is an example of a mobile device user interface 300 for displaying inventory search results… the mobile device will periodically receive data from the central communication server 104 and use the data to present messages about product inventory updates on a display]).
Although Cumberland discloses receiving a search request about a product, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose a request for information about a vehicle.
Although Cumberland discloses receiving information about a product from dispatched entities, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose receiving information about a vehicle.
Although Cumberland discloses retrieved information being received from dispatched entities, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose queuing, into a second queue configured to store retrieved information for a second period of time, the second period of time is based on the retrieved information being received.
Although Cumberland discloses a search request and dispatching entities, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose dequeuing, from the first queue based on the first period of time and the dispatching.
Although Cumberland discloses generating a GUI with retrieved information, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose information stored in the second queue about the vehicle.
Although Cumberland discloses a search request and dispatching entities, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose dequeuing, from the second queue based on the second period of time and the generating.
However, Simoudis teaches receiving information about a vehicle, queuing information for a period of time, storing information in a queue, and dequeuing or removing information form a queue (Col. 21, lines 13-45[For instance, a requesting application (e.g., insurance application) may send to the OEM system associated with a target vehicle (or group of vehicles) a request indicating the type of data and the frequency of such data are needed from the target vehicle… Upon receiving the request, the data orchestrator may push the request to a queue and send back a response message to the OEM system to acknowledge receipt of the request. The OEM system may then send a message to the requesting application indicating the request has been logged… in addition to passing the request/response message, the OEM system/application may send a message to the data orchestrator instructing the data orchestrator to delete the transmission request from the queue when a transmission period is completed (e.g., upon receiving a completion message from the data orchestrator). The data orchestrator may then delete the entry from the queue and send a message to the OEM system indicating the entry is deleted]).
The system of Simoudis is applicable to the system of Cumberland as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to generating and managing data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the search request and dispatch of entities as disclosed by Cumberland to include queuing information about a vehicle and removing information from a queue as taught by Simoudis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Cumberland in order to determine which of (which portion of) the vehicle data is to be communicated to which data center or third-party entity, and when such data is transmitted (Col. 2, lines 39-41).
Although Cumberland discloses performing a search using a plurality of entities, Cumberland in view of Simoudis does not explicitly teach an application programming interface (API) request, wherein the respective entity is configured to poll the first API request queue for the search request, an API request, generating by batch processing, based on the batch processing.
However, Donlan teaches an application programming interface or API request, wherein an entity is configured to poll the API request queue for a search request, and generating information by batch processing (Fig. 2; Col. 10, lines 25-32[control plane for direct I/O 210 includes a job tracker 230 that is configured to create job records or entries corresponding to customer requests, such as those received from API request handler 218, and monitor the execution of the jobs.], Col. 23, lines 7-12[For example, the data retrieval job may be submitted into a job queue and scheduled for batch processing with other jobs based at least in part on system load], Col. 24, lines 35-39[the status of the retrieval job may be provided upon a polling request, for example, from a customer.]).
The system of Donlan is applicable to the system of Cumberland in view of Simoudis as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to generating and managing data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the search request and dispatch of entities as taught by Cumberland in view of Simoudis to include an API request, polling the API request queue and generating information by batch processing as taught by Donlan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Cumberland in view of Simoudis in order to prevent the unintended loss of data, both due to system malfunctions and user error (Col. 1, lines 17-19).
Regarding Claim 10, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, Cumberland discloses wherein the respective retrieved information received from a subset of the decentralized entities is received asynchronously (¶0045[one or more of the Vendor C-D devices 110c-d may be included in an automated search device, e.g., a robot. The robot may receive the request for a manual inventory inquiry, determine where the specific product is typically located in the retail location, and scan bar codes of products at the retail location to determine whether or not the specific product is in stock.] in view of ¶0082[If at least one of the vendors for which results have been received has the requested commerce object in inventory, the process asynchronously receives and aggregates search results into groups (412) and ¶0077[The central communication server may place any vendor retail locations that are currently not open in the second group. In some examples, the central communication server may determine that some of the vendor retail locations in the third group will be open within a maximum search time period, and wait to send an inventory inquiry to those vendor retail locations once the respective vendor retail locations are open.]).
Regarding Claim 11, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, Cumberland discloses wherein the respective retrieved information received from a subset of the decentralized entities is received in real-time (¶0069[the central communication server searches the central database, or another database, for vendor retail locations to contact regarding product inventory information for the requested commerce object. Some of these vendor retail locations may have inventory data available in real-time] in view of Claim 1[performing real-time searching for inventory data of the requested commerce object in the central database that has been maintained with up-to-date information about potential vendors' respective inventories via data integration by communicating with the central database in response to receiving the information from the first user device identifying the requested commerce object for which available inventory is sought]).
Regarding Claim 14, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, Cumberland discloses wherein the search request is received via a mobile software application installed on the client device (Fig. 1; ¶0062[In response to the presentation of the confirmation message, the mobile device may receive input 304 indicating that a user of the mobile device would like to receive product inventory updates on the mobile device. For instance, when the confirmation message indicates that a response of “Go” opts in to receiving product inventory updates, the mobile device may receive data indicating user input 304 of “Go,” e.g., through a software or hardware keyboard or voice input.] in view of ¶0048[For instance, the second device 114 may include an inventory application specific to the central communication server 104 that allows the second device 114 to receive search results from the central communication server 104 and present the search results to a user, e.g., the same user who requested the search results with the first device 102]).
Regarding Claim 15, Cumberland discloses a computing system without a central repository, wherein the computing system is configured to perform a search using a plurality of decentralized entities, the computing system comprising (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶0041[The central communication server 104 determines which of the Vendor C-D devices 110c-d are located within the particular geographic area or are associated with the particular geographic area, e.g., when the Vendor C retail location is within the particular geographic area and, during time period T.sub.B, sends a request for a manual inventory inquiry to the determined devices. The central communication server 104 may send the request for the manual inventory inquiry to vendors which do not have electronic inventory databases or which have electronic inventory databases that are not integrated with the central communication server 104.] in view of ¶0031[The central communication server may retrieve the inventory information from a central server, from multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these]; ¶0012 of the instant specification states that “does not attempt to aggregate information into a central database or repository. Rather, the system allows the decentralized entities to search for the data requested directly from the physical locations, computers, databases, dealerships, etc. that are selling the vehicles”, Examiner notes that a system without a repository for product availability of all associated vendors is comparable to the system without a central repository as described in the specification of the applicant):
one or more memories; and at least one processor, each coupled to at least one of the one or more memories and configured to (Fig. 6; ¶¶0133-0137[The processor 652 can execute instructions within the computing device 650, including instructions stored in the memory 664.]):
receive, from a client device, a search request for information about a product (¶0048[For instance, the second device 114 may include an inventory application specific to the central communication server 104 that allows the second device 114 to receive search results from the central communication server 104 and present the search results to a user, e.g., the same user who requested the search results with the first device 102]);
queue the search request into a first queue configured to store the search request for a first period of time, wherein the first period of time is based on asynchronous dispatch of at least two of the plurality of decentralized entities (¶0045[one or more of the Vendor C-D devices 110c-d may be included in an automated search device, e.g., a robot. The robot may receive the request for a manual inventory inquiry, determine where the specific product is typically located in the retail location, and scan bar codes of products at the retail location to determine whether or not the specific product is in stock.] in view of ¶0082[If at least one of the vendors for which results have been received has the requested commerce object in inventory, the process asynchronously receives and aggregates search results into groups (412) and ¶0077[The central communication server may place any vendor retail locations that are currently not open in the second group. In some examples, the central communication server may determine that some of the vendor retail locations in the third group will be open within a maximum search time period, and wait to send an inventory inquiry to those vendor retail locations once the respective vendor retail locations are open.]);
for each entity of the plurality of decentralized entities, wherein the decentralized entities comprise one or more computerized search entities and one or more physical search entities, the one or more computerized search entities including at least one of a computer or a database, and the one or more physical search entities including at least one of a robot, an autonomous vehicle, or an aerial drone (Fig. 1; ¶¶0029-0031[the central communication server accesses databases for some retailers and may request a manual inventory inquiry for other retailers and provides inventory information to the consumer… The central communication server may retrieve the inventory information from a central server, from multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these]):
transmit the search request to the respective entity, and wherein the respective entity is configured to be dispatched based on the search request (Fig. 1; ¶¶0030-0031[the consumer may search for a television using their desktop computer, request information from a central communication server about what retail locations have the television in stock, and then receive and view inventory information on his smart phone from the central communication server, e.g., via text messaging or a mobile application… The central communication server may retrieve the inventory information from a central server, from multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these. The inventory information is for multiple different retailers that each may have the requested product, e.g., television, in stock. The inventory information may include stock levels, e.g., when the consumer requests multiple of the same product.] in view of ¶0043[The Vendor C-D devices 110c-d each receives a respective request and prompt an entity to perform a manual search for the specific product or type of product.]; Examiner notes that prompting an entity to perform a search is comparable to dispatching an entity);
receive respective retrieved information about the product from the dispatched respective entity (Fig. 1; ¶0043[The smart phone may receive input from the employee indicating whether or not the product is in stock, the amount of the product at the Vendor D retail location, if the Vendor D retail location has any comparable products in stock, or a combination of two or more of these.] in view of ¶0103[The central communication server allows the other server to provide product inventory information to one or more users that request the product inventory information, e.g., for different products, from the other server.]); and
the respective retrieved information, wherein the retrieved information being received from a dispatched entity asynchronously from another retrieved information received from another dispatched entity (Fig. 1; ¶0103[The central communication server allows the other server to provide product inventory information to one or more users that request the product inventory information, e.g., for different products, from the other server.] in view of ¶0082[If at least one of the vendors for which results have been received has the requested commerce object in inventory, the process asynchronously receives and aggregates search results into groups] and ¶0031[The central communication server may retrieve the inventory information from a central server, from multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these]);
the search request, based on the dispatch of each entity of the plurality of decentralized entities (Fig. 1; ¶0103[The central communication server allows the other server to provide product inventory information to one or more users that request the product inventory information, e.g., for different products, from the other server.] in view of ¶0082[If at least one of the vendors for which results have been received has the requested commerce object in inventory, the process asynchronously receives and aggregates search results into groups] and ¶0031[The central communication server may retrieve the inventory information from a central server, from multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these]);
generate a graphical user interface (GUI) each retrieved information (Figs. 1 and 3; ¶0060[FIG. 3 is an example of a mobile device user interface 300 for displaying inventory search results. For instance, the mobile device may receive search results from the central communication server 104 as the search results become available and present the search results in the mobile device user interface 300.]);
the each retrieved information, based on (Figs. 1 and 3; ¶0060[FIG. 3 is an example of a mobile device user interface 300 for displaying inventory search results. For instance, the mobile device may receive search results from the central communication server 104 as the search results become available and present the search results in the mobile device user interface 300.]); and
transmit the GUI to the client device for display (Figs. 1-3; ¶¶0060-0063[FIG. 3 is an example of a mobile device user interface 300 for displaying inventory search results… the mobile device will periodically receive data from the central communication server 104 and use the data to present messages about product inventory updates on a display]).
Although Cumberland discloses receiving a search request about a product, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose a request for information about a vehicle.
Although Cumberland discloses receiving information about a product from dispatched entities, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose receiving information about a vehicle.
Although Cumberland discloses retrieved information being received from dispatched entities, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose queue, into a second queue configured to store retrieved information for a second period of time, the second period of time is based on the retrieved information being received.
Although Cumberland discloses a search request and dispatching entities, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose dequeue, from the first queue based on the first period of time and the dispatching.
Although Cumberland discloses generating a GUI with retrieved information, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose information stored in the second queue about the vehicle.
Although Cumberland discloses a search request and dispatching entities, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose dequeue, from the second queue based on the second period of time and the generating.
However, Simoudis teaches receiving information about a vehicle, queuing information for a period of time, storing information in a queue, and dequeuing or removing information form a queue (Col. 21, lines 13-45[For instance, a requesting application (e.g., insurance application) may send to the OEM system associated with a target vehicle (or group of vehicles) a request indicating the type of data and the frequency of such data are needed from the target vehicle… Upon receiving the request, the data orchestrator may push the request to a queue and send back a response message to the OEM system to acknowledge receipt of the request. The OEM system may then send a message to the requesting application indicating the request has been logged… in addition to passing the request/response message, the OEM system/application may send a message to the data orchestrator instructing the data orchestrator to delete the transmission request from the queue when a transmission period is completed (e.g., upon receiving a completion message from the data orchestrator). The data orchestrator may then delete the entry from the queue and send a message to the OEM system indicating the entry is deleted]).
The system of Simoudis is applicable to the system of Cumberland as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to generating and managing data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the search request and dispatch of entities as disclosed by Cumberland to include queuing information about a vehicle and removing information from a queue as taught by Simoudis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Cumberland in order to determine which of (which portion of) the vehicle data is to be communicated to which data center or third-party entity, and when such data is transmitted (Col. 2, lines 39-41).
Although Cumberland discloses performing a search using a plurality of entities, Cumberland in view of Simoudis does not explicitly teach an application programming interface (API) request, wherein the respective entity is configured to poll the first API request queue for the search request, generating by batch processing, based on the batch processing.
However, Donlan teaches an application programming interface or API request, wherein an entity is configured to poll the API request queue for a search request, and generating information by batch processing (Fig. 2; Col. 10, lines 25-32[control plane for direct I/O 210 includes a job tracker 230 that is configured to create job records or entries corresponding to customer requests, such as those received from API request handler 218, and monitor the execution of the jobs.], Col. 23, lines 7-12[For example, the data retrieval job may be submitted into a job queue and scheduled for batch processing with other jobs based at least in part on system load], Col. 24, lines 35-39[the status of the retrieval job may be provided upon a polling request, for example, from a customer.]).
The system of Donlan is applicable to the system of Cumberland in view of Simoudis as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to generating and managing data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the search request and dispatch of entities as taught by Cumberland in view of Simoudis to include an API request, polling the API request queue and generating information by batch processing as taught by Donlan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Cumberland in view of Simoudis in order to prevent the unintended loss of data, both due to system malfunctions and user error (Col. 1, lines 17-19).
Regarding Claim 17, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the computing system of claim 15, Cumberland discloses wherein the respective retrieved information received from a subset of the decentralized entities is received asynchronously (¶0045[one or more of the Vendor C-D devices 110c-d may be included in an automated search device, e.g., a robot. The robot may receive the request for a manual inventory inquiry, determine where the specific product is typically located in the retail location, and scan bar codes of products at the retail location to determine whether or not the specific product is in stock.] in view of ¶0082[If at least one of the vendors for which results have been received has the requested commerce object in inventory, the process asynchronously receives and aggregates search results into groups (412) and ¶0077[The central communication server may place any vendor retail locations that are currently not open in the second group. In some examples, the central communication server may determine that some of the vendor retail locations in the third group will be open within a maximum search time period, and wait to send an inventory inquiry to those vendor retail locations once the respective vendor retail locations are open.]).
Regarding Claim 18, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the computing system of claim 15, Cumberland discloses wherein the respective retrieved information received from a subset of the decentralized entities is received in real-time (¶0069[the central communication server searches the central database, or another database, for vendor retail locations to contact regarding product inventory information for the requested commerce object. Some of these vendor retail locations may have inventory data available in real-time] in view of Claim 1[performing real-time searching for inventory data of the requested commerce object in the central database that has been maintained with up-to-date information about potential vendors' respective inventories via data integration by communicating with the central database in response to receiving the information from the first user device identifying the requested commerce object for which available inventory is sought]).
Regarding Claim 21, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the method of claim 1, Cumberland discloses the transmitting the search request to the respective entity (Fig. 1; ¶¶0030-0031 in view of ¶0043), the operations further comprising: notifying, by the one or more computing devices, the respective entity via an application programming interface (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶0108[the central communication server may send messages to the mobile device using a notification service of the mobile device, a specific inventory application installed on the mobile device, or both. In some implementations, the central communication server may validate the mobile device to ensure that the mobile device should be associated with the vendor retail location.] in view of ¶0095[the central communication server may use an application programming interface (API) to communicate with the other server. For instance, the other server may use a method or a message format from the API to provide the central communication server with a request message about the requested commerce object for which available inventory is sought and the geographical area in which inventory information is requested.]).
Regarding Claim 22, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the method of claim 1, Cumberland discloses wherein the one or more physical search entities are configured to identify one or more products by scanning one of a quick response (QR) code, tag, vehicle identification number, or radio frequency identification (RFID) chip (¶0032[When an entity performs a determination of whether or not a particular item is in stock, or the amount of inventory in stock, the entity may use a bar code scanner, a mobile device, e.g., with an inventory application, or another method.]).
Although Cumberland discloses identifying products by scanning, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose identifying vehicles.
However, Simoudis teaches receiving information about a vehicle (Col. 21, lines 13-45[For instance, a requesting application (e.g., insurance application) may send to the OEM system associated with a target vehicle (or group of vehicles) a request indicating the type of data and the frequency of such data are needed from the target vehicle… Upon receiving the request, the data orchestrator may push the request to a queue and send back a response message to the OEM system to acknowledge receipt of the request. The OEM system may then send a message to the requesting application indicating the request has been logged… in addition to passing the request/response message, the OEM system/application may send a message to the data orchestrator instructing the data orchestrator to delete the transmission request from the queue when a transmission period is completed (e.g., upon receiving a completion message from the data orchestrator). The data orchestrator may then delete the entry from the queue and send a message to the OEM system indicating the entry is deleted]).
The method of Simoudis is applicable to the method of Cumberland as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to generating and managing data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the search request and dispatch of entities as disclosed by Cumberland to include queuing information about a vehicle and removing information from a queue as taught by Simoudis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Cumberland in order to determine which of (which portion of) the vehicle data is to be communicated to which data center or third-party entity, and when such data is transmitted (Col. 2, lines 39-41).
Regarding Claim 24, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, Cumberland discloses the transmitting the search request to the respective entity comprising: notifying the respective entity via an application programming interface (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶0108[the central communication server may send messages to the mobile device using a notification service of the mobile device, a specific inventory application installed on the mobile device, or both. In some implementations, the central communication server may validate the mobile device to ensure that the mobile device should be associated with the vendor retail location.] in view of ¶0095[the central communication server may use an application programming interface (API) to communicate with the other server. For instance, the other server may use a method or a message format from the API to provide the central communication server with a request message about the requested commerce object for which available inventory is sought and the geographical area in which inventory information is requested.]).
Regarding Claim 25, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, Cumberland discloses wherein the one or more physical search entities are configured to identify one or more products by scanning one of a quick response (QR) code, tag, vehicle identification number, or radio frequency identification (RFID) chip (¶0032[When an entity performs a determination of whether or not a particular item is in stock, or the amount of inventory in stock, the entity may use a bar code scanner, a mobile device, e.g., with an inventory application, or another method.]).
Although Cumberland discloses identifying products by scanning, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose identifying vehicles.
However, Simoudis teaches receiving information about a vehicle (Col. 21, lines 13-45[For instance, a requesting application (e.g., insurance application) may send to the OEM system associated with a target vehicle (or group of vehicles) a request indicating the type of data and the frequency of such data are needed from the target vehicle… Upon receiving the request, the data orchestrator may push the request to a queue and send back a response message to the OEM system to acknowledge receipt of the request. The OEM system may then send a message to the requesting application indicating the request has been logged… in addition to passing the request/response message, the OEM system/application may send a message to the data orchestrator instructing the data orchestrator to delete the transmission request from the queue when a transmission period is completed (e.g., upon receiving a completion message from the data orchestrator). The data orchestrator may then delete the entry from the queue and send a message to the OEM system indicating the entry is deleted]).
The system of Simoudis is applicable to the system of Cumberland as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to generating and managing data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the search request and dispatch of entities as disclosed by Cumberland to include queuing information about a vehicle and removing information from a queue as taught by Simoudis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Cumberland in order to determine which of (which portion of) the vehicle data is to be communicated to which data center or third-party entity, and when such data is transmitted (Col. 2, lines 39-41).
Regarding Claim 27, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the computing system of claim 15, Cumberland discloses wherein to transmit the search request to the respective entity, the at least one processor is further configured to: notify the respective entity via an application programming interface (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶0108[the central communication server may send messages to the mobile device using a notification service of the mobile device, a specific inventory application installed on the mobile device, or both. In some implementations, the central communication server may validate the mobile device to ensure that the mobile device should be associated with the vendor retail location.] in view of ¶0095[the central communication server may use an application programming interface (API) to communicate with the other server. For instance, the other server may use a method or a message format from the API to provide the central communication server with a request message about the requested commerce object for which available inventory is sought and the geographical area in which inventory information is requested.]).
Regarding Claim 28, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the computing system of claim 15, Cumberland discloses wherein the one or more physical search entities are configured to identify one or more products by scanning one of a quick response (QR) code, tag, vehicle identification number, or radio frequency identification (RFID) chip (¶0032[When an entity performs a determination of whether or not a particular item is in stock, or the amount of inventory in stock, the entity may use a bar code scanner, a mobile device, e.g., with an inventory application, or another method.]).
Although Cumberland discloses identifying products by scanning, Cumberland does not explicitly disclose identifying vehicles.
However, Simoudis teaches receiving information about a vehicle (Col. 21, lines 13-45[For instance, a requesting application (e.g., insurance application) may send to the OEM system associated with a target vehicle (or group of vehicles) a request indicating the type of data and the frequency of such data are needed from the target vehicle… Upon receiving the request, the data orchestrator may push the request to a queue and send back a response message to the OEM system to acknowledge receipt of the request. The OEM system may then send a message to the requesting application indicating the request has been logged… in addition to passing the request/response message, the OEM system/application may send a message to the data orchestrator instructing the data orchestrator to delete the transmission request from the queue when a transmission period is completed (e.g., upon receiving a completion message from the data orchestrator). The data orchestrator may then delete the entry from the queue and send a message to the OEM system indicating the entry is deleted]).
The system of Simoudis is applicable to the system of Cumberland as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to generating and managing data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the search request and dispatch of entities as disclosed by Cumberland to include queuing information about a vehicle and removing information from a queue as taught by Simoudis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Cumberland in order to determine which of (which portion of) the vehicle data is to be communicated to which data center or third-party entity, and when such data is transmitted (Col. 2, lines 39-41).
Claim(s) 23, 26, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan in view of Milne et al. (US 2023/0315271 A1 [previously cited]).
Regarding Claim 23, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the method of claim 1, Cumberland discloses wherein the GUI is configured to filter the each retrieved information (¶0051[the central communication server 104, the central database 106, or both, may filter a list of potential vendors, vendor retail locations, or both using data that indicates which products or types of products are available or historically have been available at particular vendors or vendor retail locations]).
Although Cumberland discloses filtering received information, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan does not explicitly teach filtering based on input from the client device.
However, Milne et al., hereinafter, Milne, teaches filtering information based on input from a client device (¶0080[Upon reception of the inputs, the circuitry 202 of the electronic device 102 may be configured to select one or more content filters from a plurality of content filters. Based on first inputs and the selected content filter(s), the circuitry 202 may prepare content. Specifically, the content may be prepared based on application of the selected filter(s) on the first inputs. By way of example, and not limitation, the plurality of content filters may include a filter to replace a color scheme used in the first inputs with a user-defined color scheme associated with the electronic device 102, a filter to change thickness of lines used in the first inputs, a filter to omit one or more inputs of the first inputs for the preparation of the content, a filter to edit the one or more inputs of the first inputs for the preparation of the content, and a filter to add one or more labels in the content to indicate a source of the first inputs.]).
The method of Milne is applicable to the method of Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to generating and managing data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filtering of retrieved information as taught by Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan to include filtering information based on user input as taught by Milne. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan in order to join and exchange information in a meeting session (¶0003).
Regarding Claim 26, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, Cumberland discloses wherein the GUI is configured to filter the each retrieved information (¶0051[the central communication server 104, the central database 106, or both, may filter a list of potential vendors, vendor retail locations, or both using data that indicates which products or types of products are available or historically have been available at particular vendors or vendor retail locations]).
Although Cumberland discloses filtering received information, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan does not explicitly teach filtering based on input from the client device.
However, Milne teaches filtering information based on input from a client device (¶0080[Upon reception of the inputs, the circuitry 202 of the electronic device 102 may be configured to select one or more content filters from a plurality of content filters. Based on first inputs and the selected content filter(s), the circuitry 202 may prepare content. Specifically, the content may be prepared based on application of the selected filter(s) on the first inputs. By way of example, and not limitation, the plurality of content filters may include a filter to replace a color scheme used in the first inputs with a user-defined color scheme associated with the electronic device 102, a filter to change thickness of lines used in the first inputs, a filter to omit one or more inputs of the first inputs for the preparation of the content, a filter to edit the one or more inputs of the first inputs for the preparation of the content, and a filter to add one or more labels in the content to indicate a source of the first inputs.]).
The system of Milne is applicable to the system of Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to generating and managing data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filtering of retrieved information as taught by Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan to include filtering information based on user input as taught by Milne. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan in order to join and exchange information in a meeting session (¶0003).
Regarding Claim 29, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan teaches the computing system of claim 15, Cumberland discloses wherein the GUI is configured to filter the each retrieved information (¶0051[the central communication server 104, the central database 106, or both, may filter a list of potential vendors, vendor retail locations, or both using data that indicates which products or types of products are available or historically have been available at particular vendors or vendor retail locations]).
Although Cumberland discloses filtering received information, Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan does not explicitly teach filtering based on input from the client device.
However, Milne teaches filtering information based on input from a client device (¶0080[Upon reception of the inputs, the circuitry 202 of the electronic device 102 may be configured to select one or more content filters from a plurality of content filters. Based on first inputs and the selected content filter(s), the circuitry 202 may prepare content. Specifically, the content may be prepared based on application of the selected filter(s) on the first inputs. By way of example, and not limitation, the plurality of content filters may include a filter to replace a color scheme used in the first inputs with a user-defined color scheme associated with the electronic device 102, a filter to change thickness of lines used in the first inputs, a filter to omit one or more inputs of the first inputs for the preparation of the content, a filter to edit the one or more inputs of the first inputs for the preparation of the content, and a filter to add one or more labels in the content to indicate a source of the first inputs.]).
The system of Milne is applicable to the system of Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to generating and managing data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filtering of retrieved information as taught by Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan to include filtering information based on user input as taught by Milne. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Cumberland in view of Simoudis in view of Donlan in order to join and exchange information in a meeting session (¶0003).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 9 and 10 of the remarks filed 05/22/2026, with respect to the previous Claim Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the currently amended claims.
Accordingly, the previous Claim Objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-22 of the remarks filed 05/22/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 101 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-12 of the remarks that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea and “do not recite and are not directed to any advertising, marketing or sales activities or behavior,” remarks page 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 above, the limitations directed to the abstract idea are directly quoted and concepts within the identified as belonging to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the claims being directed to an abstract idea of the sale of vehicles is not a description of the claims at a high level of abstraction untethered from the language of the claim. The MPEP highlights that a claim recites a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea) when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Claims can “describe” an abstract concept without ever explicitly stating the abstract concept, e.g., the claims in Alice “described” the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement” see MPEP 2106.04(II). With respect to the instant claims, a computer implemented method; receiving by one or more computing device and from a client device; an application programming interface (API), one or more computerized search entities including at least one of a robot, an autonomous vehicle, or an aerial drone; by batch processing have been analyzed as additional elements and accordingly are not analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1. The claims further recite the sale of vehicles over the web. These claims fall into the Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping, which includes activity that falls within the enumerated sub-grouping of commercial or legal interactions, including subject matter relating to advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, these claims recite marketing and advertising because they pertain to service and product recommendations. Accordingly, the amended claims recite an abstract idea.
Furthermore, applicant argues that the examiner’s states that the claims recite performing vehicle transactions over the web “without citing any portion of the claims or the specification.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The previous office action dated 02/24/2026 stated the limitations of claim 1 (12/01/2025) which recited an abstract idea. The claim stated, receiving a search request for information about a vehicle, queuing the search request, transmitting the search request, receiving respective retrieved information about a vehicle, queuing the respective retrieved information, removing the search request from a queue, generating a graphical user interface, removing retrieved information from a queue, and transmitting the graphical user interface to the client for display. Examiner notes that receiving a search request for a vehicle to purchase and generating a GUI with information regarding the vehicles is related to performing vehicle transactions over the web. The claims being directed to an abstract idea of the sale of vehicles is not a description of the claims at a high level of abstraction untethered from the language of the claim. Furthermore, according to ¶0005 and ¶0025 of the instant specification, vehicle searches are done for the ultimate purpose of vehicle transactions.
Applicant argues on pages 12-19 that the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states "the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement." The MPEP further states that "[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art," and that, "conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology" (see MPEP 2106.04). That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing V. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was " allowing computers to produce 'accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters " and it was " the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that "improved [the] existing technological process" by allowing the automation of further tasks". McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
While the Examiner acknowledges that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field may constitute integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), the instant amended claims do not provide a technical improvement. Rather, the claims provide an improvement to the abstract idea of the sale of vehicles. This is illustrated in ¶¶0002-0003 of the instant specification which discusses that the user may perform a search for vehicle listings with the most up to date inventory information.
Applicant argues on pages 12-16 of the remarks that the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improving “the function of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field,” and cites to ¶0001, ¶¶0010-0013 of the instant specification to show a technical improvement. ¶0001 of the instant specification merely states that “aspects relate to a system that uses a decentralized architecture to search for and receive data.” Examiner notes that a system that uses a decentralized architecture to search for and receive data is part of the abstract idea and does not show a technical improvement or integrate the abstract idea. ¶0010 of the instant specification states that the decentralized architecture provides a way to “search for vehicles,” and combines physical and computerized searches and aggregates the results of each to provide an up-to-date set of results about what entities or dealerships have what vehicles for sale. ¶0012 of the instant specification states that the invention improves searching by obtaining “directly from the physical locations, computers, databases, dealerships, etc. directly rather than a centralized database or repository with aggregated inventory data for vehicles for sale.” Furthermore, according to ¶0013 of the instant specification, using the invention, the vehicle dealerships can “relieve themselves of having to constantly keep an updated list of vehicles available for sale to provide to websites listing their vehicles for sale.” As previously stated, searching for vehicles for sale in order to generate recommendations for a user to purchase a vehicle is part of the abstract idea and the mere execution of the abstract idea on generic and high-level additional components such as a “computerized” search for vehicles, a “database,” a “robot,” “aerial drones,” and “websites” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide a technical improvement. These elements are described at a high level of generality and as generic in Fig. 1, ¶0030, ¶0034, and ¶¶0040-0044 of the instant specification.
Applicant claims on pages 16-18 of the remarks that the amended claims should be patent eligible and cites to USPTO Example 42 for support. Examiner disagrees with the applicant that the presently recited claims are similar to USPTO Example 42. In claim 1 of USPTO Example 42, the additional elements recited a specific improvement over prior art systems by converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users (i.e., a technical solution to a technical problem) and the specification identified the technical problem and explained the technical solution. Unlike claim 1 of USPTO Example 42, the presently claimed invention does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field and the Specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as pertaining to an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
With regards to the applicant’s arguments regarding ¶¶0029-0038 of the instant specification on pages 17 and 18 of the remarks, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claims provide a technical improvement. Queuing requests to store search requests and notifying decentralized entities of the pending search request to enable the asynchronous dispatch required, storing the received information in a queue, and presenting the results to a user is all part of the abstract idea. As stated previously, the mere execution of the abstract idea on high level and generic components such as an “API,” “computerized” searches, and “computers, databases, robots, or aerial drones,” does not integrate the abstract idea or provide a technical improvement.
Applicant argues the claims are patent eligible in light of Desjardins (Remarks pages 18-19). The examiner disagrees. In Ex Parte Desjardins, the claims reflected a specific improvement that addressed the technical problem of catastrophic forgetting" in continual learning systems, while allowing artificial intelligence systems to variously optimize system performance, use less storage capacity and reduce system complexity. By contrast, the instant case does not provide any similar technical improvement to a technical problem specific to learning systems. Thus, Desjardins is not analogous.
Applicant argues on page 19-22 of the remarks that the amended claims include an inventive concept and cites Bascom. While Applicant argues the combination of the various elements that are claimed in the present claims provide a particular, practical application of the alleged abstract idea similar to the eligible claims in Bascom, Examiner disagrees. Unlike the claimed invention in Bascom the additional elements of Applicant’s claims do not pertain to an “improvement” to the functioning of a computer or to another technology (see MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.05(a)). In Bascom the inventive concept provided improvement in internet technology by the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. Specifically, the Federal Circuit identified that the Bascom patent describes how the claims particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content, and was therefore considered an improvement to an existing technological process. The instant claims which recite the sale of vehicles over the web are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” requiring the generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality or requiring the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces to improve a technical process. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As currently recited, the instant claims are directed to improving the argued business task of receiving a search request for information about a vehicle, queuing the search request, transmitting the search request, receiving respective retrieved information about the vehicle, queuing the respective retrieved information, dequeuing the search request, generating a GUI, dequeuing the retrieved information, and transmitting the GUI to a client as recited in amended claim 1 or more simply providing “product recommendations” (i.e., the abstract idea). Therefore, the instant claims are unlike the claims in Bascom and the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains that the invention is directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the 35 USC §101 rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 23-28 of the remarks filed 05/22/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 103 rejections have been fully considered but are mostly moot in view of the new 103 rejection of the amended claims.
Applicant argues on pages 24-27 of the remarks that the references cited fail to teach “performing a search using a plurality of decentralized entities in a system without a central repository.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. ¶0031 of reference Cumberland discloses that “a central communication server may retrieve inventory information from… multiple servers that are each maintained for a particular retailer, from a device for an entity, e.g., a person or a robot, physically located at a retail location, or a combination of any two or more of these.” Retrieving inventory information from multiple inventories that are maintained individually for each retailer as disclosed by Cumberland is comparable to a system without a central repository. Moreover, when describing a search using decentralized entities in a system without a central repository, ¶0044 of the instant specification states that “the decentralized architecture… does not attempt to aggregate information into a central database… the system allows the decentralized entities to search for the data requested directly from the physical… databases, dealerships… that are selling the vehicles… the computers, databases, dealerships… can each form individual “databases” from which the information… may be retrieved.” Furthermore, the instant specification uses the terms “database” and “repository” interchangeably, see at least ¶0012, ¶0031, ¶0042, and ¶0044. Examiner maintains that retrieving inventory information from multiple servers each maintained for a retailer and from a device of an entity such as a person or a robot physically located at that particular retail location, as described in ¶0031 of Cumberland, is comparable to “performing a search using a plurality of decentralized entities in a system without a central repository.”
As per MPEP 2111, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Applicant’s arguments regarding performing a search using a plurality of decentralized entities in a system without a central repository are a narrow interpretation of the claims. Furthermore, according to the MPEP 2111.01(II), it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification when interpreting the claims under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant further argues on page 27 of the remarks that there is a lack of motivation of combine References Cumberland and Simoudis because they are non-analogous art to the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Cumberland in order to determine which of (which portion of) the vehicle data is to be communicated to which data center or third-party entity, and when such data is transmitted, see Col. 2, lines 39-41 of Simoudis.
Furthermore, according to the MPEP 2141.01(a), “a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art.” ¶0003 of the instant specification states that the instant invention improves the availability of products in an inventory or database in the context of vehicles and vehicle dealerships. ¶0008 of Cumberland states that a “device may include an inventory database to track inventory levels of products… to request a particular product from a warehouse when the inventory of the particular is low.” The abstract of Simoudis states that “autonomous vehicle data is stored in a database… to retrieve a subset of the autonomous vehicle data from the database…storing or transmitting the subset of the autonomous vehicle data.” Therefore, references Cumberland and Simoudis which discuss managing databases or inventories are analogous to the instant invention which discusses improving inventory management.
Accordingly, references Cumberland, Simoudis, and Milne have been maintained and reference Donlan has been added in view of the claim amendments.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHOORA LADONI whose email is Ahoora.Ladoni@uspto.gov and telephone number is (703) 756-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900–1700 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.
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/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.
/AHOORA LADONI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights