DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to the claimed amendment filed on March 18, 2026, in which claims 1-20 are presented for further examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 and 112, (Applicant’s arguments pages 2-6), have been fully considered and is not persuasive. Respectfully, the examiner disagrees, see the clarification below.
The 35 U.S.C. §101 Abstract Idea (mental process) rejection. Follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG). All limitations of the claims and each element of the limitations have been considered. None of the added elements, nor the limitations, overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 for being directed to an Abstract Idea (mental process).
The applicant argues that the claims is directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea. However, the claim is clearly directed to electronically exchanging information and documents across disparate distributed systems. In Enfish, the specification disclosed specific advantages of using a self-referential table over prior art solutions, the claim recited the self-referential property and sufficient features to realize the disclosed advantages of preventing text in underlying windows from being hidden. Rather, the claim is directed entirely to exchange information and documents across disparate distributed systems. The specification purports an improvement that using a conventional mechanism, but the claims do not focus on how the usage of that mechanism alters the system, in a way that leads to an improvement in the technology of the system (intellectual ventures/v. Erie Indemnity).
The specification (pars. [0007], [0048], [0052] and [0058] as indicated by the applicant) is not directed to a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome defined by the claimed invention, as opposed to merely claimed the idea of a solution or outcome.
The claims merely use the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, as opposed to claiming a process specifically designed to achieve an improvement technological result in conventional industry practice.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute a “Mental Process”, as the claims cover performance of the limitation in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the original specification.
“determining, by the intelligent integration system, a current configuration of states, state transitions, and validation rules for the plurality of avatars” as drafted, a human can observe a current configuration of states for a plurality of avatars with the aid of pen and paper using the intelligent integration system.
“determining, by the intelligent integration system, a set of handlers that can remediate the gaps, each of the set of handlers being a component of the intelligent integration system” as drafted, a human can observe a set of handlers that can remediate the gaps with the aid of pen and paper using the intelligent integration system.
“updating, by the intelligent integration system, a workflow implementation to include the set of handlers, wherein the set of handlers is utilized by the new avatar at runtime of the workflow, wherein the workflow implementation with the set of handlers is capable of meeting requirements of the entity in conducting machine-to- machine communications for the conversation” as drafted, a human can update a workflow implementation to include the set of handlers with the aid of pen and paper using the intelligent integration system.
“determining, by a system executing on a processor, requirements of a first entity, the first entity comprising a first computing system operating in a first computing environment”; as drafted, a human can observe a set of requirements of a first entity with the aid of pen and paper using the intelligent integration system.
“comparing, by the system, the requirements of the first entity with requirements of a second entity, the second entity comprising a second computing system operating in a second computing environment, the system operating in a third computing environment, the first computing environment, the second computing environment, and the third computing environment being different from one another” as drafted, a human compare the requirements of the first entity with the requirements of a second entity a set of handlers that can remediate the gaps with the aid of pen and paper using the intelligent integration system.
“determining, by the system, additional requirements needed by the second entity to meet the requirements of the first entity” as drafted, a human can determine additional requirement needed by the second entity with the aid of pen and paper using the intelligent integration system.
“determining, by the system, any of the additional requirements not met by the setoff handlers” as drafted, a human can determine any additional requirements not met by the setoff handlers with the aid of pen and paper using the intelligent integration system.
“generating, by the system, one or more handlers for meeting any of the additional requirements not met by the set of handlers” as drafted, a human can observe generate one or more handlers for meeting any additional requirements with the aid of pen and paper using the intelligent integration system.
Note that the recited “the set handlers is capable of meeting requirements of the entity in conducting machine-to- machine communications for the conversation” means that the set handlers has the mental attributes to perform or meet requirements of the entity in conducting machine-to- machine communications for the conversation. More specifically, the underlined limitation “capable of meeting requirements” suggests potential of meeting requirements of the entity in conducting machine-to- machine communications for the conversation rather current performance. Therefore, the claims do not focus on how the usage of that mechanism alters the system, in a way that leads to an improvement in the technology of the system.
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integrated into a practical application):
“accessing, by the intelligent integration system, a library containing a plurality of avatars previously created by the intelligent integration system”, this limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering, without any further processing or analysis.
“performing, by the intelligent integration system, a gap analysis, the gap analysis identifying gaps between the set of states, transitions, and data items of the new avatar and the current configuration of states, state transitions, and validation rules for the plurality of avatars” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Performing refers to the process of obtaining or inferring something from existing information or facts. Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies data gathering without any further processing or analysis.
“performing, by the system, a gap analysis on the additional requirements” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Performing refers to the process of obtaining or inferring something from existing information or facts. Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies data gathering without any further processing or analysis.
" a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium". These elements are example of mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the additional elements of the limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field; and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewing the computer limitations as a ordered combination with the remaining limitations, the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations are not merely attempting to limit the mathematical algorithm to a particular technology environment. Instead, these claim limitations recite a specific application of the mathematical algorithm that improves the functioning of the basic display function of the computer itself. The scaling and relocating the textual information in overlapping windows improves the ability of the computer to display information and interact with the user.
Drawings
With respect to the objection of the drawing, it is unclear how par. [0093] (FIG. 13 shows how a library of hub avatars and the current configuration of a customer supporting some e in E can be the basis of computing what is missing when new hub avatars are desired. This shows a delta (A) operation, which represents gaps that need to be addressed) details what is mentioned in fig.13.
PNG
media_image1.png
500
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
How pars. [0029] (
PNG
media_image2.png
66
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) and
Par [0050] (
PNG
media_image3.png
158
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
) details what is mentioned in fig.14.
How pars. [0031] (
PNG
media_image4.png
72
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) and pars. [0095]-[0099] detail what is mentioned in fig. 16
PNG
media_image5.png
364
866
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Clarification is advised.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC 112 rejection set forth in the last office action has been withdrawn in light of the applicant’s arguments (pages 5-9).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on March 18, 2026 and February 23, 2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1, (Statutory Category):
Claims 1-18 are directed to a method
Claims 19-20 are directed to a computer system.
Therefore, claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
The limitation “creating, by an intelligent integration system operating in a computing environment, a new avatar to represent, in the computing environment where the intelligent integration system operates, a computing system of an entity, the new avatar having a set of states, transitions, and data items, wherein the entity is one of a pair of entities having a conversation, each of the pair of entities having a choreography;” in claims 1 and 19, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the intelligent integration system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “creating ….”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper create a new avatar having a set of states.
The limitation “determining, by the intelligent integration system, a current configuration of states, state transitions, and validation rules for the plurality of avatars” in claims 1 and 19, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the intelligent integration system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “determining ….”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper determine a current configuration of states.
The limitation “determining, by the intelligent integration system, a set of handlers that can remediate the gaps, each of the set of handlers being a component of the intelligent integration system” in claims 1 and 19, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the intelligent integration system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “determining ….”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper determine a set of handlers that can remediate the gaps.
The limitation “updating, by the intelligent integration system, a workflow implementation to include the set of handlers, wherein the set of handlers is utilized by the new avatar at runtime of the workflow, wherein the workflow implementation with the set of handlers is capable of meeting requirements of the entity in conducting machine-to- machine communications for the conversation” in claims 1 and 19, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the intelligent integration system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “updating ….”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper update a workflow implementation to include the set of handlers.
The limitation “determining, by a system executing on a processor, requirements of a first entity, the first entity comprising a first computing system operating in a first computing environment” in claims 11 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the intelligent integration system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “determining ….”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper determine requirements of a first entity.
The limitation “comparing, by the system, the requirements of the first entity with requirements of a second entity, the second entity comprising a second computing system operating in a second computing environment, the system operating in a third computing environment, the first computing environment, the second computing environment, and the third computing environment being different from one another” in claims 11 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the intelligent integration system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “comparing….”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper compare the requirements of the first entity with requirements of a second entity.
The limitation “determining, by the system, additional requirements needed by the second entity to meet the requirements of the first entity” in claims 11 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the intelligent integration system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “determining ….”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper determine additional requirements needed by the second entity to meet the requirements of the first entity.
The limitation “determining, by the system, a set of handlers capable of meeting the additional requirements, each of the set of handlers being a component of the system” in claims 11 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the intelligent integration system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “determining ….”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper determine a set of handlers capable of meeting the additional requirements.
The limitation “determining, by the system, any of the additional requirements not met by the setoff handlers” in claims 11 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the intelligent integration system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “determining ….”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper determine any of the additional requirements not met by the setoff handlers.
The limitation “generating, by the system, one or more handlers for meeting any of the additional requirements not met by the set of handlers” in claims 11 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the intelligent integration system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “generating ….”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper generate one or more handlers for meeting any of the additional requirements not met by the set of handlers.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integrated into a practical application):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
That the method is "implemented by a computing system” is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “accessing, by the intelligent integration system, a library containing a plurality of avatars previously created by the intelligent integration system” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “performing, by the system, a gap analysis on the additional requirements” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “performing, by the intelligent integration system, a gap analysis, the gap analysis identifying gaps between the set of states, transitions, and data items of the new avatar and the current configuration of states, state transitions, and validation rules for the plurality of avatars” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “a processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Note, the mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B (claim provides an inventive concept):
With respect to the limitations identified as insignificant extra solution activity above, the conclusion are carried over, and both the “accessing…, and performing…” are well-understood, routine and conventional operations.
With respect to the “accessing…, and performing…” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)," and/or MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;", and/or MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iii. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)".
With respect to the “a processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claim 11, 19 and 20 fall short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-18 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the gaps comprise a missing state, a missing transition, a missing data item operation, or a combination thereof”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites “determining a missing transition, a missing state, or a missing data item operation for the new avatar; automatically generating a handler for remediating the missing transition, the missing state, or missing data item operation for the new avatar that cannot be remediated by the set of handlers”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites “wherein a handler of the set of handlers is operable to, at runtime, generate a file utilizing an initial state and initial data in an initial transaction”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites “wherein a handler of the set of handlers is operable to, at runtime, trigger an integration activity for pushing data from one state to another state in the workflow implementation”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the pair of entities consists of a rule setter and a rule follower and wherein the entity is the rule setter for the conversation”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites “wherein a handler of the set of handlers is operable to, at runtime, trigger an integration activity for populating transaction data of another entity that facilitates the conversation”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the workflow implementation comprises the new avatar, the set of handlers, and the choreography”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the pair of entities shares a transition and wherein the gap analysis comprises comparing validation rules for the transition”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites “generating a report that summarizes a gap of the gaps”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the requirements of the first entity pertain to a process controlled by an application running on the first computing system, the process having a set of predefined states, the requirements of the first entity including a data processing requirement for transitioning from one state to another state in the process”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the process is initiated by a message from the first entity”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the message comprises initial data, wherein arrival of the initial data triggers invocation of a handler for transforming the initial data from a first format to a second format, for inserting the initial data in the second format into transaction data stored in a data store, and for changing a state in the transaction data”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites “wherein behavior of the handler is guided by a configuration file”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites “identifying new states and transitions required by a fourth entity, the fourth entity having a fourth computing system operating in a fourth computing environment”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 17 recites “updating a workflow implementation associated with the first entity to include handlers for the new states and transitions required by the fourth entity”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 18 recites “generating a report summarizing automatic adaptions and any remaining gaps from the gap analysis”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 13, 14 and 16 respectively include a plurality of portions that are not labeled and connected to each other. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
It is unclear how par. [0093] (FIG. 13 shows how a library of hub avatars and the current configuration of a customer supporting some e in E can be the basis of computing what is missing when new hub avatars are desired. This shows a delta (A) operation, which represents gaps that need to be addressed) details what is mentioned in fig.13.
PNG
media_image1.png
500
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
How pars. [0029] (
PNG
media_image2.png
66
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) and
Par [0050] (
PNG
media_image3.png
158
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
) details what is mentioned in fig.14.
How pars. [0031] (
PNG
media_image4.png
72
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) and pars. [0095]-[0099] detail what is mentioned in fig. 16
PNG
media_image5.png
364
866
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Clarification is advised.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200227178 (involved in receiving multiple data values from multiple input and output data streams. Multiple data values are analyzed by the specialized software architecture, to determine an action to be initiated. Miultiple entities of a system are modeled. The each of multiple entities are modeled as an Avatar (115). Multiple field variables (117) are set corresponding to the multiple data values. Multiple data values are received from a hardware (170) coupled to multiple entities are transmitted by multiple input and output data streams. Multiple computed variables (114) are defined. The each of the multiple computed variables are defined by multiple field variables. Multiple Automatons (110) corresponding to multiple Avatars is defined. Multiple Shareables (105) are defined. The action by transmitting instructions, via the one or more input and output data streams is initiated, to hardware coupled to entity, the internal software of the specialized software architecture).
US 20160293133 (involved in managing the virtual environment to a processor to control the allocation of resources of an electronic data processing system. The processor manages the virtual environment. The processor operates to generate one or more entities that are represented in the virtual environment. The entity is associated with an electronically stored data structure. The associated data structure includes an event handler, executable logic, and data storage.)
US 7152092 (involved in providing a goal based learning system utilizing a rule based expert training system to provide a cognitive educational experience. The system provides the user with a simulated environment that presents a training opportunity to understand and solve optimally. The system utilizes an artificial intelligence engine driving individualized and dynamic feedback with synchronized audio, video, graphics and animation used to simulate real-world environment and interactions. Multiple "correct" answers are integrated into the learning system to allow individualized learning experiences in which navigation through the system is at a pace controlled by the learner. Multiple users or students can utilize the simulated environment simultaneously and interactively from multiple viewpoints. A dynamic feedback system is utilized the narrowly tailors feedback and focuses it based on the performance and characteristics of the student to assist the student in reaching a predefined goal).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 May 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights