DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 08/27/2025. Claims 1, 5, 10, 12, and 16-17 were amended; claims 11, 13 and 20 were cancelled, and no claim was added in a reply filed 11/05/2025. Therefore claims 1-10, 12, and 14-19 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 7, filed 11/05/2025, with respect to 112b rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 in regards to section 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea as described in Section I of the 2019 Guidance. Page 6 of the August 27, 2025 Office Action includes the general characterization that the claims, "under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of outputting data and creating a report which is a organizing a human activity and mental processes." In contrast, the January 2019 Guidance describes the Mental Processes grouping as "concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)." (emphasis added). As further noted in the October 2019 Update, "[a] claim with limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind does not recite a mental process". (Emphasis added). Per the August 4, 2025 "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" Memorandum ("August 2025 Memo"), "a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot be practically performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)....Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind." Applicant submits that the features of the independent claims, at least as now amended, cannot be considered as falling within the Mental Processes grouping, at least because the claimed subject matter is both not performed in the human mind and cannot practically be performed in the human mind. For example, the claims are directed to integrating different platforms and applications via Application Programming Interface (API) endpoints to exchange data, where the exchange of component data and API data occurs in response to confirmation of security of component data and API data for computers in a network with a directory-based identity-related services component, which is not something that is performed in the human mind and cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Regarding the Organizing Human Activity grouping, the January 2019 Guidance describes the Organizing Human Activity grouping as "fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)." Applicant submits that the features of the independent claims cannot be considered as falling within the enumerated Organizing Human Activity grouping, at least because the claimed subject matter is not a fundamental economic principle or practice nor a commercial or legal interaction, nor managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. As described above, the claims recite interactions among electronic devices that enable a standardized connection between computer components at least with respect to security. This type of method is akin to computer programming, and is in the field of operation of electronic computing, which is not a method of organizing human activity. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the independent claims are not directed to the Mental Processes grouping or the Organizing Human Activity grouping and therefore also not to a judicial exception, and that the Examiner's application of Prong One of Step 2A represents a clear deficiency in the prima facie case of the present rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101.” (remarks p. 9-11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under MPEP 2106, step 2A prong one is not limited to “mental processes” The examiner identifies the limitation believed to recite an abstract idea and determines whether they fall within any of the enumerated groupings, including “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
Here, the claim is reasonably characterized as organizing human activity because, as claimed, it is directed to administrative/enterprise workflow orchestration and governance (i.e. coordinating how an organization’s users/systems, standing in for people/roles, interact with enterprise resources:
The claim recites workflow execution and automated updating of stored organizational records/files, it recites access control/authorization concepts (“permissions”, “authentication”, “authenticate and authorize…and enforce policies”), and
It recites report generation and publication for user consumption (“generate…report”, “publish…”, and link to report)
The above are organizational administrative functions. The claim is, at its core, a scheme for managing enterprise operations (access workflow routing, record updating, publishing reports for users). Under the Office’s abstract idea groupings (as reflected in MPEP 2106 framework and the 2019 PEG structure), “organizing human activity” includes business/administrative practices such as managing interactions and rules/instructions in an organizational setting.
Applicant argues “Even if, solely for the sake of argument, and not conceded, the claims could be seen as reciting an abstract idea at Prong One, the claims are directed to a practical application of the abstract idea under Prong Two. As described in the 2019 Guidance, claims may be considered directed to a practical application if they are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. See, e.g., 2. PRONG TWO of 2019 Guidance. In this regard, M.P.E.P. 2106.04(a) further indicates "claims that are directed to improvements in computer functionality or other technology are not abstract." (remarks p. 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite a “particular solution” to a technical problem; it recites functional results using generic component labels (workflow component, database storage, identity services, integrated delivery platform, communication port) without claiming how security confirmation is performed, how permission/authentications are represented in “API data” how updates are performed in the storage system, or how publishing/linking is technically achieved beyond stating the outcome. Under MPEP 2106, consulting the specification does not authorize importing unclaimed implementation detail; the claim must reflect the improvement through its limitations. On this record, Applicant’s improvement narrative reads like a statement of intended benefit rather than a claim recited technical solution.
Applicant argues
“As described in Applicant's specification, an enterprise may have many different
platforms and/or applications that are accessed by thousands of users, and the features across the platforms and/or applications may not be consistent and may make it difficult to communicate between the different platforms and/or applications. See, e.g., para. [0002] of Applicant's specification.
To address these problems, embodiments provide an integrated delivery tool to facilitate security features across multiple platforms. The integrated delivery tool may connect multiple components via API endpoints to provide a standardized connection between components at least with respect to security. For example, instead of creating separate security and authorizations between component A and component B, and component A and component C, each component is connected to the integrated delivery tool, and the integrated delivery tool provides for the security authorizations between the components. As another example, instead of multiple components providing their own messaging, each component is connected to the integrated delivery tool, and the integrated delivery tool provides the messages in a consistent format. See, e.g., para. [0026] of Applicant's specification. Further, the API endpoints allow the data to be seamlessly exchanged without having to set up each individual component to be able to interact with the other components. For example, the integrated delivery platform standardizes the security for all the different components via application of the directory-based identity-related services component. The directory-based identity-related services authenticates and authorizes computers in a network, as well as assigns and enforces security policies. As the request and data pass through the integrated delivery platform, the integrated delivery platform confirms the security of the requests/data with the directory-based identity-related services component. This is in contrast to conventional systems where each component has its own security protocol. In addition to providing access to a file, the integrated delivery platform may also provide for a file to be published to a user. As with conventional security protocols, different components conventionally have their own publishing processes. The integrated delivery platform also standardizes the publishing processes for the different components. See, e.g., paras. [0028]-[0031] of Applicant's specification. Thus, embodiments provide an integrated delivery tool framework that provides a standardized connection between components at least with respect to security. As such, embodiments provide for an improvement to conventional systems that have each component creating separate security authorization, authentications, published processes and messages, which results in duplicative data/efforts, inconsistent messages, etc.” (remarks p. 11-13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and respectfully notes as argued above that any asserted improvements cannot be read from the specification into the claims but have to be recited in the claims. Prong two asks whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and “improvement” arguments require that the claim itself reflects the improvement through specific technical features, not merely by stating functional results. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) explains that improvement arguments must be supported by what is actually claimed. Here, as stated above, the claim does not recite a particular technical mechanism for how “confirmation of security” is performed, how permissions/authentications are represented/propagated as “API data”, how the integrated delivery platform standardizes security or messaging beyond the stated result, or any specific non-generic protocol, data structure or processing technique. Instead, it stated desired outcomes at a high level of generality such as automatically updating and generating/publishing report which fits the MPEP’s “mere instructions to apply” concern of broadly claiming an effect or outcome of the alleged improvement without reciting how it is achieved (please see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103/102 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an application workflow component”, “an application development component”, “directory based identity related services component” in claim 1, “a directory-based identity-related services component” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10, 12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “responsive to the output data, automatically update at least one file of a plurality of files stored with the output data; generate, based on the output data, at least one report for the updated file; publish the at least one report”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of outputting data and creating a report which is a organizing a human activity and mental processes. That is, the method allows for the generate instructions for a person to follow which is a method fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and concepts performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “an application workflow component to: create and implement one or more workflows; a database storage component to: provide document management and storage of data received from the application workflow component; an application development component to: build application products; a directory-based identity-related services component to: authenticate and authorize computers in a network, and assign and enforce security policies for those computers; an integrated delivery platform to: connect multiple components and exchange component data and Application Programming Interface (API) data with the multiple components via a plurality of API endpoints, the API data including the API endpoints, permissions and authentications, wherein the exchange of component data and API data occurs in response to confirmation of security of component data and API data with the directory-based identity-related services component; a backend server component including: a computer processor; a computer memory, coupled to the computer processor, storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor cause the computer processor to: execute, via the application workflow component, a workflow in connection with an application product of the application development component and output data, wherein the execution of the workflow is via the exchange of API data between the backend server component and the application workflow component; wherein the automatic update is via the exchange of API data between the backend server component, the application workflow component and the database storage component; a communication port to facilitate a transmission of data with remote user devices in support of a graphical user interface display, including a link to the at least one generated report, via a distributed communication network.” Each of the additional limitations is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claims 2-3 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 4 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“receive selection of a selectable key contact link on the graphical user interface display; and generate a communication interface, wherein the communication interface includes a link to the generated report” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment (i.e. generic form of navigating in a computer)) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 5 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“an email or Chat window” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 6 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“wherein selection of a report link on the graphical user interface display results in the display of a pop-up window with an email icon and a chat icon and the communication interface is generated in response to selection of one of the email icon and the chat icon” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 7 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“the graphical user display” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 8/9 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 10 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“directory- based identity-related services component is further adapted to: authenticate and authorize enterprise users, and assign and enforce security policies for those enterprise users” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “creating one or more workflows; storing data received; responsive to the output data, automatically updating at least one file of a plurality of files stored with the output data; generating at least one report for the updated file; and publishing the at least one report.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of outputting data and creating a report which is a organizing a human activity and mental processes. That is, the method allows for the generate instructions for a person to follow which is a method fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and concepts performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “an application workflow component; a database storage component; creating, by an application development component, one or more application products; authenticating and authorizing, via a directory-based identity-related services component, computers in a network; confirming, via an integrated delivery platform, security of Application Programming Interface (API) data with the directory-based identity-related services component, wherein the API data includes API endpoints, permissions and authentications; exchanging, in response to the confirmation and via [[an]] the integrated delivery platform, Application Programming Interface (API) data with multiple connected components; executing, via the application workflow component, the created workflow in connection with the application product and outputting data, wherein execution is via the exchange of API data between a backend server component and the application workflow component; wherein the automatic update is via the exchange of API data between the backend server component, the application workflow component and the database storage component;” Each of the additional limitations is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claim 14 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 12 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 15 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 12 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“receiving selection of one of a selectable email icon and a selectable chat icon provided on a graphical user interface display; and generating a communication interface based on the selected icon” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 16 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 12 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“the communication interface is an email message or Chat window” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “creating one or more workflows; storing data received; responsive to the output data, automatically updating at least one file of a plurality of files stored with the output data; generating at least one report for the at least one updated file; and publishing the at least one report.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of outputting data and creating a report which is a organizing a human activity and mental processes. That is, the method allows for the generate instructions for a person to follow which is a method fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and concepts performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “an application workflow component; a database storage component; creating, by an application development component, one or more application products; authenticating and authorizing, via a directory-based identity-related services component, computers in a network; confirming, via an integrated delivery platform, security of Application Programming Interface (API) data with the directory-based identity-related services component, wherein the API data includes API endpoints, permissions and authentications; exchanging, in response to the confirmation and via the integrated delivery platform, Application Programming Interface (API) data with multiple connected components, the API data including one or more API endpoints; executing, via the application workflow component, the created workflow in connection with the application product and outputting data, wherein execution is via the exchange of API data between a backend server component and the application workflow component; wherein the automatic update is via the exchange of API data between the backend server component, the application workflow component and the database storage component” Each of the additional limitations is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claim 18 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 17 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 19 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 17 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“receiving selection of a selectable key contact link on a graphical user interface display; and generating a communication interface, wherein the communication interface includes a link to the generated report” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment (i.e. generic form of navigating in a computer)) or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 2023/0328049) in view of Gauthier (US 2007/0244650).
As per claim 1/12/17, Davis discloses a system comprising:
an application workflow component to: create and implement one or more workflows (fig. 6-8, abstract, “A business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity component may implement business workflow products and exchange application authentication data with the directory-based identity-related services component…At S206, a business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity component may implement business workflow products (e.g., an inventory flow, a membership flow, etc.).”;
a database storage component to: provide document management and storage of data received from the application workflow component (paragraph 6, “A database storage component may provide document management and storage of dashboard tables and lists associated with inventory data receive from the business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity component. “[0026] A collaborative platform component 130 may provide document management and storage of dashboard list and Application Programming Interface (“API”) data. According to some embodiments, storage may be achieved via a Structured Query Language (“SQL”) element, an ORACLE® database, a DATAVERSE® storage solution, etc. A cloud-based storage and data management engine 140 may exchange secure authentication storage data with the business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity component 120.”);
an application development component to: build application products (“[0037] The system 400 may further include MICROSOFT™ POWER AUTOMATE® 420 to implement business workflow products and provide application authentication information to the AZURE® Active Directory 410. According to some embodiments, POWER AUTOMATE® 420 is associated with the MICROSOFT™ Power Platform business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity software applications. In particular, POWER AUTOMATE® 420 may comprise a toolkit for implementing business workflow products such as a SHAREPOINT® site inventory flow 422 and/or a SHAREPOINT® site membership flow 424.”);
a directory-based identity-related services component to: authenticate and authorize computers in a network, and assign and enforce security policies for those computers (“[0036] FIG. 4 is a particular example of an enterprise governance inventory and automation tool or system 400 according to some embodiments. The system 400 includes a MICROSOFT™ AZURE® Active Directory 410 that may authenticate and authorize enterprise users and computers in a network. In general, “Active Directory” is a set of processes and services that provides a range of directory-based identity-related services. An Active Directory may authenticate and authorize users and computers in a network, assign and enforce security policies, install or update software, etc. For example, when a user logs into a computer, the Active Directory may check the submitted username and password and determine whether a user is a system administrator or a “normal” user”)”);
an integrated delivery platform to: connect multiple components and exchange component data and Application Programming Interface (API) data with the multiple components via a plurality of API endpoints, the API data including the API endpoints, permissions and authentications, wherein the exchange of component data and API data occurs in response to confirmation of security of component data and API data with the directory-based identity-related services component (“[0033] At S208, the business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity component may exchange authentication data with the directory-based identity-related services component. At S210, a collaborative platform component may provide document management and storage of dashboard list data (e.g., via an SQL or ORACLE® database, a DATAVERSE® storage solution, etc.). At S212, the collaborative platform component may exchange data with the business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity component along with API data. At S214, a cloud-based storage and data management engine may exchange secure authentication storage data with the business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity component. “, [0071] The configuration of a system or tool in accordance with embodiments described herein may be presented on a Graphical User Interface (“GUI”). For example, FIG. 11 is a collaboration system display 1100 including graphical representations 1110 of elements of an enterprise governance inventory and automation tool. Moreover, selection of an element, such as a collaborative platform component or API developer platform (e.g., via touchscreen or computer mouse pointer 1190) may display configuration information about that element and/or let an operator or administrator adjust the configuration (e.g., to modify inventory information). The display 1100 may further let the operator or administrator select a “Save” icon 1150 to cause the system or platform to save changes, apply reconfigurations, etc.”);
a backend server component including: a computer processor; a computer memory, coupled to the computer processor, storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor cause the computer processor to (“[0072] The embodiments described herein may be implemented using any number of different hardware configurations. For example, FIG. 12 illustrates an apparatus 1200 that may be, for example, associated with the systems and architectures 100, 400, 900 described with respect to FIGS. 1, 4, and 9, respectively. The apparatus 1200 comprises a processor 1210, such as one or more commercially available Central Processing Units (“CPUs”) in the form of one-chip microprocessors, coupled to a communication device 1220 configured to communicate via a communication network (not shown in FIG. 12). The communication device 1220 may be used to communicate, for example, with one or more remote cloud-based environments, administrator computers, and/or communication devices (e.g., PCs and smartphones). Note that communications exchanged via the communication device 1220 may utilize security features, such as those between a public internet user and an internal network of an insurance company and/or an enterprise. The security features might be associated with, for example, web servers, firewalls, and/or PCI infrastructure. The apparatus 1200 further includes an input device 1240 (e.g., a mouse and/or keyboard to enter information about data sources, mappings, third-parties, etc.) and an output device 1250 (e.g., to output reports regarding inventory, recommended changes, alerts, etc.).”):
execute, via the application workflow component, a workflow in connection with an application product of the application development component and output data, wherein the execution of the workflow is via the exchange of API data between the backend server component and the application workflow component (fig. 2, [0037] The system 400 may further include MICROSOFT™ POWER AUTOMATE® 420 to implement business workflow products and provide application authentication information to the AZURE® Active Directory 410. According to some embodiments, POWER AUTOMATE® 420 is associated with the MICROSOFT™ Power Platform business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity software applications. In particular, POWER AUTOMATE® 420 may comprise a toolkit for implementing business workflow products such as a SHAREPOINT® site inventory flow 422 and/or a SHAREPOINT® site membership flow 424., [0033] … At S212, the collaborative platform component may exchange data with the business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity component along with API data. At S214, a cloud-based storage and data management engine may exchange secure authentication storage data with the business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity component.”, “[0064] FIGS. 6 through 8 are business flow automation displays according to some embodiments. As shown 600 in FIG. 6, the system may manually trigger a flow 610 and then determine HTTP information 620 (e.g., method, URI, headers, queries, etc.). As shown 700 in FIG. 7, the system may then parse JavaScript Object Notation (“JSON”) 710 information (e.g., to determine content and schema and let an operator generate from sample 712) and apply to each 720. As shown 800 in FIG. 8, system may then let a user create an item 810 (e.g., site address, list name, title, site identifier, URL, etc.).”, paragraphs 59-64);
responsive to the output data, automatically update, via the integrated delivery platform, at least one file of a plurality of files stored in the database storage component with the output data, wherein the automatic update is via the exchange of API data between the backend server component, the application workflow component and the database storage component (“[0030] The system 100 may store information into and/or retrieve information from the collaborative platform component 130. The collaborative platform component 130 might be locally stored or reside remote from other elements of the system 100. As will be described further below, the collaborative platform component 130 may be used by the system 100 in connection with an interactive user interface to access and update electronic records “, “[0033] At S208, the business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity component may exchange authentication data with the directory-based identity-related services component. At S210, a collaborative platform component may provide document management and storage of dashboard list data (e.g., via an SQL or ORACLE® database, a DATAVERSE® storage solution, etc.). At S212, the collaborative platform component may exchange data with the business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity component along with API data. At S214, a cloud-based storage and data management engine may exchange secure authentication storage data with the business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity component.”, “For example, FIG. 3 illustrates a graphical user display 300 with an inventory dashboard list 310 according to some embodiments. The inventory dashboard list 310 might include, for example, a site title, a site URL, site administrators, a member count, a site identifier, etc. Selection of a portion of the display (e.g., via a touchscreen or computer mouse pointer 390) may provide more detailed information about that element (e.g., contact information for site administrators). Moreover, selection of an “Update” icon 350 may be used to adjust information in the list 310 (e.g., by deleting a site), selection of a “Filter” 360 may sort or otherwise adjust the list 310 (e.g., by only showing sites with more than 1,000 members), and selection of an “Export” icon 370 may save the list 310 information. Note that the embodiment disclosed in FIG. 3 is provided only as an example and other embodiments may incorporate other types of inventory information (e.g., for YAMMER® or TEAMS® inventory lists), automated applications (e.g., associated with a re-certification process), etc.”, ”[0070] At S1008, the POWER AUTOMATE® component may exchange AZURE® authentication data with the AZURE® Active Directory component. At S1010, a database storage component may provide document management and storage of dashboard tables and lists. At S1012, the database storage component may receive inventory data from the POWER AUTOMATE® component. At S1014, a DATAVERSE® engine may exchange DATAVERSE® secure authentication storage data with the POWER AUTOMATE® component. At S1016, a computer processor of at least one governance or user application may automatically retrieve information from the database storage component in support of a graphical user display (e.g., showing YAMMER® or TEAMS® inventory data) via a distributed communication network.”, ;
generate, based on the output data, at least one report for the at least one updated file; publish the at least one report; and a communication port to facilitate a transmission of data with remote user devices in support of a graphical user interface display, including a link to the at least one generated report, via a distributed communication network (“[0026] A collaborative platform component 130 may provide document management and storage of dashboard list and Application Programming Interface (“API”) data. According to some embodiments, storage may be achieved via a Structured Query Language (“SQL”) element, an ORACLE® database, a DATAVERSE® storage solution, etc. A cloud-based storage and data management engine 140 may exchange secure authentication storage data with the business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity component 120. Moreover, a computer processor of at least one governance or user application 150 may automatically determine enterprise site inventory information. Responsive to the determined enterprise site inventory information, the governance or user application 150 may then automatically determine enterprise site membership information. The governance or user application 150 can then transmit the dashboard list data to the collaborative platform component 130 via a communication port in support of a graphical user display (including the enterprise site inventory and membership information) via a distributed communication network.”,“[0035] At S220, the system may transmit the dashboard list data to the collaborative platform component via a communication port in support of a graphical user display (including the enterprise site inventory and membership information) via a distributed communication network. For example, FIG. 3 illustrates a graphical user display 300 with an inventory dashboard list 310 according to some embodiments. The inventory dashboard list 310 might include, for example, a site title, a site URL, site administrators, a member count, a site identifier, etc.”, “[0027] The system 100 may therefore access information in the collaborative platform component 130 (e.g., storing a set of electronic records associated with a set of enterprise sites, each record including, for example, one or more record identifiers, membership information, site owners, etc.). The system 100 may also store information into other data stores and utilize a runtime environment to view, analyze, and/or update the electronic records. The system 100 may also exchange information with a cloud-based environment (e.g., via a firewall) executing a family of client software, server software, and services. According to some embodiments, an interactive graphical user interface platform of the system 100 (and, in some cases, enterprise data and/or third-party data) may facilitate forecasts, decisions, predictions, and/or the display of communications via one or more remote administrator computers (e.g., to identify appropriate updates to inventory rules and logic). Note that the system 100 and/or any of the other devices and methods described herein might be associated with a third party, such as a vendor that performs a service for an enterprise.”);
publish the at least one report (“[0026]… The governance or user application 150 can then transmit the dashboard list data to the collaborative platform component 130 via a communication port in support of a graphical user display (including the enterprise site inventory and membership information) via a distributed communication network. According to some embodiments, system 100 also includes an API developer platform 160 to: connect multiple services and devices, and exchange API data with the business intelligence, application development, and application connectivity component 120.”, “[0035] At S220, the system may transmit the dashboard list data to the collaborative platform component via a communication port in support of a graphical user display (including the enterprise site inventory and membership information) via a distributed communication network. For example, FIG. 3 illustrates a graphical user display 300 with an inventory dashboard list 310 according to some embodiments. The inventory dashboard list 310 might include, for example, a site title, a site URL, site administrators, a member count, a site identifier, etc. Selection of a portion of the display (e.g., via a touchscreen or computer mouse pointer 390) may provide more detailed information about that element (e.g., contact information for site administrators).”);
a communication port to facilitate a transmission of data with remote user devices in support of a graphical user interface display, via a distributed communication network (“[0035] At S220, the system may transmit the dashboard list data to the collaborative platform component via a communication port in support of a graphical user display (including the enterprise site inventory and membership information) via a distributed communication network. For example, FIG. 3 illustrates a graphical user display 300 with an inventory dashboard list 310 according to some embodiments. The inventory dashboard list 310 might include, for example, a site title, a site URL, site administrators, a member count, a site identifier, etc. Moreover, selection of an “Update” icon 350 may be used to adjust information in the list 310 (e.g., by deleting a site), selection of a “Filter” 360 may sort or otherwise adjust the list 310 (e.g., by only showing sites with more than 1,000 members), and selection of an “Export” icon 370 may save the list 310 information. Note that the embodiment disclosed in FIG. 3 is provided only as an example and other embodiments may incorporate other types of inventory information (e.g., for YAMMER® or TEAMS® inventory lists), automated applications (e.g., associated with a re-certification process), etc.”.)
However, Davies does not disclose but Gauthier discloses publishing a report including a link to the at least one generated report ([0050]…his communication results in a call to an analytic web service, which in turn calls an engine to perform the analytic. In step 904, the client module receives a URL which points to result files produced by running the analytic. In step 905, the module obtains the results, for example, by requesting a web page with links to the data or by requesting the data itself. In step 906, the client module renders the result report (for example, a web page), resolving any references to "real" data as needed, performing other processing if needed, and ends.)”,” 0051] Once a report has been generated by a user, the user may wish to "publish" the report so that other consumers can use it as well. A report is in one sense a particular instance or running a report template with one or more designated analytics and associated parameter values. FIG. 10 is an example flow diagram illustrating an example process for publishing a report using an example Analytics Server Computing System. Steps 1001-1004 are similar to steps 901-904 in FIG. 9. In step 1005, the client module communicates with the reporting service/CMS to publish the (executed) report. It passes to the reporting service the URL returned from running the report, and keeps an identifier reference to the published report. In step 1006, the client module retrieves a report document using the identifier reference and displays the retrieved report, and ends. Other processing steps after publishing a report can be similarly envisioned and implemented.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Gauthier in the teaching of Davies, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, Davies discloses wherein the directory-based identity-related services component is further adapted to: authenticate and authorize enterprise users and computers in a network, and assign and enforce security policies for those enterprise users (“[0006] A system may include a directory-based identity-related services component that authenticates and authorizes enterprise users and computers in a network and enforces security policies.”).
Claim(s) 2, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 2023/0328049) in view of Gauthier (US 2007/0244650), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, in view of Bhandar (US 20120084224).
As per claim 2/14/18, Davies does not explicitly disclose but Bhandar discloses generate at least two reports for the updated file, wherein the at least two reports have a different report type (“[0026] The model-based tool generator 204 also generates a software report generator module 210 that can create different types of reports. The model-based report generator 210 may use the data stored in the project object database 214, that is, work product objects, and project benchmark database 216 to create project reports 212. The project object database 214 stores instances of model objects (e.g., process, title, description, gaps, requirements, risks, notes, etc.) in the database. The data is populated in report forms as shown in FIG. 3A, 3B, 3C by the model-based project report generator 210.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Bhandar in the teaching of Davies, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 2023/0328049) in view of Gauthier (US 2007/0244650) and Bhandar (US 20120084224), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2, in further view of Marshall (US 20080065396)
As per claim 3, Davies in view of Bhandar does not explicitly disclose but Marshall explicitly discloses receive selection of a report type; and display the report in a selected report type format (paragraph 154-155, “[0155] At 626, the user is prompted to select a report type. In the exemplary GrataSoft embodiment, such reports include, but are not limited to, activity summary report 628a, IRS TRAC statement report 628b, IRS Form 8027 report 628c, tip declaration problem report 628d, IRS form 4070A report 628e, IRS form 4070 report 628f, and staff training history report 628g.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Marshall, which solves the same problem of report generation, in the teaching of Davies in view of Bhandar, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 4-5, 15-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 2023/0328049) in view of Gauthier (US 2007/0244650), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1/17, in view of Koch (US 8146004).
As per claim 4/19, Davies does not disclose but Koch discloses receive selection of a selectable key contact link on the graphical user interface display; and generate a communication interface, wherein the communication interface includes a link to the generated report (col. 3:20-28, “In response to the processing mechanism detecting a manipulation of the user interface device wherein a first graphical indicia from the first set of graphical indicia and a second graphical indicia from the second set of graphical indicia are made to at least partially overlap, the processing mechanism generates an electronic message for sending to a contact associated with the first graphical indicia wherein the electronic message includes a file associated with the second graphical indicia.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Koch, which solves the same problem of sharing files, in the teaching of Davies, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5, Davies in view of Koch disclose all the limitation of claim 4. Davies does not disclose but Koch further discloses wherein the communication interface is an email message or a chat window (col. 4:41-53, “12) The electronic messaging client 103 is operatively coupled to the graphical user interface 107. The electronic messaging client 103 is illustratively implemented using an email program such as Microsoft Outlook.TM., Lotus Notes.TM., a web mail application, an instant messaging application, a file transmission protocol, an internet protocol television (IPTV) messaging application, or any of various combinations thereof. The graphical user interface 107 may, but need not, be provided as part of the operating system 104. The operating system 104 may be implemented, for example, using Microsoft Windows.TM., MacIntosh OS.TM., Linux.TM., or any of a number of other operating systems.”)(please see claim 4 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 15, Davies does not disclose but Koch discloses receiving selection of one of a selectable email icon and a selectable chat icon provided on a graphical user interface display; and generating a communication interface based on the selected icon (col. 3:20-28, “In response to the processing mechanism detecting a manipulation of the user interface device wherein a first graphical indicia from the first set of graphical indicia and a second graphical indicia from the second set of graphical indicia are made to at least partially overlap, the processing mechanism generates an electronic message for sending to a contact associated with the first graphical indicia wherein the electronic message includes a file associated with the second graphical indicia.”)(please see claim 4 rejection for combination rationale)
As per claim 16, Davies in view of Koch discloses all the limitations of claim 15. Davies does not disclose but Koch discloses receiving selection of one of a selectable email icon and a selectable chat icon provided on a graphical user interface display; and generating a communication interface based on the selected icon (col. 4:41-53, “12) The electronic messaging client 103 is operatively coupled to the graphical user interface 107. The electronic messaging client 103 is illustratively implemented using an email program such as Microsoft Outlook.TM., Lotus Notes.TM., a web mail application, an instant messaging application, a file transmission protocol, an internet protocol television (IPTV) messaging application, or any of various combinations thereof. The graphical user interface 107 may, but need not, be provided as part of the operating system 104. The operating system 104 may be implemented, for example, using Microsoft Windows.TM., MacIntosh OS.TM., Linux.TM., or any of a number of other operating systems.”)(please see claim 4 rejection for combination rationale).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 2023/0328049) in view of Gauthier (US 2007/0244650), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1/12, in view of Downling (US 20190361580).
As per claim 6, Davies does not disclose but Downling discloses wherein selection of a report link on the graphical user interface display results in the display of a pop-up window with an email icon and a chat icon and the communication interface is generated in response to selection of one of the email icon and the chat icon (paragraph 25, “[0025] The one or more selectable user interface elements for initiating an electronic communication between the first, viewing, user and the concurrent user, may include a selectable element for initiating real-time text, voice, and/or audio communications between the first user and the concurrent user, a selectable element for initiating an email communication between the first user and the concurrent user, and/or a selectable element for initiating a real-time group communication between the first user and each other concurrent user in the shared document. According to some examples, upon selecting one of the selectable user interface elements for initiating electronic communications, a messaging window may be caused to be displayed in in the viewing/selecting user's shared document user interface, with the corresponding concurrent user's contact information pre-populated in the “to” field of the messaging window. In additional examples, upon selecting one of the selectable user interface elements for initiating electronic communications, a messaging application separate from the shared document may be automatically opened and the “to” field of a messaging window associated with that application may be automatically populated with the corresponding concurrent user's contact information (e.g., the user's phone number, the user's email address, the user's instant messaging alias).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Downling, which solves the same problem of sharing files, in the teaching of Davies, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 2023/0328049) in view of Gauthier (US 2007/0244650), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, in view of Carriero (US 10341275).
As per claim 7, Davies does not disclose but Carriero discloses wherein the published report displays a publisher comment on the graphical user display (abstract, “For example, users can share a web link to a collection of content items, such as documents, spreadsheets, photos, and any other media, with other users stored in an online content management system. The commenting system can provide a comment interface displayable alongside a respective content item and the comments can be saved for each user and the content item with associated comments can be synced across the multiple users.”, col. 1:45-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Carriero in the teaching of Davies, in order to provide a commenting system for multiple users to provide and share comments to shared documents (abstract, Carriero).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 2023/0328049) in view of Gauthier (US 2007/0244650), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, in view of Crittenden (US 7636902).
As per claim 8, Davies does not disclose but Crittenden discloses wherein the generated at least one report is validated prior to publication (col. 3:27-30, “(14) The report manager 102 can interact with a report checker 112 automatically to send a request to validate report 114 to the report checker 112 whenever the report manager 102 generates the report 106.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Crittenden in the teaching of Davies, in order to determine any errors in the report (Crittenden, col. 6:19).
As per claim 9, Davies in view of Gauthier and Crittenden disclose all the limitation of claim 8. Davies does not disclose but Crittenden discloses wherein a publisher receives a validation request in response to generation of the report (4:27-39, “(14) The report manager 102 can interact with a report checker 112 automatically to send a request to validate report 114 to the report checker 112 whenever the report manager 102 generates the report 106. Alternatively, a user can enter input via the user interface 110 to send the request to validate report 114 to the report checker 112. As yet another alternative, a user can interact directly with the report manager 102 to have it send the request to validate report 114 to the report checker 112. The report manager 102 can send the report 106 requiring validation to the report checker 112 when the request to validate report 114 is sent to the report checker 112, or the user can retrieve and forward the report 106 via the user interface 110.”)(please see claim 8 rejection for combination rationale).
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 OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628