The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present Office Action is pursuant to Applicant’s communication on 02-06-2026. This application has PRO 63/424,629 11/11/2022
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 is/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.
Step 1
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are within the four statutory categories. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are drawn to a system1, method2 and non-transitory computer-readable medium3 which means that said claims(s) is/are within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). However, as will be shown below, arguendo, Aforementioned claim(s) is/are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim(s) 1, 14, 15, which is/are representative of the inventive concept, recite(s):
… A system, comprising:
a memory that stores instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
register, via an interface of the system and during an encounter, an individual with the system;
interact, by utilizing an artificial intelligence engine, with the individual to obtain information from the individual;
determine, by utilizing the artificial intelligence engine and based on the information, a medical complaint associated with the individual, wherein the medical complaint is identified based on the information having a correlation with medical complaint information utilized to train the artificial intelligence engine;
generate, by utilizing the artificial intelligence engine, a list of providers matching criteria associated with the medical complaint, the information, or a combination thereof;
identify, by utilizing the artificial intelligence engine, an optimal provider from the list of providers, wherein the optimal provider has a greater correlation with the criteria than other providers in the list of providers; and
present, via the interface, the list of providers and a digital link enabling selection of the optimal provider to establish a connection with the optimal provider:
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ideas of a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions – in this case determining based on an interaction with an individual, an optimal provider to serve needs of the individual based on complaints provided by the individual in the interaction, or using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. the computer), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract ideas are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent claim(s) 2-13 and 15-19, include other limitations, for example:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the information from the individual comprises a reason for the encounter, insurance information, payment information, demographic information, geolocation information, identification information, or a combination thereof.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to determine, based on analyzing the insurance information, whether the insurance information requires an in-state provider for the individual.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to filter each provider in the list of providers that is an out-of-state provider if the insurance information requires the in-state provider for the individual.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive a portion of the criteria from the individual, wherein the portion of the criteria comprises a preference for a provider gender, a preference for a provider location, a preference for a provider language, a preference for an in-network provider, or a combination thereof.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive a portion of the criteria from at least one provider from the list of providers, wherein the portion of the criteria comprises a preference for a type of insurance carrier, a preference for a type of medical complaint, a preference for a type of payment, a preference for a type of medical history, a preference for a location for the individual, or a combination thereof.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to sort the list of providers in accordance with a correlation of each provider in the list with the criteria.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive a selection of at least one provider from the list of providers.
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to train the artificial intelligence model using training information including the selection, the list of providers matching the criteria, the information from the individual, or a combination thereof.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to generate digital links for each of the providers in the list of providers.
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to obtain geolocation information of the information based on accessing a global positioning device of a device of the individual, connecting to receiver of the device of the individual, accessing a sensor of the device of the individual, or a combination thereof.
12. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to display, via the interface, an amount of correlation with the criteria for each provider from the list of providers.
13. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive additional criteria to further filter the list of providers.
15. The method of claim 14, further comprising adjusting the list of providers in real-time as additional information from the individual, providers in the list of providers, or a combination thereof, arrive at the system.
16. The method of claim 14, further comprising determining whether each provider in the list of providers has a license in a state in which the medical complaint is to be treated, whether each provider is in-network or out-of-network, whether a referral provider has a license in the state in which the medical complaint is to be treated, whether a referral provider is in-network or out-of-network, or a combination thereof.
17. The method of claim 14, further comprising adjusting the list of providers as a location of the individual, a device of the individual, or a combination thereof, changes.
18. The method of claim 14, further comprising obtaining new information associated with a different encounter of the individual.
19. The method of claim 18, further comprising modifying the list of providers and identifying a new optimal provider based on the new information.
However these dependent claims only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claim(s) 2-13 and 15-19 are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claim(s) 2-13 and 15-19 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claim(s) 1, 14, 20.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claim(s) 1, 14, 20 is/are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case the memory, computer processors,) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of a computer, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see ¶¶1-83 of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f);
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, dependent claim(s) 2-13 and 15-19 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claim(s) 1, 14, 20, hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claim(s) 1, 14, 20 do/does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case the memory, computer processors, computer-readable media), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
¶¶1-83 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the computer) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the current invention recites storing or uploading media;
Dependent claim(s) 2-13 and 15-19 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claim(s) 1, 14, 20 hence does not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claim(s) 1-20 is/are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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) 1-2, 5-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnanasambandam (US 12,248,826) in view of Jerram (US 10,607,140).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 14, 20, Gnanasambandam discloses: A system, comprising, A non-transitory computer-readable device comprising instructions, which, when loaded and executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising, A method [17:28-46]:
a memory that stores instructions; [17:28-46] and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to [17:28-46]:
register, via an interface of the system and during an encounter, an individual with the system (i.e., registration); [38:1-25]
interact, by utilizing an artificial intelligence engine, with the individual to obtain information from the individual (i.e., interaction relating to “talks with the system”); [38:1-25]
determine, by utilizing the artificial intelligence engine and based on the information, a medical complaint associated with the individual, wherein the medical complaint is identified based on the information having a correlation with medical complaint information utilized to train the artificial intelligence engine; [FIG 24” correlating a complaint with a knowledge graph and a conversation orchestrator to deliver recommendations as depicted in FIG 9B]
Gnanasambandam does not explicitly disclose as disclosed by Jerram:
generate, by utilizing the artificial intelligence engine, a list of providers matching criteria associated with the medical complaint, the information, or a combination thereof (i.e., providing a list and contact details and an optimal provider); [Figure 11G-11J]
identify, by utilizing the artificial intelligence engine, an optimal provider from the list of providers, wherein the optimal provider has a greater correlation with the criteria than other providers in the list of providers; [Figure 11G-11J] and
present, via the interface, the list of providers and a digital link enabling selection of the optimal provider to establish a connection with the optimal provider. [Figure 11G-11J]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gnanasambandam, including mechanism(s) [d]-[f], as taught by Jerram. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ said mechanism(s) to facilitate an optimal provision of services to a requesting individual. [Figure 11G]
Regarding claim(s) 2, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The system of claim 1, Gnanasambandam wherein the information from the individual comprises a reason for the encounter, insurance information, payment information, demographic information, geolocation information, identification information, or a combination thereof (i.e., presenting symptoms). [FIG 24” correlating a complaint with a knowledge graph and a conversation orchestrator to deliver recommendations as depicted in FIG 9B]
Regarding claim(s) 5, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive a portion of the criteria from the individual, Gnanasambandam wherein the portion of the criteria comprises a preference for a provider gender, a preference for a provider location, a preference for a provider language, a preference for an in-network provider, or a combination thereof (i.e., including geographic limitations associated with a patient). [12:4-16: desired locations]
Regarding claim(s) 6, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The system of claim 1, Gnanasambandam wherein the processor is further configured to receive a portion of the criteria from at least one provider from the list of providers, wherein the portion of the criteria comprises a preference for a type of insurance carrier, a preference for a type of medical complaint, a preference for a type of payment, a preference for a type of medical history, a preference for a location for the individual, or a combination thereof. [12:4-16: desired locations]
Regarding claim(s)7, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The system of claim 1, Jerram wherein the processor is further configured to sort the list of providers in accordance with a correlation of each provider in the list with the criteria (i.e., provide sorted list). [See 11J]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gnanasambandam, including mechanism(s) [a], as taught by Jerram. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ said mechanism(s) to facilitate an optimal provision of services to a requesting individual. [Figure 11G]
Regarding claim(s) 8, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The system of claim 1, Jerram disclosing [a]: wherein the processor is further configured to receive a selection of at least one provider from the list of providers (i.e., receiving interaction and engaging in conversation based on a digital link). [10C-10E]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gnanasambandam, including mechanism(s) [a], as taught by Jerram. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ said mechanism(s) to facilitate an optimal provision of services to a requesting individual. [Figure 11G]
Regarding claim(s) 9, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The system of claim 8, Gnanasambandam disclosing wherein the processor is further configured to train the artificial intelligence model using training information including the selection, the list of providers matching the criteria, the information from the individual, or a combination thereof (i.e., employing training of a machine learning model using individual conversation data). [70:1-67]
Regarding claim(s) 10, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The system of claim 1, Jerram disclosing [a]: wherein the processor is further configured to generate digital links for each of the providers in the list of providers. [Figure 11G-11J]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gnanasambandam, including mechanism(s) [a], as taught by Jerram. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ said mechanism(s) to facilitate an optimal provision of services to a requesting individual. [Figure 11G]
Regarding claim(s) 11, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The system of claim 1, Jerram disclosing [a]: wherein the processor is further configured to obtain geolocation information of the information based on accessing a global positioning device of a device of the individual, connecting to receiver of the device of the individual, accessing a sensor of the device of the individual, or a combination thereof. [69:58-59]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gnanasambandam, including mechanism(s) [a], as taught by Jerram. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ said mechanism(s) to facilitate an optimal provision of services to a requesting individual. [Figure 11G]
Regarding claim(s) 12, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The system of claim 1, Jerram disclosing [a]: wherein the processor is further configured to display, via the interface, an amount of correlation with the criteria for each provider from the list of providers (i.e., updating a query). [112:1-27]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gnanasambandam, including mechanism(s) [a], as taught by Jerram. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ said mechanism(s) to facilitate an optimal provision of services to a requesting individual. [Figure 11G]
Regarding claim(s) 13, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The system of claim 1, Jerram disclosing [a]: wherein the processor is further configured to receive additional criteria to further filter the list of providers (i.e., updating a search query engine). [112:1-27]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gnanasambandam, including mechanism(s) [a], as taught by Jerram. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ said mechanism(s) to facilitate an optimal provision of services to a requesting individual. [Figure 11G]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gnanasambandam, including mechanism(s) [a], as taught by Jerram. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ said mechanism(s) to facilitate an optimal provision of services to a requesting individual. [Figure 11G]
Regarding claim(s) 15, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The method of claim 14, Jerram disclosing [a]: further comprising adjusting the list of providers in real-time as additional information from the individual, providers in the list of providers, or a combination thereof, arrive at the system (i.e., updating a search query engine). [112:1-27]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gnanasambandam, including mechanism(s) [a], as taught by Jerram. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ said mechanism(s) to facilitate an optimal provision of services to a requesting individual. [Figure 11G]
Regarding claim(s) 17, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The method of claim 14, further comprising adjusting the list of providers as a location of the individual, a device of the individual, or a combination thereof, changes (i.e., updating a search query engine). [112:1-27]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gnanasambandam, including mechanism(s) [a], as taught by Jerram. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ said mechanism(s) to facilitate an optimal provision of services to a requesting individual. [Figure 11G]
Regarding claim(s) 18, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The method of claim 14, Gnanasambandam further comprising obtaining new information associated with a different encounter of the individual (i.e., capability of engaging a cognitive conversational agent at any time). [32:34-35]
Regarding claim(s) 19, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The method of claim 18, Jerram disclosing [a]: further comprising modifying the list of providers and identifying a new optimal provider based on the new information (i.e., capability of revising a search and providing said result to a requesting individual). [Figure 11G-11J]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gnanasambandam, including mechanism(s) [a], as taught by Jerram. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ said mechanism(s) to facilitate an optimal provision of services to a requesting individual. [Figure 11G]
Claim(s) 3, 4, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnanasambandam in view of Jerram and further in view of Shortliffe4.
Regarding claim(s) 3, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The system of claim 2, the combination not explicitly disclosing as disclosed by Shortliffe [a]: wherein the processor is further configured to determine, based on analyzing the insurance information, whether the insurance information requires an in-state provider for the individual (i.e., determining in-state out-of-state licensures). [Pages 685-686: employing technological mechanisms to restrict out-of- state or include in-state associated licensure]
Regarding claim(s) 4, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The system of claim 3, the combination not explicitly disclosing as disclosed by Shortliffe [a]: wherein the processor is further configured to filter each provider in the list of providers that is an out-of-state provider if the insurance information requires the in-state provider for the individual (i.e., determining in-state out-of-state licensures). [Pages 685-686: employing technological mechanisms to restrict out-of- state or include in-state associated licensure]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gnanasambandam, including mechanism(s) [a], as taught by Shortliffe. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ said mechanism(s) to facilitate an optimal provision of services to a requesting individual with regard to licensures. [Pages 685-686]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gnanasambandam, including mechanism(s) [a], as taught by Shortliffe. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ said mechanism(s) to facilitate an optimal provision of services to a requesting individual with regard to licensures. [Pages 685-686]
Regarding claim(s)16, Gnanasambandam-Jerram as a combination discloses: The method of claim 14, the combination not explicitly disclosing as disclosed by Shortliffe [a]: further comprising determining whether each provider in the list of providers has a license in a state in which the medical complaint is to be treated, whether each provider is in-network or out-of-network, whether a referral provider has a license in the state in which the medical complaint is to be treated, whether a referral provider is in-network or out-of-network, or a combination thereof (i.e., determining in-state out-of-state licensures). [Pages 685-686: employing technological mechanisms to restrict out-of- state or include in-state associated licensure]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gnanasambandam, including mechanism(s) [a], as taught by Shortliffe. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ said mechanism(s) to facilitate an optimal provision of services to a requesting individual with regard to licensures. [Pages 685-686]
Response To Arguments
Applicant contentions are fully considered and responded as follows:
101 Arguments
Regarding 101 rejections Applicant contends that claims recite significantly more than abstract ideas by “determining a medical complaint by applying trained AI correlations to encounter input”, generating and sorting a provider list based on said correlations. The Office believes this not to the case. As detailed in the Office Action the Applicants claim limitations when considered in combination to not represent more than an apply and neither transform to a practical implementation beyond generic employment of a computer nor an improvement to the computer. 101 rejections are maintained.
103 Arguments
Applicant contends that Gnanasambandam and Jerram do not disclose “dual-sided intake and correlation sorting criteria”, language not corresponding to the claims, Office affirming that claim limitations as filed are supported as detailed on page 14 of Non-Final Office Action; additionally Applicant states that Shortliffe does not disclose licensures, which is not the case as evidenced as evidences by Non-Final on page 23, and also discloses filtering contrary to contentions on page 12, as detailed on page 18 of Office Action. Consequently 103 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial- and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
The prior art made of record5 and NOT relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Elalfy:
Question answering communities (QAC) are nowadays becoming widely used due to the huge facilities and flow of information that it provides. These communities target is to share and exchange knowledge between users. Through asking and answering questions under large number of categories. Unfortunately, there are a lot of issues existing that made knowledge process difficult. One of those issues is that not every asker has the knowledge and ability to select the best answer for his question, or even selecting the best answer based on subjective matters. Our analysis in this paper is conducted on stack overflow community. We proposed a hybrid model for predicting the best answer. The proposed model is consisting of two modules. The first module is the content feature which consists of three types of features; question-answer features, answer content features, and answer-answer features. In the second module we examine the use of non-content feature in predicting best answers by using novel reputation score function. Then we merge both of content and non-content features and use them in prediction. We conducted experiments to train three different classifiers using our new added features. The prediction accuracy is very promising.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL EZEWOKO whose telephone number is 571 272 7850. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long can be reached on 571 270 5069. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-7850.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL I EZEWOKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
1 Claim(s) 1-13
2 Claim(s) 14-19
3 Claim(s) 20
4 Please see Form 892 for complete listing
5 Please see Form 892 for complete listing
Prosecution Insights