DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment filed February 13, 2026. Claim 17 has been amended. Claims 1-33 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 17 of the response, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
386
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Metadata is simply data about data. The claims do not present any specific technical details as to how electronic metadata might be processed, for example. The difference between identifying metadata for a vendor and “accessing computer-readable metadata associated with a set of vendor-agnostic service operations” is simply that the metadata is stored in a computer-readable fashion. Generic processing devices may be used to facilitate accessing metadata stored in a computer-readable fashion. Aside from the fact that the metadata is stored in a computer-readable fashion, metadata associated with a set of vendor-agnostic service operations is still data about data (associated with a set of vendor-agnostic service operations).
On page 18 of the response, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
278
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is noted that there is no mention of a “tenancy” in Applicant’s Specification. However, the words “tenant” and ”tenants” appear multiple times and paragraph 108 of Applicant’s Specification explains that tenants are customers. Therefore, a “tenancy” has been interpreted by the Examiner as simply the existence of the service provided by a vendor to a tenant/customer, which is a concept support by Applicant’s original disclosure. Regarding the execution of a query to obtain computer-readable configuration information associated with a service available from a vendor tenancy, this amounts to obtaining information related to the parameters of the service provided by the vendor to the tenant. Making such data computer-readable just means that there is a general link to an electronic database technology. A human user can perform a query by looking for particular information. For example, one can submit a query for desired information via a handwritten request (like submitting an inquiry for x information). Generic processing devices may be used to facilitate accessing metadata stored in a computer-readable fashion as part of a query. The claims do not present any specific technical details are to how a query is performed from a technical standpoint.
On page 18 of the response, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
150
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Aside from the workflow being “computer executable,” Applicant has not established how, with any great level of technical specificity, the workflow is actually executed from a technical perspective. The limitation in question is “generating a computer-executable workflow in the cloud environment for deploying the first service from the first vendor tenancy to the customer tenancy in accordance with the first computer-executable protocol and the second computer-executable protocol” (citing claim 1 as an example). In the generating step, the workflow is not actively executed; it is still a plan for execution of the workflow. Additionally, the various computer-executable protocols are recited as a high level and all generic computer operations conform to one set of protocols or another (e.g., defined by the operating system of a computer, etc.). The subsequent limitation of exemplary claim 1 recites “deploying the first service from the first vendor tenancy to the customer tenancy at least by executing the computer-executable workflow in the cloud environment in accordance with the first computer-executable protocol and the second computer-executable protocol.” While the workflow is actively performed in the deploying step, this is presented as an implementation of generic computer operations guided by generic protocols. The claims do not present any specific details as to how the services, which may include various available security protocols (like in independent claim 17 and in dependent claims 30-32), are provided. MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states, “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” In Applicant’s claims, the various services available for matching and implementation (including various possible security protocols, as recited in independent claim 17 and in dependent claims 30-32) are presented at a high level as potential solutions or outcomes. The claims lack “a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome [that] may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more,” thereby conveying only the idea of a solution or outcome in the claims, which is an example of mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
On page 19 of the response, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
168
496
media_image4.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image5.png
128
496
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The additional elements appear to be “stripped away” in an attempt to show that the additional elements are only generally used at a high level (e.g., “apply it”) to perform operations that could otherwise have been performed by a human user. Even though the services provided in the claims are related to computer-executable services, the focus of the invention is on identifying a vendor who can provide the desired and needed services to a customer as opposed to any technical details as to how such assessments may be performed to garner the required information. For example, there are no monitoring devices that identify network operations of a customer to automatically identify network problems that only specific sensing devices could detect so that the appropriate service may be deployed. That fact that the offered services are computer-executable services as opposed to any other types of products or services offered to a customer simply presents a general link to a field of use.
On page 20 of the response, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image6.png
286
494
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Presumably, Applicant is referring to the Examiner’s discussion of organizing human activity in the rejection. The Examiner cited the Specification to make the point that this is how Applicant summarized the crux of the invention. As explained above, the focus of the invention is on identifying a vendor who can provide the desired and needed services to a customer as opposed to any technical details as to how such assessments may be performed to garner the required information. The claims establish relations between a vendor and a customer, which is an example of organizing human activity.
On page 21 of the response, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image7.png
172
496
media_image7.png
Greyscale
By Applicant’s analysis, any claim that recites “by a computer,” “computer-executable,” and such could not incorporate a mental process. As explained above, the additional elements appear to be “stripped away” in an attempt to show that the additional elements are only generally used at a high level (e.g., “apply it”) to perform operations that could otherwise have been performed by a human user. Even though the services provided in the claims are related to computer-executable services, the focus of the invention is on identifying a vendor who can provide the desired and needed services to a customer as opposed to any technical details as to how such assessments may be performed to garner the required information.
On page 22 of the response, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image8.png
248
496
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The Examiner’s analogy of the claimed invention to a vendor selling a t-shirt that a customer desires was simply meant to convey that the claims in the instant application allow a vendor to provide any product or service sought by a customer. Even though the services provided in the claims are related to computer-executable services, the focus of the invention is on identifying a vendor who can provide the desired and needed services to a customer as opposed to any technical details as to how such assessments may be performed to garner the required information. For example, there are no monitoring devices that identify network operations of a customer to automatically identify network problems that only specific sensing devices could detect so that the appropriate service may be deployed. That fact that the offered services are computer-executable services as opposed to any other types of products or services offered to a customer simply presents a general link to a field of use.
On pages 23-24, Applicant continues to argue that a human user cannot render information for display on a user interface, access computer-readable metadata, and execute a query to obtain data from a data repository. The Examiner has addressed these arguments above. Aside from the generally-applied additional elements, the Examiner maintains that a human user could indeed perform an analogous version of these operations. For example, a human user can present information for consideration in writing. A human user can access metadata as well as submit a query for information. The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). A human can present data for presentation/display using pen and paper. A human can query data by looking for certain information within a collection of data. A human can ask (i.e., poll) vendors and customers questions regarding their respective offerings and needed services. The additional elements merely automate these operations that a human could analogously perform at a high level of generality. The additional elements are generally applied to implement the judicial exceptions.
Furthermore, as explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” Therefore, the fact that a human can display data using pen and paper is also an example of a mental process.
On page 25 of the response, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image9.png
352
476
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Polling simply means that a response is sought to some sort of input and/or request. The polling recitation in claim 1 polls the customer tenancy based on the vendor-specified consumer information to obtain various pieces of computer-readable consumer information. This simply means that data that could otherwise be obtained by a human user is stored in a computer-readable database. Making such data computer-readable just means that there is a general link to an electronic database technology. A human user can perform a poll in an attempt to receive particular information. For example, one can submit a poll for desired information via a handwritten request (like submitting an inquiry for x information). Generic processing devices may be used to facilitate the polling of data stored in a computer-readable fashion as part of a query. The claims do not present any specific technical details are to how a poll is performed from a technical standpoint. Additionally, the various computer-executable protocols are recited as a high level and all generic computer operations conform to one set of protocols or another (e.g., defined by the operating system of a computer, etc.).
On pages 25-26 of the response, Applicant continues to argue that a human user cannot generate a computer-executable workflow and deploy the service. These arguments have been addressed by the Examiner above.
On pages 26-28 of the response, Applicant makes general assertions that the claims are not directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the focus of the invention is on identifying a vendor who can provide the desired and needed services to a customer as opposed to any technical details as to how such assessments may be performed to garner the required information. The claims establish relations between a vendor and a customer, which is an example of organizing human activity. Vendor offerings are matched to customer needs as part of the deployment of services from a vendor to a customer, which is an example of commercial interactions and business relations with consumers (i.e., organizing human activity).
On pages 28-30, Applicant argues that the claims present an improvement in technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims focus on matching a vendor to a service consumer based on a comparison of provided services (by the vendor) to desired services (by the service consumer). The claims do not present any significant integration of additional elements, much less a specific technological improvement, beyond a general application of processing elements and a user interface in a cloud environment. The fact that the services are provided in a cloud environment and require certain protocols only presents a general link to a field of use.
It is not clear which technical details recited in the claims are deemed to provide an improvement in the actual operations of cloud services themselves. The claims match vendors to consumers based on offered and desired cloud-based services. At best, this speaks to an improvement in a marketing strategy in the cloud-based service environment. There is no actual technical improvement in how the offered cloud services are actively executed, for example.
Even though independent claim 17 and dependent claims 30-32 mainly define details regarding the services desired by a service customer and offered by vendors and these details define data to be matched and the matched data defines services that are generally executed at a high level to provide the matched service to the customer, these claims do not present any specific details as to HOW the services, which include various available security protocols, are provided. MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states, “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” In Applicant’s claims, the various services available for matching and implementation (including various possible security protocols) are presented at a high level as potential solutions or outcomes. The claims lack “a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome [that] may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more,” thereby conveying only the idea of a solution or outcome in the claims, which is an example of mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
On pages 31-32 of the response, Applicant submits that it is not clear that the Examiner has considered the combination of elements. The Examiner points out that the rejection clearly states (in Step 2A – Prong 2), “Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.” Applicant has not presented any specific arguments to the contrary. Applicant has not shown that the additional elements themselves contribute to an inventive concept, such as a particular arrangement of the additional elements that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Also, there is no improvement in technology or to a technical field. There is no use of a particular machine required and no particular transformation is performed. The rejection is maintained.
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 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to “selecting process flows for specific entities based on detected characteristics of the entities and metadata provided by the entities” (Spec: ¶ 2) without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Process (claims 9-16, 25-33), Apparatus (claims 17-24), Article of Manufacture (claims 1-8)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claims 1, 9, 17] rendering for display a set of vendor-agnostic service options available for deployment to the customer tenancy, wherein the set of vendor-agnostic service options comprises a plurality of services that are deployable, respectively, from any of a plurality of vendor tenancies in accordance with vendor-specified protocols, wherein a particular service of the set of vendor-agnostic service options is selectable by a user for deployment to the customer tenancy without the user selecting any particular vendor tenancy for deploying the particular service;
receiving a user input comprising a vendor-agnostic selection of a first service, of the plurality of services, to deploy to the customer tenancy;
responsive to receiving the user input:
accessing metadata associated with the set of vendor-agnostic service options, the metadata identifying a plurality of candidate vendor tenancies available for deploying the first service to the customer tenancy;
based on the metadata, selecting a first vendor tenancy, of the plurality of vendor tenancies, to deploy the first service to the customer tenancy;
based on selecting the first vendor tenancy, executing at least one query to obtain, from a data repository associated with the first vendor tenancy:
configuration information associated with the first service available from the first vendor tenancy, the configuration information comprising (a) vendor-specified protocol information identifying a set of vendor-specified protocols utilizable by the first vendor tenancy for deploying the first service, and (b) vendor-specified consumer information identifying items of consumer information to obtain from the customer tenancy for use in deploying the first service to the customer tenancy;
receiving, in response to the at least one query, the configuration information comprising the vendor-specified protocol information and the vendor-specified consumer information;
polling the customer tenancy based on the vendor-specified consumer information to obtain consumer information from the customer tenancy for use in deploying the first service to the customer tenancy, the consumer information identifying a set of customer-specified protocols utilizable by the customer tenancy for the first service;
based on the configuration information and the consumer information, identifying a first computer-executable protocol, of the set of vendor-specified protocols utilizable by the first vendor tenancy, that is compatible with a second computer-executable protocol, of the set of customer-specified protocols utilizable by the customer tenancy;
generating a computer-executable workflow in the cloud environment for deploying the first service from the first vendor tenancy to the customer tenancy in accordance with the first computer-executable protocol and the second computer-executable protocol.
Claim 17 further recites:
wherein the first computer-executable protocol utilizable by the first vendor tenancy comprises a first security function for transmitting data between the first vendor tenancy and the customer tenancy, and wherein the second computer-executable protocol utilizable by the customer tenancy comprises a second security function applicable for transmitting data between the first vendor tenancy and the customer tenancy.
It is noted that a data repository may simply be a collection of data.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can identify metadata for a vendor and use it to customize presentations (displays), including for a consumer based on each vendor’s metadata and preferred layouts (e.g., with the use of pen and paper). A human user can inquire about information (i.e., perform queries). The generation of the workflow within the scope of the claim could simply present a plan for providing services in the cloud environment. A human user can perform the related analysis and come up with a plan. A human user may also send an instruction to the cloud environment to trigger execution of the plan. A human user may implement a security protocol. For example, a human user can require a password to grant access. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “selecting process flows for specific entities based on detected characteristics of the entities and metadata provided by the entities” (Spec: ¶ 2), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of commercial interactions and business relations with consumers (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Matching vendors to customers/consumers based on respective service offerings and service needs is an example of filtering content. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) cites the following as an example of managing personal behavior, i.e., organizing human activity: “filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis).” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) cites the following as an example of a mental process: “An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356.”
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 includes a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of the recited operations.
Claim 17 includes a system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause performance of the recited operations.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite rendering for display, on a user interface associated with a customer tenancy of a cloud environment, a set of vendor-agnostic service options available for deployment to the customer tenancy
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite receiving, via the user interface, a user input comprising a vendor-agnostic selection of a first service.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite that the metadata, the confirmation information, and the consumer information are computer-readable.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recite deploying the first service from the first vendor tenancy to the customer tenancy at least by executing the computer-executable workflow in the cloud environment in accordance with the first computer-executable protocol and the second computer-executable protocol.
Claim 17 further recites deploying the first vendor tenancy to the customer tenancy, wherein deploying the first service comprises: executing, in the cloud environment, (a) a first set of computer-executable instructions to implement a first portion of the computer-executable workflow applicable to the first vendor tenancy in accordance with the first computer-executable protocol and (b) a second set of computer-executable instructions to implement a second portion of the computer-executable workflow applicable to the customer tenancy in accordance with the second computer-executable protocol.
Aside from the workflow being “computer executable,” the workflow is not actually executed from a technical perspective with any great level of technical specificity. In the generating step, the workflow is not actively executed; it is still a plan for execution of the workflow. Additionally, the various computer-executable protocols are recited as a high level and all generic computer operations conform to one set of protocols or another (e.g., defined by the operating system of a computer, etc.). The subsequent limitation is deploying. While the workflow is actively performed in the deploying step, this is presented as an implementation of generic computer operations guided by generic protocols. The claims do not present any specific details as to how the services, which include various available security protocols (like in independent claim 17), are provided. MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states, “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” In Applicant’s claims, the various services available for matching and implementation (including various possible security protocols, as recited in independent claim 17) are presented at a high level as potential solutions or outcomes. The claims lack “a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome [that] may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more,” thereby conveying only the idea of a solution or outcome in the claims, which is an example of mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 116-133).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The specification that the invention is performed in a cloud environment is a general link to a field of use. As explained above, a human user can perform the
related analysis and come up with a plan. A human user may also send an instruction to the cloud environment to trigger execution of the plan. Even if “executing the workflow in the cloud environment to initiate the particular service from the first vendor for the service consumer in the cloud environment in accordance with the first protocol and the second protocol” (as recited in claims 1, 9, and 17) is seen as actively utilizing automated cloud services, such a recitation only (at best) generally applies generic processing elements to provide a service. The claims focus on matching a vendor to a service consumer based on a comparison of provided services (by the vendor) to desired services (by the service consumer). The claims do not present any significant integration of additional elements, much less a specific technological improvement. The fact that the services are provided in a cloud environment and require certain protocols only presents a general link to a field of use. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states, “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” In Applicant’s claims, the various services available for matching and implementation (including various possible security protocols) are presented at a high level as potential solutions or outcomes. The claims lack “a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome [that] may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more,” thereby conveying only the idea of a solution or outcome in the claims, which is an example of mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from
the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately..
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claims 2, 18] wherein the operations further comprise:
identifying the plurality of candidate vendor tenancies for deploying the set of vendor-agnostic service options;
querying each particular candidate vendor tenancy, of the plurality of candidate vendor tenancies, to obtain respective sets of metadata corresponding to respective sets of one or more vendor-agnostic service options deployable by each particular candidate vendor tenancy;
rendering the display based at least in part on the respective sets of metadata corresponding to the respective sets of one or more vendor-agnostic service options;
wherein identifying the plurality of candidate vendor tenancies comprises:
identifying a consumer profile associated with the customer tenancy;
determining vendor access criteria based on the consumer profile; and
identifying the plurality of candidate vendor tenancies from a set of candidate vendor tenancies based on the vendor access criteria.
[Claims 3, 11, 19] wherein rendering the display comprises:
selecting a layout for the display based on the set of vendor-agnostic service options available for deployment to the customer tenancy, wherein the layout does not identify one or more candidate vendors corresponding to the set of vendor-agnostic service options.
[Claims 4, 12, 20] wherein the user input further comprises a selection of a configuration for the first service, and wherein the computer-executable workflow is based on the selection of the configuration for the first service.
[Claims 5, 13, 21] wherein polling the customer tenancy based on the vendor-specified consumer information to obtain the consumer information from the customer tenancy for use in deploying the first service to the customer tenancy comprises:
receiving a first subset of the consumer information from the customer tenancy; and
generating a second subset of the consumer information based at least in part on the first subset of the consumer information, wherein the second subset of the consumer information comprises the set of customer-specified protocols utilizable by the customer tenancy for the first service.
[Claims 6, 14, 22] wherein the first computer-executable protocol comprises a security protocol utilizable by the first vendor tenancy.
[Claims 7, 15, 23] wherein the first computer-executable protocol comprises a connectivity protocol utilizable by the first vendor tenancy for data exchange.
[Claims 8, 16, 24] wherein the first computer-executable protocol comprises a registration protocol utilizable by the first vendor tenancy.
[Claim 10] wherein identifying the plurality of candidate vendor tenancies comprises:
identifying a consumer profile associated with the customer tenancy;
determining vendor access criteria based on the consumer profile; and
identifying the plurality of candidate vendor tenancies from a set of candidate vendor tenancies based on the vendor access criteria.
[Claim 26] wherein the customer tenancy comprises a cloud resource wherein the first service comprises a cloud service utilizable by the cloud resource.
[Claim 28] wherein generating the computer-executable workflow the first service comprises:
generating a first workflow definition applicable to the first vendor tenancy, the first workflow definition comprising a first set of computer-executable instructions for implementing at least a first portion of the first computer-executable protocol;
generating a second workflow definition appliable to the customer tenancy, the second workflow definition comprising a second set of computer-executable instructions for implementing at least a second portion of the second computer-executable protocol;
storing the computer-executable workflow, including the first workflow definition and the second workflow definition in a workflow data repository.
[Claim 33] identifying the plurality of candidate vendor tenancies for deploying the set of vendor-agnostic service options;
querying each particular candidate vendor tenancy, of the plurality of candidate vendor tenancies, to obtain respective sets of metadata corresponding to respective sets of one or more vendor-agnostic service options deployable by each particular candidate vendor tenancy;
rendering a display based at least in part on the respective sets of metadata corresponding to the respective sets of one or more vendor-agnostic service options.
The dependent claims further present details of the abstract ideas identified in regard to the independent claims.
It is noted that a data repository may simply be a collection of data.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can identify metadata for a vendor and use it to customize presentations (displays), including for a consumer based on each vendor’s metadata and preferred layouts (e.g., with the use of pen and paper). A human user can inquire about information (i.e., perform queries). The generation of the workflow within the scope of the claim could simply present a plan for providing services in the cloud environment. A human user can perform the related analysis and come up with a plan. A human user may also send an instruction to the cloud environment to trigger execution of the plan. A human user may implement a security protocol. For example, a human user can require a password to grant access. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “selecting process flows for specific entities based on detected characteristics of the entities and metadata provided by the entities” (Spec: ¶ 2), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of commercial interactions and business relations with consumers (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Matching vendors to customers/consumers based on respective service offerings and service needs is an example of filtering content. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) cites the following as an example of managing personal behavior, i.e., organizing human activity: “filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis).” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) cites the following as an example of a mental process: “An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356.”
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims include the additional elements of their independent claims.
Claim 1 includes a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of the recited operations.
Claim 17 includes a system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause performance of the recited operations.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite rendering for display, on a user interface associated with a customer tenancy of a cloud environment, a set of vendor-agnostic service options available for deployment to the customer tenancy
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite receiving, via the user interface, a user input comprising a vendor-agnostic selection of a first service.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite that the metadata, the confirmation information, and the consumer information are computer-readable.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recite deploying the first service from the first vendor tenancy to the customer tenancy at least by executing the computer-executable workflow in the cloud environment in accordance with the first computer-executable protocol and the second computer-executable protocol.
Claim 17 further recites deploying the first vendor tenancy to the customer tenancy, wherein deploying the first service comprises: executing, in the cloud environment, (a) a first set of computer-executable instructions to implement a first portion of the computer-executable workflow applicable to the first vendor tenancy in accordance with the first computer-executable protocol and (b) a second set of computer-executable instructions to implement a second portion of the computer-executable workflow applicable to the customer tenancy in accordance with the second computer-executable protocol.
Claims 2 and 18 recite rendering the user interface for display based at least in part on the respective sets of metadata corresponding to the respective sets of one or more vendor-agnostic service options.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 recite wherein rendering the user interface for display comprises: selecting a layout for the user interface.
Claims 5, 13, and 21 further reference the computer-readable consumer information.
Claim 25 recites wherein the first computer-executable protocol comprises a first service architecture utilizable by the first vendor tenancy for deploying the first service;
wherein the second computer-executable protocol comprises an architecture of the customer tenancy; and
wherein identifying the first computer-executable protocol that is compatible with the second computer-executable protocol comprises: determining that the first service architecture is compatible with the architecture of the customer tenancy.
Claim 26 recites wherein executing the computer-executable workflow in the cloud environment to deploy the first service comprises deploying the cloud service to the cloud resource.
Claim 27 recites wherein executing the computer-executable workflow in the cloud environment to deploy the first service comprises:
accessing the computer-executable workflow from a workflow repository;
identifying, in the computer-executable workflow, a first workflow definition comprising a first set of computer-executable instructions for implementing at least a first portion of the first computer-executable protocol;
executing the first set of computer-executable instructions of the first workflow definition; identifying, in the computer-executable workflow, a second workflow definition comprising a second set of computer-executable instructions for implementing at least a second portion of the second computer-executable protocol;
executing the second set of computer-executable instructions of the second workflow definition.
Claim 29 recites wherein executing the computer-executable workflow in the cloud environment to deploy the first service comprises:
accessing the computer-executable workflow in the workflow repository;
executing the first set of computer-executable instructions to implement the first portion of the first computer-executable protocol;
executing the second set of computer-executable instructions to implement the second portion of the second computer-executable protocol.
Claim 30 recites wherein the first computer-executable protocol comprises a first security function applicable to a first data transmission type for transmitting data between the first vendor tenancy and the customer tenancy, and wherein executing the first set of computer-executable instructions comprises: applying the first security function to at least one of: the first data transmission type, or a first set of data transmitted according to the first data transmission type; or
wherein the second computer-executable protocol comprises a second security function applicable to a second type of data transmission type for transmitting data between the first vendor tenancy and the customer tenancy, and wherein executing the second set of computer-executable instructions comprises: applying the second security function to at least one of: the second data transmission type, or a second set of data transmitted according to the second data transmission type.
Claim 31 recites wherein applying the first security function to at least one of the first data transmission type or the first set of data transmitted according to the first data transmission type comprises:
applying, to a first message transmission from the customer tenancy to the first vendor tenancy, at least one of: a first open authentication protocol, a first mutual authentication protocol, a first data signing protocol, or a first data authentication protocol.
Claim 32 recites wherein the first security function differs from the second security function, and
wherein applying the second security function to at least one of the second data transmission type or the second set of data transmitted according to the second data transmission type comprises;
applying, to a second message transmission transmitted from the first vendor tenancy to the customer tenancy, at least one of: a second open authentication protocol, a second mutual authentication protocol, a second data signing protocol, or a second data authentication protocol.
Claim 33 performs the display rendering via the user interface.
Aside from the workflow being “computer executable,” the workflow is not actually executed from a technical perspective with any great level of technical specificity. In the generating step, the workflow is not actively executed; it is still a plan for execution of the workflow. Additionally, the various computer-executable protocols are recited as a high level and all generic computer operations conform to one set of protocols or another (e.g., defined by the operating system of a computer, etc.). The subsequent limitation is deploying. While the workflow is actively performed in the deploying step, this is presented as an implementation of generic computer operations guided by generic protocols. The claims do not present any specific details as to how the services, which include various available security protocols (like in independent claims 17 and dependent claims 30-32), are provided. MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states, “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” In Applicant’s claims, the various services available for matching and implementation (including various possible security protocols, as recited in independent claim 17 and dependent claims 30-32) are presented at a high level as potential solutions or outcomes. The claims lack “a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome [that] may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more,” thereby conveying only the idea of a solution or outcome in the claims, which is an example of mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 116-133).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The specification that the invention is performed in a cloud environment is a general link to a field of use. As explained above, a human user can perform the
related analysis and come up with a plan. A human user may also send an instruction to the cloud environment to trigger execution of the plan. Even if “executing the workflow in the cloud environment to initiate the particular service from the first vendor for the service consumer in the cloud environment in accordance with the first protocol and the second protocol” (as recited in claims 1, 9, and 17) is seen as actively utilizing automated cloud services, such a recitation only (at best) generally applies generic processing elements to provide a service. The claims focus on matching a vendor to a service consumer based on a comparison of provided services (by the vendor) to desired services (by the service consumer). The claims do not present any significant integration of additional elements, much less a specific technological improvement. The fact that the services are provided in a cloud environment and require certain protocols only presents a general link to a field of use. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states, “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” In Applicant’s claims, the various services available for matching and implementation (including various possible security protocols) are presented at a high level as potential solutions or outcomes. The claims lack “a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome [that] may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more,” thereby conveying only the idea of a solution or outcome in the claims, which is an example of mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 25-32 mainly define details regarding the services desired by a service customer and offered by vendors. Only some of the claims actively execute instructions to implement protocols. Even if deploying services (which is recited in at least the independent claims and in some of the dependent claims) is seen as also actively executing instructions to implement protocols, these details define data to be matched and the matched data defines services that are generally executed at a high level to provide the matched service to the customer. These claims do not present any specific details as to how the services, which include various available security protocols, are provided. MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states, “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” In Applicant’s claims, the various services available for matching and implementation (including various possible security protocols) are presented at a high level as potential solutions or outcomes. The claims lack “a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome [that] may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more,” thereby conveying only the idea of a solution or outcome in the claims, which is an example of mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from
the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately..
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A