DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s “RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION” filed on January 16, 2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”). In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13 and 15; cancelled no claim(s); and added no claim(s). No claim was previously cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-18 remain pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1, 7 and 13 remain independent claims.
Original Claims 1-18 were originally presented by Applicant and, therefore, have been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution per MPEP §§ 819 and 821.03.
The present application (U.S. App. No. 18/224,547) and each of its parent applications (i.e., U.S. App. No. 16/340,654 and its corresponding PCT application filed in 2016) were all filed after March 16, 2013; and, therefore, this application is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Examiner notes that this patent application (U.S. App. No. 18/224,547) has published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0368091 (hereinafter “Lovell”).
Priority/Benefit Claims
The effective filing date (EFD) of this application goes to the filing date of PCT App. No. PCT/US2016/056269, which is October 10, 2016.
No foreign priority has been claimed in this application or any parent application.
Divisional
This application is a divisional application of U.S. Application No. 16/340,654 filed on April 9, 2019, which issued as U.S. Patent No 11,727,330 (“Parent Application”), which was a U.S. national phase application of PCT App. No. PCT/US2016/056269 filed on October 10, 2016. See MPEP § 201.06. In accordance with MPEP § 609.02 A. 2 and MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant is reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP § 609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant is reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Applicant is notified of 37 C.F.R. 1.56, which states that each inventor named in the application has a duty to disclose information material to patentability.
Applicant is notified of MPEP § 2001.06(b): “prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are ‘material to patentability’ of the subsequent application”.
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes previous objections to Claim 1 and to two of the three objections to Claims 7 and 13; therefore, the Examiner withdraws these previous claim objections. However, Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome all objections to Claims 7 and 13; therefore, the Examiner maintains objections to Claims 7 and 13, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes most rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); therefore, the Examiner withdraws these rejections under § 112(b). However, Applicant’s Amendment
does not overcome other § 112(b) rejections and introduces new rejections to the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); therefore, the Examiner asserts § 112(b) rejections to Claims 1-18, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains § 101 rejections to Claims 1-18, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103; therefore, the Examiner maintains § 103 rejections to Claims 1-18, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
Claim Objections
Independent Claims 7 and 13 are each objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error(s) and/or insufficient antecedent basis(es). As a preliminary matter, Examiner notes that Claim 1 distinguishes between “electronic alerts” in the preamble and “electronic alert messages” in the body of Claim 1. However, unlike Claim 1 which introduces “…distributing electronic alerts” in its preamble, Claims 7 and 13 do not recite “electronic alerts” in a preamble and, therefore, Claims 7 and 13 reciting "the electronic alerts" lack antecedent basis. Therefore, each of Claims 7 and 13 are objected to for lack of proper antecedent basis. For purposes of this Office action only, each of the phrases "the electronic alerts" recited in Claims 7 and 13 is understood to be "electronic alerts". Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA ):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-18 are each rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. “A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear” (MPEP § 2173.05(e)).
Independent Claims 1, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA , as being indefinite because it is unclear as to what the phrase “the news event” in the phrase “…executing artificial intelligence on the centralized information server, semantic rules to a textual component describing the news event to produce at least one semantic concept…” (bolding emphasis added) makes antecedent reference to each of the independent claims. In other words, the phrase “the news event” has insufficient antecedent basis due to multiple interpretations. For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the news event” recited in Claims 1, 7 and 13: (-1-) refers to a news event that is not specifically/positively recited in the independent claims with regard to previously-recited “news event window”; (-2-) improperly refers to subsequently recited “a news event” in the phrase “receive, from the centralized information provider, an alert message for a news event, the alert message including (i)…” (bolding emphasis added to phrase recited after first recited “the news event”); (-3-) refers to another type of news event different from the subsequently recited “a news event”; (-4-) refers to some combination thereof; or (-5-) refers to
something else recited in each independent claim. Therefore, independent Claims 1, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA , as being indefinite. Appropriate corrections are required.
Independent Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA , as being indefinite because it is unclear as to what the phrase “the intermediate service provider” (singular) makes antecedent reference to each of Claims 7 and 13, respectively. In other words, the phrase “the intermediate service provider” (bolding emphasis added by Examiner to Claims 7 and 13) has insufficient antecedent basis due to multiple interpretations. For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the intermediate service provider” recited in Claims 7 and 13:
references all of first-recited “intermediate service providers” (plural) in Claims 7 and 13;
references one (singular) of the first-recited “intermediate service providers” recited in each of Claims 7 and 13;
references all of secondly-introduced “intermediate service providers” (plural) in the phrase “provide, from the plurality of computing systems of intermediate service providers to a centralized information provider via a communication network,” of Claims 7 and 13;
references one (singular) of the secondly-introduced “intermediate service providers” recited in each of Claims 7 and 13; or
references some combination of the first-recited “intermediate service providers” and the secondly-introduced “intermediate service providers” recited in Claims 7 and 13.
Consequently, independent Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA , as being indefinite. Appropriate corrections are required.
Each of independent Claims 1, 7 and 13 introduces multiple versions of the word “clients” and, therefore, it is unclear as to what the phrase “the identified clients” (bolding emphases added by Examiner) makes antecedent reference to in each corresponding independent claim; therefore, Claims 1, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA , as being indefinite. For example, it is unclear “the identified clients” (plural):
refers to only “a plurality of clients” (recited in the independent claims);
refers to only “clients” in the phrase “(iii) an indication of clients…selected from among the plurality of clients” (bolding emphases added);
refers to “each client of the plurality of clients indicated in the received alert message” which may be one client of the plurality or multiple clients of the plurality; or
refers to some combination thereof.
Appropriate corrections are required. In addition, because Claims 1, 7 and 13 introduces multiple versions of the word “clients”, it is unclear whether all of the “clients” in the phrases: “a plurality of clients”, “(iii) an indication of clients…selected from among the plurality of clients”, “the identified clients”, and “one or more identified clients”, as recited in each of the independent claims, are to be understood as being the same clients or different sets of clients. Consequently, independent Claims 1, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA , as being indefinite. Appropriate corrections are required to each of the independent claims.
Furthermore, because Claims 1, 7 and 13 introduces multiple versions of the phrase “intermediate service providers”, it is unclear whether all of the “intermediate service providers” of the
first-recited “intermediate service providers” (of Claims 1, 7 and 13), the secondly-introduced “intermediate service providers” in the phrase “provid[ing], from the plurality of computing systems of intermediate service providers to a centralized information provider via a communication network” (of Claims 1, 7 and 13); and (only Claim 1) the thirdly-introduced “intermediate service providers” in the phrase “providing, from the central information provider to intermediate service providers, a listing of…” (bolding emphasis added to 3rd recitation in Claim 1) are to be understood as being the same intermediate service providers or different sets of intermediate service providers. Consequently, independent Claims 1, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA , as being indefinite. Appropriate corrections are required to each of the independent claims.
Claims 2-6 depend from independent Claim 1, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore, Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA . Similarly, Claims 8-12 depend from independent Claim 7, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore, Claims 8-12 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA . Similarly, Claims 14-18 depend from independent Claim 13, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore, Claims 14-18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA .
Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
G06F 9/00 Arrangements for program control
G06F 9/06 • using stored programs, i.e. using an internal store of processing equipment to
receive or retain programs
G06F 9/46 •• Multiprogramming arrangements
G06F 9/54 ••• Interprogram communication
G06F 9/542 •••• Event management; Broadcasting; Multicasting; Notifications
G06Q 10/00 Administration Management
G06Q 10/10 • Office automation Time management
G06Q10/107 •• Computer-aided management of electronic mailing [e-mailing]
H04L TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION
H04L 51/00 User-to-user messaging in packet-switching networks, transmitted according to
store-and-forward or real-time protocols, e.g. e-mail
H04L 51/21 • Monitoring or handling of messages
H04L 51/214 •• using selective forwarding.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-18 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-18 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 1-18 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite identifying and selecting which individuals (e.g., “one or more clients”) are to be notified of a news event (i.e., recited “alert message for a news event”) based on information received about the individuals (i.e., recited “client attributes”) and one or more rules (e.g., recited “a metric of relevance in excess of a certain threshold using the…client attributes”), as more particularly recited in the pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements):
a communication network;
a plurality of clients and one or more clients;
providing, by one or more computer processors of no more than a single centralized information server, a graphical user interface (GUI) to a plurality of computing systems, the GUI including input fields to receive informational input, and the GUI also including a window configured for (1) reviewing of electronic alert messages received from the single centralized information server and (2) approving automatic distribution of electronic alerts directly to at least one client of a plurality of clients;
a computing system associated with a service provider;
a computing system independent of the service provider;
a centralized information provider;
a graphical user interface (GUI) of the centralized information provider;
anonymized (client) data;
the one or more computer processors executing artificial intelligence on the centralized information server;
an alert message including a textual component;
a user interface with a control for selecting or unselecting;
each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, providing, distributing and listing;
(only Claim 7 and corresponding dependent claims) a system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing thereon instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the system to perform; and
(only Claim 13 and corresponding dependent claims) a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing thereon instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform.
However, utilizing information received about individuals (e.g., “a plurality of clients”) and one or more rules to identify and select which of the individuals (e.g., “one or more clients”) are to be notified of a news event, as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; (ii) commercial interaction (including marketing activities or behaviors; business relations); and/or (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships/interactions between people. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A)-(B) provides additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each claim as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of identifying and selecting which individuals are to be notified of a news event based on information received about the individuals and one or more mathematical-based rules. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.”). Although the claims require “a metric of relevance” and the “metric of relevance” exceeding “a certain threshold”, these techniques are mathematical concepts in the form of formulas, equations, and calculations which also have been determined to constitute abstract ideas. See Memorandum, "Grouping of Abstract Ideas" and cases cited in footnote 12, such as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50). As noted on page 4 of the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” issued by the USPTO, Examiner notes that a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, in light of the specification, encompasses one or more mathematical calculations. Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a communication network with an intermediate service provider in network communication with one or more clients and with a centralized information provider} and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, determining, providing, distributing and listing, as further explained below. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in the Claims 1-18 are performed by the generically recited “one or more processors”, Applicant’s claim limitations taken individually and in combination are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer/processor to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a communication network with an intermediate service provider in network communication with one or more clients and with a centralized information provider}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, determining, providing, distributing and listing, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: a communication network; a plurality of clients and one or more clients; providing, by one or more computer processors of no more than a single centralized information server, a graphical user interface (GUI) to a plurality of computing systems, the GUI including input fields to receive informational input, and the GUI also including a news event window configured for (1) reviewing of electronic alert messages received from the single centralized information server and (2) approving automatic distribution of electronic alerts directly to at least one client of a plurality of clients; a computing system associated with a service provider; a computing system independent of the service provider; a centralized information provider; a graphical user interface (GUI) of the centralized information provider; anonymized (client) data; the one or more computer processors executing artificial intelligence on the centralized information server; an alert message including a textual component; a user interface with a control for selecting or unselecting; each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, providing, distributing and listing; (only Claim 7 and corresponding dependent claims) a system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing thereon instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the system to perform; and (only Claim 13 and corresponding dependent claims) a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing thereon instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform. However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of receiving, determining, providing, distributing and listing — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide conventional computer implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in the pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The steps/processes of receiving, determining, providing, distributing and listing, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the steps of receiving encompasses a data input/loading or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)}; each of the steps of determining encompasses a data recognition/inquiry function or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data recognition); each of the steps of storing is a data saving or depositing function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Cyberfone”; and Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data storage}; each of the steps of determining a metric in excess of a threshold encompasses a simple mathematical function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., Bilski, Freddie Mac, and In re Abele}; and each of the steps of providing, distributing and listing encompasses a data output/transmittal function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}. Furthermore regarding implementing Applicant’s abstract idea with no more than a generic computer processor to generally link Applicant’s abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure mentions at paragraph [0087] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0368091 (“Lovell”) that Applicant’s “one or more processors may also operate to support performance of the relevant operations in a "cloud computing" environment or as a "software as a service" (SaaS). For example, at least some of the functions may be performed by a group of computers (as examples of machines including processors). These operations are accessible via a network (e.g., the Internet) and via one or more appropriate interfaces (e.g., application program interfaces (APIs)).” Also see the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, at page 7, second and sixth bullet points (July 30, 2015) regarding various well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer. Employing well-known computer functions individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the computer-implemented abstract idea in Flook (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)) to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA ) 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under America Invents Act (AIA ) 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0167942 of Lucas et al. (hereinafter “Lucas”), which incorporates by reference, per paragraphs [0007], [0043] and [0130] of Lucas, both U.S. Pat. No. 6,732,092 issued in 2004 (“the '092 patent”) as well as U.S. Patent Application No. 10/293,393 filed in 2002 (“the '393 application”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0132773 of Chandrasekaran et al. (hereinafter “Chandrasekaran”).
Examiner notes MPEP § 2163.07(b):
“information incorporated is as much a part of the application as filed as if the text was repeated in the application, and should be treated as part of the text of the application as filed.”
Regarding Claim 1, Lucas discloses a method for distributing electronic alerts (e.g., “…provide clients or contacts with timely and the most relevant information…” —Lucas at ¶ [0002]; “…distribute information to their clients” such as “news … which affects…the interests of their clients” such as “breaking news” —Lucas at respective ¶¶ [0005], [0005], [0009] and [0015]), the method comprising:
providing, by one or more computer processors of no more than a single centralized information server, a graphical user interface (GUI) to a plurality of computing systems of intermediate service providers, the GUI including input fields to receive informational input from each of the intermediate service providers, and the GUI also including a news event window configured to allow each of the intermediate service providers (1) to review electronic alert messages received from the single centralized information server and (2) to approve automatic distribution of the alerts directly from the intermediate service providers to at least one client of a plurality of clients (e.g., Figures 6 and 14-16 of Lucas; “identify relevant and meaningful articles… by filtering…available objects. The relationship manager may review this filtered list to select objects that can serve as a contact opportunity (i.e., an article may provide a relationship manager with a reason… to contact their client or potential client)” —Lucas at ¶ [0010]; “set alerts for particular information” such as “breaking news” —Lucas at ¶ [0015]; “a user e-mails an object to contacts…. the user who e-mailed the article…identified the object as relevant”, such as “For example, the keyphrase "New York Yankees" is in an object and the user e-mails contact #1 the object because he believes contact #1 may be interested in the object” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0102] and [0103]; “Objects may include…news articles” and “Objects…retrieved based on…contact-associated, or account-associated information (e.g., keyphrases… mapped to a[n]… account, or contact profile). Retrieved objects may then be reviewed by the user” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0041] and [0014]; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0010], [0016], [0060]–[0061], [0065], [0103], [0134], [0136], [0138], [0140], [0143]–[0144] and [0149]–[0151]; also see the '092 patent at Col. 7, lines 37-40 for “graphical user interface ("application") installed on… computing device 40” for “associating keyphrases of interest to …client/customer profiles and conducting queries on …news service databases for an entire clientele group” (the '092 patent at Col. 3, lines 6-9); “sending the retrieved article to… individuals or adding the retrieved article to one or more ‘client’ to-do lists” (the '092 patent at Col. 12, lines 23-26) and/or “the user may select the "e-mail to all clients" function whereby the system will electronically mail the retrieved article to all interested individuals listed in the interested "client" table list” (the '092 patent at Col. 12, lines 3-6));
providing, from the plurality of computing systems of intermediate service providers to a centralized information provider via a communication network, anonymized client data including respective client attributes for each of the plurality of clients, each of the attributes selected from a predefined set (e.g., Figure 1 of Lucas; “relationship managers to provide clients or contacts with timely and the most relevant information” —Lucas at ¶ [0002]; “relationship managers…collect and distribute information to their clients” such as “news … which affects…the interests of their clients” such as news “from a news article” or “breaking news” —Lucas at respective ¶¶ [0005], [0005], [0009] and [0015]; “Objects may include…news articles” and “Objects…retrieved based on…contact-associated, or account-associated information (e.g., keyphrases, holdings, or any other information that may be mapped to a[n]… account, or contact profile). Retrieved objects may then be reviewed by the user” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0041] and [0014]; “entering information in accordance with FIGS. 4 and 5 will apply equally to other interests in a…contact's profile, or account's profile” such as “allow a user to enter various keyphrases and other information relating to a user's contact's personal interests. The user may also… enter keyphrases and other information associated with the selected contact's professional interests” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0056] and [0064]; “set alerts for particular information” such as “breaking news” —Lucas at ¶ [0015]; Figures 4-5 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0030], [0040]–[0041], [0052] and [0055]);
applying, by the one or more processors executing artificial intelligence on the centralized information server, rules to a textual component describing the news event to produce at least one concept, the applying including processing textual information using textual language processing (e.g., “User profiles may include… keyphrases associated with a user's interest or specialty” and “personal interests of a user may be encapsulated by keyphrases and other information… perform keyphrase searches for relevant objects based on personal interest information in the user's profile” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0030] and [0040] and at ¶ [0050]; “select one or more categories of the content associated with an object, such as… news… or any other relevant categories to describe objects” —Lucas at ¶ [0055]; “level of interest in the topic associated with the keyphrase” —Lucas at ¶ [0052]; “All levels of organization (i.e., classifications, categories, sub-categories, etc.) are all considered attributes of an object” such as “categories for interest types… new[s] interest category 1104” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0077] and [0105] as well as Figure 11 of Lucas; “provide…most relevant information” based on “keyphrases and other information relating to an account's news interest” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0002] and [0069]; Figures 6, 9-11 and 14-16 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0030], [0042], [0044], [0052], [0069]–[0070], [0077], [0103], [0134], [0137], [0140] and [0150]–[0151]);
transforming, by the one or more processors executing artificial intelligence on the centralized information server, the anonymized client data into a semantic representation based on the respective client attributes and the one or more semantic concepts (e.g., “User profiles may include… keyphrases associated with a user's interest or specialty” and “personal interests of a user may be encapsulated by keyphrases and other information… perform keyphrase searches for relevant objects based on personal interest information in the user's profile” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0030] and [0040] and at ¶ [0050]; “select one or more categories of the content associated with an object, such as… news… or any other relevant categories to describe objects” —Lucas at ¶ [0055]; “level of interest in the topic associated with the keyphrase” —Lucas at ¶ [0052]; “All levels of organization (i.e., classifications, categories, sub-categories, etc.) are all considered attributes of an object” such as “categories for interest types… new[s] interest category 1104” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0077] and [0105] as well as Figure 11 of Lucas; “provide…most relevant information” based on “keyphrases and other information relating to an account's news interest” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0002] and [0069]; Figures 6, 9-11 and 14-16 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0030], [0042], [0044], [0052], [0069]–[0070], [0077], [0103], [0134], [0137], [0140] and [0150]–[0151]);
receiving, from the centralized information provider, an alert message for a news event, the alert message including (i) the textual component describing the news event (e.g., “relationship managers…collect … information …” such as “news … which affects…the interests of their clients” such as news “from a news article” or “breaking news” —Lucas at respective ¶¶ [0005], [0005], [0009] and [0015]; “set alerts for particular information” such as “breaking news” —Lucas at ¶ [0015]; “Objects may include…news articles” —Lucas at ¶ [0041]; “types of sources of objects…include…web-based articles…. source types include text files, text articles,… or any other type of media source or format type” such as “such as text from a news article” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0081] and [0009]; Figures 1 and 11 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0030], [0041], [0052], [0064] and [0101]), (ii) the one or more concepts based on textual language rules applied to the textual component (e.g., “User profiles may include… keyphrases associated with a user's interest or specialty” and “personal interests of a user may be encapsulated by keyphrases and other information… perform keyphrase searches for relevant objects based on personal interest information in the user's profile” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0030] and [0040] and at ¶ [0050]; “select one or more categories of the content associated with an object, such as… news… or any other relevant categories to describe objects” —Lucas at ¶ [0055]; “level of interest in the topic associated with the keyphrase” —Lucas at ¶ [0052]; “All levels of organization (i.e., classifications, categories, sub-categories, etc.) are all considered attributes of an object” such as “categories for interest types… new[s] interest category 1104” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0077] and [0105] as well as Figure 11 of Lucas; “provide…most relevant information” based on “keyphrases and other information relating to an account's news interest” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0002] and [0069]; Figures 6, 9-11 and 14-16 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0030], [0042], [0044], [0052], [0069]–[0070], [0077], [0103], [0134], [0137], [0140] and [0150]–[0151]), and (iii) an indication of clients, received by one or more processes via a graphical user interface (GUI) of the centralized information provider, selected from among the plurality of clients, for which the news event and the one or more semantic concepts were determined to have a metric of relevance in excess of a certain threshold using the respective client attributes from the respective anonymized client data and based on the semantic representation (e.g., “provide clients or contacts with timely and the most relevant information … from a variety of sources” based on “various keyphrases and other information relating to an account's news interest” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0002] and [0069]; Figures 6, 9-11 and 14-16 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0030], [0042], [0044], [0052], [0069]–[0070], [0077], [0103], [0130], [0134], [0137], [0140] and [0150]–[0151]);
determining, at a computing system independent of the intermediate service providers, identities of each client of the plurality of clients indicated in the received alert message (e.g., Figures 6 and 14-16 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0016], [0027], [0060]–[0061], [0070], [0103], [0130], [0140], [0142] and [0150]–[0151]);
providing, from the centralized information provider to intermediate service providers, a listing of the identified clients via a user interface, including providing a control for selecting or unselecting individual clients for distribution of the alert message (e.g., Figures 6 and 14-16 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0010], [0016], [0060]–[0061], [0065], [0103], [0134] and [0150]–[0151]); and
distributing the alert message via the communication network to one or more identified clients selected via the user interface (e.g., “relationship managers to provide clients or contacts with timely and the most relevant information” —Lucas at ¶ [0002]; “relationship managers… distribute information to their clients” such as “news … which affects…the interests of their clients” such as news “from a news article” or “breaking news” —Lucas at respective ¶¶ [0005], [0005], [0009] and [0015]; “Objects may include…news articles” —Lucas at ¶ [0041]; “set alerts for particular information” such as “breaking news” —Lucas at ¶ [0015]; “identify relevant and meaningful articles or other content by filtering…. The relationship manager may review this filtered list to select objects that can serve as a contact opportunity (i.e., an article may provide a relationship manager with a reason or excuse to contact their client or potential client)” —Lucas at ¶ [0010]; “relationship manager…use communication devices…to disseminate this information to their clients” —Lucas at ¶ [0006]; “communicating to contacts objects retrieved” —Lucas at ¶ [0023]; Figure 1 and 6-9 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0005], [0006], [0015], [0065], [0102]–[0103] and [0149]), but Lucas fails to explicitly disclose: the rules including semantic rules;
the at least one concept including at least one semantic concept; the one or more concepts including one or more semantic concepts; textual language processing including natural language processing (NLP);
with the textual language rules including natural language processing (NLP) and the semantic rules for identifying the one or more semantic concepts. However, Chandrasekaran teaches distributing or broadcasting event alerts to client users based on an event being of possible interest or relevance to one or more of the client users (e.g., Chandrasekaran at ¶¶ [0041]–[0042]; “predicts an event of possible interest or relevance to an end user” —Chandrasekaran at ¶ [0034]) as well as textual language processing including natural language processing (NLP); analyzing text using natural language processing (NLP) using textual language rules including natural language processing (NLP) rules for identifying one or more semantic concepts in the text with rules including semantic rules, at least one concept including at least one semantic concept, and the one or more concepts including one or more semantic concepts (e.g., “content creator creates content in a document 107…. document 107 may include…text, article, or… scholarly articles…” —Chandrasekaran at ¶ [0019]; “authorship profile information” —Chandrasekaran at ¶ [0037]; “[b]y extracting profile information for each end user…end users can be used…as a potential recipient of event alerts” —Chandrasekaran at ¶ [0045]; and Chandrasekaran at ¶¶ [0023], [0030], [0036]–[0037] and [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the rules including semantic rules; the at least one concept including at least one semantic concept; the one or more concepts including one or more semantic concepts; textual language processing including natural language processing (NLP); with the textual language rules including natural language processing (NLP) and the semantic rules for identifying the one or more semantic concepts, as taught by Chandrasekaran, into the method/system disclosed by Lucas, which is directed toward matching users and events, as well as selecting and presenting timely information related to a specific key phrase or a topic/category of interest to users (e.g., “…provide clients or contacts with timely and the most relevant information…” —Lucas at ¶ [0002]; “…distribute information to their clients” such as “news … which affects…the interests of their clients” such as “breaking news” —Lucas at respective ¶¶ [0005], [0005], [0009] and [0015]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas in view of Chandrasekaran as applied to Claim 1 above and Lucas teaching wherein receiving the alert message further includes receiving a set of event attributes which the centralized information provider determined for the news event (e.g., “collect … information …” such as “news … which affects…the interests of their clients” such as news “from a news article” or “breaking news” —Lucas at respective ¶¶ [0005], [0005], [0009] and [0015]; “provide clients or contacts with timely and the most relevant information … from a variety of sources” —Lucas at ¶ [0002]; “set alerts for particular information” such as “breaking news” —Lucas at ¶ [0015]; “Objects may include…news articles” —Lucas at ¶ [0041]; “types of sources of objects…include…web-based articles…. source types include text files, text articles,… or any other type of media source or format type” such as “such as text from a news article” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0081] and [0009]; Figures 1, 6 and 14-15 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0030], [0041]–[0042], [0044], [0052], [0064], [0070], [0077], [0101], [0103], [0137], [0140] and [0150]–[0151]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas in view of Chandrasekaran as applied to Claim 2 above and Lucas teaching wherein providing the listing of the identified clients via the user interface includes providing, for each client of the plurality of clients, those of the client attributes that match event attributes of the set of event attributes (e.g., Figures 6 and 14-15 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0010], [0016], [0060]–[0061], [0065], [0103], [0134] and [0150]–[0151]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas in view of Chandrasekaran as applied to Claim 1 above and Lucas teaching: receiving a plurality of alert messages for a plurality of respective news events, including receiving, for each of the plurality of alert messages an indication of clients for which the news event was determined to have a respective metric of relevance in excess of the certain threshold (e.g., “collect … information …” such as “news … which affects…the interests of their clients” such as news “from a news article” or “breaking news” —Lucas at respective ¶¶ [0005], [0005], [0009] and [0015]; “provide clients or contacts with timely and the most relevant information … from a variety of sources” —Lucas at ¶ [0002]; “set alerts for particular information” such as “breaking news” —Lucas at ¶ [0015]; “Objects may include…news articles” —Lucas at ¶ [0041]; “types of sources of objects…include…web-based articles…. source types include text files, text articles,… or any other type of media source or format type” such as “such as text from a news article” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0081] and [0009]; Figures 1, 6 and 14-15 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0030], [0041]–[0042], [0044], [0052], [0064], [0070], [0077], [0101], [0103], [0137], [0140] and [0150]–[0151]); and listing the plurality of alert messages via the user interface in accordance with numbers of clients for the news event was determined to have the respective metric of relevance in excess of the certain threshold (e.g., “provide clients or contacts with timely and the most relevant information … from a variety of sources” —Lucas at ¶ [0002]; “set alerts for particular information” such as “breaking news” —Lucas at ¶ [0015]; “Objects may include…news articles” —Lucas at ¶ [0041]; “types of sources of objects…include…web-based articles…. source types include text files, text articles,… or any other type of media source or format type” such as “such as text from a news article” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0081] and [0009]; Figures 1, 6 and 14-15 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0010], [0016], [0030], [0041]–[0042], [0044], [0052], [0060]–[0061], [0064]–[0065], [0070], [0077], [0101], [0103], [0134], [0137], [0140] and [0150]–[0151]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas in view of Chandrasekaran as applied to Claim 1 above and Lucas teaching: receiving a text template for distributing as part of the alert message to the one or more clients, and providing an interactive control for editing the text template (e.g., “relationship managers…collect … information …” such as “news … which affects…the interests of their clients” such as news “from a news article” or “breaking news” —Lucas at respective ¶¶ [0005], [0005], [0009] and [0015]; “set alerts for particular information” such as “breaking news” —Lucas at ¶ [0015]; “Objects may include…news articles” —Lucas at ¶ [0041]; “types of sources of objects…include…web-based articles…. source types include text files, text articles,… or any other type of media source or format type” such as “such as text from a news article” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0081] and [0009]; Figure 1 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0008]–[0009], [0015], [0030], [0041], [0052], [0060], [0064] and [0101]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas in view of Chandrasekaran as applied to Claim 1 above and Lucas teaching receiving a profile of a potential client for distribution of the news event, the profile including a set of attributes (e.g., “allowing relationship managers to provide clients or contacts with timely and the most relevant information … from a variety of sources” —Lucas at ¶ [0002]; “Objects…retrieved based on…contact-associated, or account-associated information (e.g., keyphrases, holdings, or any other information that may be mapped to a[n]… account, or contact profile). Retrieved objects may then be reviewed by the user” —Lucas at ¶ [0014]; “entering information in accordance with FIGS. 4 and 5 will apply equally to other interests in a…contact's profile, or account's profile” such as “allow a user to enter various keyphrases and other information relating to a user's contact's personal interests. The user may also… enter keyphrases and other information associated with the selected contact's professional interests” —Lucas at ¶¶ [0056] and [0064]; Figures 4-5 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0030], [0040]–[0041], [0052], [0103] and [0150]).
Regarding Claim 7, Lucas in view of Chandrasekaran teaches a system, comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing thereon instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system (e.g., Figures 1 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0027]–[0028]) to perform respective processes/steps as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, independent Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 8-12 recite substantially similar subject matter to that of respective Claims 2-6 and, therefore, Claims 8-12 are rejected on the same basis(es) as applied to Claims 2-6, respectively.
Regarding Claim 13, Lucas in view of Chandrasekaran teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing thereon instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (e.g., Figures 1 of Lucas; and Lucas at ¶¶ [0027]–[0028]) to perform respective processes/steps as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, independent Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 14-18 recite substantially similar subject matter to that of respective Claims 2-6 and, therefore, Claims 14-18 are rejected on the same basis(es) as applied to Claims 2-6, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on January 16, 2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner notes further citations above to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0167942 (“Lucas”) in an effort to assist Applicant given Applicant’s amendments and arguments in “Amendment”.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Pages 10-11) Applicant asserts that the pending claims, as currently amended, are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
(Pages 12-13) Applicant asserts that the independent claims, as currently amended, are patentable over a combination of U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2006/0167942 (“Lucas”) and 2016/0132773 (“Chandrasekaran”).
(Page 13) Applicant asserts that the dependent claims, which depend from respective independent Claims 1, 7 and 13 and include respective limitations therein, are patentably distinguishable over Lucas in view of Chandrasekaran based on at least the same reasons provided with respect to independent Claims 1, 7 and 13.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Arguments
Please see updated/modified § 101 rejections above regarding pending claims being drawn to ineligible subject matter in view of considering all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole including amended portions of independent Claims 1, 7 and 13.
Regarding § 103, please see citations to prior art references of Lucas and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0132773 of Chandrasekaran et al. (“Chandrasekaran”) in the § 103 rejections above regarding amended portions of Applicant’s claims. Examiner notes that during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation”. In view of this standard, Examiner asserts § 103 rejections to Applicant’s amended claims, as noted above under § 103. In addition, Examiner notes that patent documents are relevant as prior art for all they contain and that “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” —MPEP § 2123.
Please see above § 103 rejections with respect to independent Claims 1, 7 and 13 for at least the same reasons provided with respect to the independent claims that the dependent claims, depending from respective independent Claims 1, 7 and 13 and including the limitations therein, are not patentable based on dependency from respective independent claims.
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this Office action:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0074191 of Feng et al. (hereinafter “Feng”) as indicated in the prosecution history of this application’s “Parent Application”.
U.S. Patent No. 5,893,091 issued to Hunt et al. (hereinafter “Hunt”) for “Multicasting with key words” —Title of Hunt.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0149851 of Pan et al. (hereinafter “Pan”) for “suggestion module 202 identifies attributes of one or more content items that the user has previously broadcasted or previously interacted with, and then identifies suggested content items, based on the suggested content items being associated with the same identified attributes. Examples of such content item attributes include…title, keywords, genre, topic, source, etc.” —Pan at ¶ [0042].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0032539 of Potok et al. (hereinafter “Potok”) for “read millions of news feeds per day about topics (e.g., your customers, competitors, markets, and partners), and provide a small set of the most relevant items to read…. Topics of interest can be chosen by the user of the system for use as seeds.” —Abstract of Potok.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0299703 of Baruch Y. Altman (hereinafter “Altman”) for “match the information against information about its users /subscribers/audience from its database…. alerts may be sent, for example via SMS…or the like, to potential viewers 180, 7, 8 that may have requested to receive such alert when a certain transmission 11 is updated which may be identified via any combination of the parameters (such as from a certain reporter 16…or matching a certain keyword…etc. Alerts may contain links or referrals 5, 20 to the relevant live broadcasts…” —Altman at ¶ [0095];
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0301175 of Applebaum et al. (hereinafter “Applebaum”) for “analytics section component can identify a specific news story that matches one of its rules. That rule might specify to match all news stories from the AP newswire service that have the word "NASA" in their title or text, and to create an event object related to that news item in the "NASA" event queue for all news items that match…. an analytics plug-in matches keywords in the news story with the keyword "NASA," and if a match occurs, creates and sends an event object to the "NASA" event queue. The selection of response to take (e.g., create and send an event object), and where to send the resulting event object (e.g., to the event queue) are specified as part of one or more rules” —Applebaum at ¶ [0084]; “event topic property is set to one or more tags that describe the general nature of the information that triggered the creation of the event object, such as "news", "blog post", "aerospace", "medical techniques", or "stock price change" ” —Applebaum at ¶ [0173]; and “Example producer services include those that interface to:…SMS services, that take SMS messages and produce events.” —Applebaum at ¶¶ [0292]–[0294].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0093789 of Zimmerman et al. (hereinafter “Zimmerman”) for “monitoring broadcast content and generating notification signals as a function of subscriber profiles” —Title of Zimmerman; and “monitoring broadcast content stream transcripts (e.g., speech to text, closed captions, HTML text, video screen text, etc.) for ‘key words’ ” — Zimmerman at ¶ [0079].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621