DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1-20, received 06 January 2026. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1-20 is as follows:
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 November 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
For references “lined through” “concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability.” Id., 609.04(a).
Here, eliminating clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information from the hundreds of pages of documents submitted and highlighting those that have been specifically brought to the applicants’ attention or are known to be of most significance “could help avoid problems with the duty of disclosure.” Id., 2004.13. Concise explanations of the “lined through” documents submitted would also be helpful.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 claim 1, the claim recites “determining any of said contribution measurements that is shared amongst the participants and any that is a feature that relates to a task to be performed related to a requested query”, however, the examiner is unable to find support for said feature.
Claims 8 and 15 included the same claim language and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depend on independent claims 1, 8 and 15 such that the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 and do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “wherein amount of data provided depends on a set of policies that allows participants to share information based on privacy and sensitivity issues as per one or more service contracts related to said participants”, however, the examiner is unable to find support for [data] that allows participants to share information based on privacy and sensitivity issues as per one or more service contracts related to said participants as claimed.
Claims 8 and 15 included the same claim language and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depend on independent claims 1, 8 and 15 such that the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 and do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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 1-20 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 claim 1, the claim recites “updating measurement data based on received contributions from said subset” however, it is not clear whether the contributions are the previously claimed contributions measurements or a different set of contributions from said subset of said plurality of participants.
Claims 8 and 15 included the same claim language and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depend on independent claims 1, 8 and 15 such that the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 and do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “wherein amount of data provided depends on a set of policies that allows participants to share information based on privacy and sensitivity issues as per one or more service contracts related to said participants”. However, it is unclear whether “that allows participants to share information based on privacy and sensitivity issues as per one or more service contracts related to said participants” indicates “data that allows participants to share information based on privacy and sensitivity issues as per one or more service contracts related to said participants” or “policies that allows participants to share information based on privacy and sensitivity issues as per one or more service contracts related to said participants”.
Claims 8 and 15 included the same claim language and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depend on independent claims 1, 8 and 15 such that the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 and do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “regarding a plurality of measurement contributions made by said query requester”. However, it is unclear whether “amount of data”, “policies” or “one or more service contracts” correspond to the claimed feature “regarding a plurality of measurement contributions made by said query requester”.
Claims 8 and 15 included the same claim language and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depend on independent claims 1, 8 and 15 such that the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 and do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Regarding clam 1, the claim recites “amount of data provided depends…”, however, it is unclear whether the “data” refers to the contribution measurements, measurement data or some additional data.
Claims 8 and 15 included the same claim language and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depend on independent claims 1, 8 and 15 such that the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 and do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manevich et al (US 20210135847 A1);
Huang (US 20190377660 A1);
Bahl et al (US 20210019194 A1);
Frank et al (US 20160300252 A1);
Smith et al (US 20200159847 A1);
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 SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights