DETAILED ACTION
This is a FINAL office action on the merits. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) has received claims 1–18 in application number 18/465,934.
Claims 1, 5, 15, and 16 are currently amended
Claims 14 and 17 are currently canceled.
Claims 1–13, 15–16, and 18 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Objections
On the first line on page 4, the limitation, “wherein the perpetrator matching system is architected such that no decryption key …” has been added to claim 1. The term “architect” is a noun1 but is being used as a verb. The examiner suggests amending the language to use a verb for which an architect is normally the subject as follows, “wherein the perpetrator matching system is --designed-- such that no decryption key …”
Claim 1 has been amended to recite, “wherein the encrypted crime report is stored in a decentralized escrow architecture that maintains exclusive cryptographic control with the reporting user.” The examiner notes the specification uses the terminology “database 122” to refer to the storage structure in which the anonymous complaints are escrowed (see App. Spec. at 0029–30). The examiner suggests amending this limitation to read as, “wherein the encrypted crime report is stored in a decentralized escrow --database-- that maintains exclusive cryptographic control with the reporting user.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1–13, 15–16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1–13, 15–16, and 18. Claim 1 has been amended to recite:
a perpetrator matching system comprising said second processor and another non-transitory computer medium that comprises a second stored program … said second stored program is configured to … prevent adversarial probing by generating a cryptographic hash of identifying information of said reporting user and comparing the cryptographic hash of identifying information to hashed perpetrator profiles in the complaint database, and rejecting the anonymous complaint upon detecting a match;
Prior to this limitation, claim 1 recites “accept a crime report from a reporting user, said crime report comprising … an identity of said reporting user” and “transform said crime report into an encrypted crime report using an encryption key that is retained exclusively by the reporting user.”
As claimed, when the second processor of the perpetrator matching system receives an anonymous complaint, that anonymous complaint comprises the hashed perpetrator profile and the encrypted crime report. Importantly, the claim recites that “said anonymous complaint does not comprise any key usable to decrypt said encrypted crime report.” In other words, the perpetrator matching system never receives or possesses “any key” that can decrypt the encrypted crime report, preventing the perpetrator matching system from gaining access to the information in the encrypted crime report including the reporting user’s identity. The specification explains that protecting the identity of the reporting user is an important feature of the disclosed and claimed invention:
The crime reports are encrypted so that all information is protected, while still allowing for checking whether there are multiple reports against the same perpetrator, as described below. These features encourage victims to report crimes without fearing that their identities are inadvertently exposed, and without publicly accusing the perpetrator.
App. Spec. 0025.
Accordingly, the specification would not have suggested to one of skill in the art that the perpetrator matching system has any ability to access identifying information of said reporting user because that system lacks the cryptographic key needed to decrypt the encrypted crime report and isolate the unencrypted reporting user’s identifying information among the other encrypted or unencrypted information contained in the report. Therefore, one of skill in the art would not have understood applicant’s invention to comprise a perpetrator matching system that can “generat[e] a cryptographic hash of identifying information of said reporting user” as claimed.
Although applicant’s disclosure at 0014 explains that “In one or more embodiments, the matching program may reject an anonymous complaint when the identity of the reporting user matches a hashed perpetrator profile in the complaint database,” such a feature is incompatible with other features recited in the claimed embodiment. The examiner therefore concludes that the claimed embodiment lacks written description support in the manner required by 35 USC 112(a). Additionally, because the originally-filed disclosure did not describe the embodiment as claimed, the features comprise new matter.
Claim 18 recites similar subject matter albeit in slightly different verbiage and unlike amended claim 1 does not recite any direct operations (e.g., performing a cryptographic hash) on the identifying information of the reporting user. Claims 2–13, 15–16, and 18 are nonetheless rejected because they incorporate at least the unsupported embodiment from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–13, 15–16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1–13, 15–16, and 18. Claim 1 has been amended and currently recites the following on page 4 as filed (emphasis added):
search said hashed perpetrator profiles in said complaint database for a match to said hashed perpetrator profile of said anonymous complaint by comparing said anonymous complaint to said hashed perpetrator profiles previously submitted of said complaint database to find said match;
prevent adversarial probing by generating a cryptographic hash of identifying information of said reporting user and comparing the cryptographic hash of identifying information to hashed perpetrator profiles in the complaint database, and rejecting the anonymous complaint upon detecting a match:
when said match is found,
The antecedent basis for “said match” in the final quoted line above is unclear because there are now two matching processes that introduce and refer to “a match”: the one that looks for a match across hashed perpetrator profiles and the second that looks for a match between “a cryptographic hash of identifying information of said reporting user” and hashed perpetrator profiles. Because one of skill in the art would not have been able to determine which of these matching processes “when said match is found” is referring to, the metes and bounds cannot be ascertained and the claim is indefinite. Claim 11 raises the same issue as claim 1 because it recites, “wherein said match comprises a sum of hash match scores that exceeds a threshold …”
Claims 2–13, 15-16, and 18 are also rejected because they incorporate at least the indefinite limitations claim 1.
Claim Rejections–35 U.S.C. § 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 1–13, 15–16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1–13, 15–16, and 18. In the present application, claims 1–18 are directed to a product (i.e., computer system). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
The limitations of independent claim 1 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The judicial exception(s) recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
An anonymous crime reporting and escrow system with hashed perpetrator matching, comprising:
a reporting system comprising a first processor and a non-transitory computer medium that comprises a first stored program configured to execute on said first processor, wherein when said first processor executes said first stored program, said first stored program is configured to
accept a crime report from a reporting user, said crime report comprising a plurality of identifying characteristics of a perpetrator; an identity of said reporting user; and details of a crime comprising one or more of a type of said crime; a location of said crime; a time of said crime;
transform said plurality of identifying characteristics of said perpetrator to a hashed perpetrator profile comprising a plurality of cryptographic hashes,
by generating, for each identifying characteristic, a plurality of normalized tokens by deriving one or more substrings, converting characters to lower case and removing non-alphabetic characters, transforming each substring into a canonical token using a synonym, phonetic, or multi-language variant-normalization database, and
calculating a cryptographic hash of each canonical token;
transform said crime report into an encrypted crime report using an encryption key that is retained exclusively by the reporting user;
transmit an anonymous complaint to a second processor, said anonymous complaint comprising said hashed perpetrator profile; and said encrypted crime report; wherein said anonymous complaint does not comprise any key usable to decrypt said encrypted crime report;
a perpetrator matching system comprising said second processor and another non-transitory computer medium that comprises a second stored program configured to execute on said second processor; and,
a complaint database comprising a multiplicity of anonymous complaints; and hashed perpetrator profiles corresponding to said multiplicity of anonymous complaints;
wherein said complaint database does not store said key to decrypt any encrypted crime report associated with said multiplicity of anonymous complaints;
wherein the perpetrator matching system is [designed] such that no decryption key for any encrypted crime report is ever transmitted to, stored by, or derivable by the perpetrator matching system;
said second stored program coupled to said complaint database, wherein when said second processor executes said second stored program, said second stored program is configured to
receive said anonymous complaint;
search said hashed perpetrator profiles in said complaint database for a match to said hashed perpetrator profile of said anonymous complaint by comparing said anonymous complaint to said hashed perpetrator profiles previously submitted of said complaint database to find said match;
prevent adversarial probing by generating a cryptographic hash of identifying information of said reporting user and
comparing the cryptographic hash of identifying information to hashed perpetrator profiles in the complaint database, and rejecting the anonymous complaint upon detecting a match;
when said match is found, transmit a notification to one or more of a law firm, a victim assistance organization, a legal authority, a government agency, an employer, and said reporting user, wherein said notification is configured to inform one more of said law firm, said victim assistance organization, said legal authority, said government agency, said employer, and said reporting user that there are other complaints against the perpetrator that have been previously submitted;
wherein the encrypted crime report is stored in a decentralized escrow architecture that maintains exclusive cryptographic control with the reporting user.
The bolded limitations of claim 1 under the broadest reasonable interpretation recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.2
Limitations F and P recite calculating or generating a cryptographic hash of information, which is a mathematical concept because a hash is a one-way mathematical operation used to obfuscate the input data into output data of a predefined-length. The hash recited in claim 1 is recited generically and therefore is categorically similar to a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, which is a mathematical concept.
Limitations A–D, G–K, N–O, and Q–R recite certain methods of organizing human activity consistent with a legal interaction or following rules or instructions, such as by a witness to a crime anonymously reporting or transmitting crime-related information to a hotline or activities a law enforcement officer might follow when storing information while investigating that crime. This is also similar to human activities such as when a witness is shown a line up or book of headshots of anonymous individuals and asked to match one of those individuals to the witnessed crime, but instead of matching images the invention is matching a mathematical representation of the data.
Limitations G, H, and L specify how the key used to encrypt the crime report is to be managed such that only the reporting user is able to decrypt the report. This falls under certain methods of organizing human activity because it focuses on the plan or scheme, i.e., rules, that a person can follow when handling the sensitive information with the objective of mitigating risk of the reporting user’s identity being known to users of the system or to accused perpetrators. In some cases this might also involve complying with legal obligations. For example, the restrictions on the decryption key to protect the identity of the reporting user is similar to identifying minor victims by initials only, using pseudonyms (e.g., “Jane Doe” or “John Doe,”) or new names such as in a witness protection program, using confidential informants, or placing certain evidence or papers under a protective seal to limit identification or access by parties who might attempt to influence or intimidate key individuals in a criminal investigation or prosecution. Therefore, this aspect of the claim is found to recite an abstract idea.
Limitations E, O, and P also recite limitations that fall under the mental process grouping because they involve observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be reasonably performed in the human mind or with the aide of pen and paper. For instance, limitation E recites a series of steps to normalized or “clean up” the received perpetrator data prior to that data being using in a mathematical hashing process. Not only is a human mind capable of doing functions like adjusting capitalization, correcting spelling, removing punctuation, etc., this step is a necessary step prior to hashing because any variant in the input will produce a different output. Therefore, to ensure that perpetrator profiles can be correlated after being hashed, the input profile must contain normalized data, and the steps to normalize the data can be done by a person. Additionally, the process of reviewing hashed perpetrator or reporting user information and looking for matches is a mental process of comparing the incoming hashes to those already in the database to look for matches, which can done using mental observation and evaluation.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A.2.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements not shown in bold above.
The additional element(s) comprising the computing hardware in limitations B, I, and M, and the database introduced in limitation S, are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., consistent with Applicant’s specification at 0026–30). As such, these elements both individually and in the combination as claimed amounts to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception on a generic computer with only a general link to the technological environment using encryption recited at a high level of generality. The need to store the information somewhere is driving by the abstract ideas themselves because the crime reports, anonymous or not, cannot be evaluated and analyzed by people if the data they contain is not available to them for analysis. Thus, these additional elements not only suggest implementing the abstract idea by “applying it” on generic computing hardware, they recite elements such as data storage that are necessary to carry out the abstract idea regardless of the technology involved. Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations G, H, and L recite transforming the crime report into an encrypted crime report at a high level of generality that at most provides a general link to a technological environment as there is no particular hardware or encryption technique that applies or uses the abstract idea in a meaningful way. As noted above, how the encryption key is being managed is more consistent with an abstract idea than an improvement to any computer or encryption technology.
Upon considering the additional elements individually and as a combination as claimed, the examiner concludes that amended claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when the additional elements are reconsidered as discussed under Step 2A, prong 2 , the additional element(s) amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment. This is not enough to provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 7, and 10–13, and 15–16 further recite and elaborate on the abstract ideas identified in claim 1, including expressly reciting that the cryptographic has is “calculated” (claim 12). These dependent claims do not recite any new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Accordingly, these claims are ineligible for the same reasons as claim 1.
Dependent claims 3–6, 8–9, and 18 also further recite and elaborate the same abstract ideas identified in claim 1 above. These claims also repeat the “stored program” and generic computing additional elements identified in claim 1, but do not employ those additional elements in a way that is different from how they show up in claim 1. The additional elements in these dependent claims continue to instruct “applying” the abstract ideas on a generic computer. Claim 6 also recites “decrypt the encrypted crime report” which is still at a high level of generality as in claim 1. Accordingly, these dependent claims recite additional elements but do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1–13, 15–16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025, have been considered but they are not fully persuasive.
On page 10, applicant presents arguments based on the “SME Memo” issue by Deputy Commissioner for Patents Charles Kim on December 5, 2025. The applicant’s remarks assert that “For example, the SME memo makes one foundational point clear: If the specification describes a technological improvement, and the claims reflect that improvement through their recited steps or structure, the claim is not directed to an abstract idea under Alice Step 2A.” (Rem. p.10). The applicant then quotes the language of amended claim 1, asserts improvements, and provides a heading on page 13: “After Desjardins, the Eligibility Analysis Begins With Identifying the Technological Improvement Disclosed in the Specification.” The examiner respectfully notes that this heading is incorrect.
As an initial matter, the examiner interprets applicant’s remarks as proffering that the Alice framework has somehow changed and should start by evaluating technological improvements disclosed in the specification. However, the second paragraph of the SME Memo explains that “This advance notice revises the Ninth Edition, Revision 01.2024, November 2024 publication of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) … [and is] not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and are meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance.” (emphasis added) The sections to be revised in the SME Memo include MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05, which as shown in the framework pertain to consideration of additional elements after identification of the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the analytical framework in the flowchart shown in MPEP 2106 is still in effect. With that in mind, the examiner respectfully points out that applicant’s remarks appear to jump into the middle of the framework, i.e., the “improvements” consideration at Step 2A, prong 2 (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05) and do not present any arguments related to the identification of the recited abstract idea at Step 2A, prong 1.
Instead, the applicant’s remarks on page 12 point to aspects of claim 1 that the examiner finds recite an abstract idea, and alleges the elements are improvements to the technology. The first paragraph of MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)—which notably is not being amended by the SME Memo—starts with the sentence: “A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.” (emphasis added) Accordingly, Step 2A, prong 2 considers the additional elements recited beyond the identified abstract idea.
It is apparent from applicant’s remarks that, notwithstanding the misinterpretation of the SME Memo, there is a fundamental disagreement as to the nature of some of the claim language as reciting an abstract idea versus reciting an additional element other than the abstract idea. Because the examiner disagrees about what elements are even eligible for the “improvement” consideration at Step 2A, prong 2, the applicant’s remarks on page 12 that allege that parts of the abstract idea identified by the examiner recite an improvement are not persuasive.
The applicant on pages 13–14 lists four specific features of the claim that are improvements disclosed in the specification (taken out of listed order)
Server-side cryptographic isolation ensuring the matching system never receives or can derive decryption keys. A decentralized escrow architecture maintaining exclusive user control of cryptographic keys.
The examiner has identified the scheme or rules by which the encryption keys are managed to be consistent with certain methods of organizing human activity, as explained in the rejection above. Limiting who has the key to encrypt or decrypt information is an abstract idea. Even if the examiner were persuaded to view this as an additional element, restricting access to keys does not improve encryption technology in the same way that not sharing keys to your car does not improve your car or your keys. Accordingly, this aspect of the invention is not an additional element or evaluated under the “improvements” consideration.
A multistage canonicalization and hashing pipeline enabling secure matching of encrypted identifiers. Adversarial-probe detection to block malicious reporters attempting to test whether they have been reported.
The examiner has identified the hashing to be a mathematical concept and the matching of hashed perpetrator information and reporter identities to be a mental process. The nature of the underlying information doesn’t change that a person can observe and evaluate the data to look for matches. This activity is performed in a variety of recreational games such as looking for matches in the tile-flipping game of “memory” or finding of three-card sets in the pattern evaluation game SET. Because these features are found to recite abstract ideas, they are not additional elements evaluated under the “improvements” consideration.
The updated rejection fully analyzes claim 1 under the framework, is consistent with the upcoming changes to the MPEP reflected in the SME Memo, and is not overcome by applicant’s remarks. Therefore, the 101 rejection of the pending claims has been maintained.
On pages 14–24, the applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the prior art rejection. Notwithstanding applicant’s remarks, the examiner has reconsidered the prior art including performing an updated search and finds the claims to be novel/non-obvious as discussed below.
Novel/Non-obvious Subject Matter
Although the prior art made of record discloses various aspects of the claimed invention, the prior art does not anticipate or render obvious the following specific features:
A single crime report that contains both reporter, perpetrator, and crime information
Encrypting the entire crime report and separately hashing the perpetrator information
Bundling the encrypted crime report and hashed perpetrator profile into an anonymous complaint
Using the hashed perpetrator profile to cross reference other anonymous complaints and
Not sharing the reporting user’s encryption key with other systems to limit access to encrypted information.
Because this combination of features is not disclosed in a single reference, claim 1 is novel. Additionally, the examiner is not currently able to identify a combination of references over which these claimed features would be obvious.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
Acknowledging and discussing the issue of anonymity in online spaces (for both victims and perpetrators), the prevalence of cyberbullying and criminal activity in various online forums in view of this anonymity, and possible solutions using encryption and pseudoanonymous identity to prevent criminals from using others’ identity to impersonate individuals from vulnerable demographics while preventing individuals from vulnerable demographics from accessing content they should not. (Deng)
A platform independent model for exchanging information among numerous entities in a justice system with diverse system components is implemented in a hub and spoke arrangement. … In an illustrative embodiment, the IJIS solution framework use case model has only one use case, namely, the criminal justice process. The criminal justice process has numerous processes and actors that participate as victims, witnesses, criminals, and other justice and non-justice governmental agencies that provide information or get information about crimes and all of the individuals, property and events involved. (English)
Reputations of anonymous sources of information are managed by associating the reputations with devices from which the information is received rather than from the human individuals using those devices. The devices are recognized using a one-way identifier, such as a digital fingerprint, such that the source device cannot be used to readily identify the source device or its user(s) but all items of information received from the same source device can be readily recognized. Feedback from other devices is accumulated and used to assess trustworthiness of the source device and reputation data representing such trustworthiness is published along with the information received from the source device. (Etchegoyen)
A system and process performed by the system for identifying and tracking perpetrators of any of various types of crimes, including bullying, child pornography, sexual assault and rape, in reports which are anonymously reported to the system. The perpetrators can be of various categories, such as formally convicted, and/or formally charged and not convicted, and/or never been charged or not yet been caught, and therefore are without prior convictions or criminal records and are thereby not on law enforcement's radar. The system and process relies upon the reporting by a victim or a witness of information pertinent to an alleged criminal event. The identity of each reporting victim is never known to the system, unless the victim or witness goes to the police. The system uses a "double blind" method to protect the victim and certain details of the reported incident. (Key)
Methods and systems are provided for controlling the disclosure of sensitive information. Disclosure is controlled in the sense that (a) the information is not disclosed until predefined conditions are met, such as the passage of a certain time without an authorized update request for secrecy, (b) copies of the information are protected by encryption and by widespread, unpredictable storage, so that at least one copy will be available when disclosure is required, (c) the information is kept secret until disclosure is required, and (d) when disclosure is required, the information is sent to predefined destinations such as email addresses or posted to web sites, in a predefined format. (Ogilvie)
Various systems, computer-readable media, and computer-implemented methods of providing improved data privacy, anonymity and security by enabling subjects to which data pertains to remain "dynamically anonymous," i.e., anonymous for as long as is desired--and to the extent that is desired--are disclosed herein. Embodiments include systems that create, access, use, store and/or erase data with increased privacy, anonymity and security, thereby facilitating the availability of more qualified and accurate information. When data is authorized by subjects to be shared with third parties, embodiments may facilitate sharing information in a dynamically controlled manner that enables delivery of temporally-, geographically-, and/or purpose-limited information to the receiving party. In one example, anonymity measurement scores may be calculated for the shared data elements so that a level of consent/involvement required by the Data Subject before sharing the relevant data elements to third parties may be specified. (LaFever)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick McAtee whose telephone number is (571)272-7575. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:30am - 4:30pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
Patrick McAtee
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
1 Architect, noun. 1: a person who designs buildings and advises in their construction; 2: a person who designs and guides a plan or undertaking (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/architect, retrieved April 4, 2026).
2 MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping, and instructs examiners to identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible, if a claim limitation(s) is determined to fall within multiple groupings and proceed with the analysis in Step 2A Prong Two.
Prosecution Insights