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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 11 March 2026.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 were amended.
Claim 10 was cancelled.
Claim 21 was added.
The objection to the Abstract, the 101 rejection of claim 10, and all cited art rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn as neccessited by Applicant’s amendment(s).
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent claims.
Specification
The replacement Abstract, filed on 3/11/26 has been entered and accepted.
Drawings
The replacement drawing (for FIG 2B), filed on 3/11/26, has been entered and accepted.
However, the drawings remain objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “100” has been used to designate “five different examples associated with processing email messages for form auto-completion” (each example should have its own different reference character); reference character “100” has been used to designate both “example(s) associated with processing email messages for form auto-completion” and “machine learning model” (see FIG 1E) ; reference character “135b” has been used to designate both “output the indication of the relevant email message from the email service” and “output the indication of the relevant email message from the processing system”. (see FIG 1C; 0029) Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "135a" and "135b" have both been used to designate “receive, from the processing system, an indication of at least one relevant email message in the plurality of email messages”; (see 0091) reference characters "135a" and "135b" have both been used to designate “receive, from the processing system, an indication that a snippet, from the at least one relevant email message, was added to a draft copy of the form”; (see 0092); reference characters "210" and "260" have both been used to designate “a graphical indication”; reference characters "400", “401 and "402" have all been used to designate “a processing system” FIG 4 shows all reference characters pointing/associated with the same shape/box; reference characters “401 and "402" have all been used to designate “a cloud computing system”. FIG 4 shows no visual distinction between 401 and 402. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the limitation “map the snippet to a pattern associated with the field”. However, a limitation with very similar subject matter is already presented in independent claim 1. (Claim 1: “mapping the snippet to a pattern associated with the field”). Thus, Claim 6 comprises a duplicate limitation already presented in independent claim 1. The Examiner believe this was not intended with Claim 1 now comprising the same limitation. Therefore, Claim 1 comprises a typographical error. Applicant is requested to delete the limitation from Claim 6 in the next filing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9, 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “in response to the indication of the interaction, transmit, to the user device, an updated draft copy of the form reflecting the interaction.” The language is stating that a generated draft copy was updated reflecting the interaction and transmitted to the user device. However, the language of the claim is different on how the subject matter is disclosed in the specification. 0033 of Applicant’s specification explicitly states “As shown by reference number 145, the processing system may transmit, and the user device may receive, the draft copy of the form. The processing system may transmit, and the user device may receive, the draft copy in response to the indication of the interaction. 0033 is in response to the functionality described in 0032 of Applicant’s specification that states “As shown in Fig. 1D and by reference number 140, the user device may transmit, and the processing system may receive, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the form.” Thus, 0032-0033 discloses in response to the user received interaction indicating that snippet was added to the form, send/transmit to the user (from the processing system) the draft copy of the form (in its current form that was not updated in anyway). 0033 clearly states “The processing system may transmit, and the user device may receive, the draft copy in response to the indication of the interaction.” 0033 does not state 1) the draft copy is updated in any way and 2) the processing system sends/transmits an updated draft copy of the form reflecting the indication is sent to the user device. 0033 only states the processing system sending only the current (non-updated) generated draft copy of the form to the user device The Examiner provides MPEP 2173.03 which states "A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty." Therefore, the subject matter explained in Claim 1 is inconsistent with its explanation as described in 0033. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitations of Claim 1 as “in response to the indication of the interaction, transmit, to the user device, the draft copy of the form”
Claim 8 recites similar limitation(s) with similar issue(s) and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the indication” in the “output, to a user device, an indication” limitation. However, Claim 1 discloses the element “an indication that the snippet was added to the form” in the “output, to the user device…” limitation and the element “an indication of at least one relevant email message in the plurality of email messages” in the previous provide limitation. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “wherein the indication” should depend on the “indication of at least one relevant email message” in the provide limitation, “indication that the snippet was added to the form” in the output limitation, or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “wherein the indication that the snippet was added to the form includes instructions for a graphical indication included in a preview of the relevant email message.
Claims 8 and 14 recite similar limitation(s) with similar issue(s) and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the relevant email message" in the “output, to a user device, an indication” limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “wherein the indication includes instructions for a graphical indication included in a preview of the at least one relevant email message”
Claim 8 recites similar limitation(s) with similar issue(s) and is rejected under similar rationale
Claim 14 recites the limitation “in response to the indication of the interaction, receive, from the processing system, an updated draft copy of the form reflecting the interaction.” The language is stating that a generated draft copy was updated reflecting the interaction and transmitted by the processing system. However, the language of the claim is different on how the subject matter is disclosed in the specification. 0033 of Applicant’s specification explicitly states “As shown by reference number 145, the processing system may transmit, and the user device may receive, the draft copy of the form. The processing system may transmit, and the user device may receive, the draft copy in response to the indication of the interaction. 0033 is in response the functionality described in 0032 of Applicant’s specification that states “As shown in Fig. 1D and by reference number 140, the user device may transmit, and the processing system may receive, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the form.” Thus, 0032-0033 discloses in response to the user received interaction indicating that snippet was added to the form, the processing system sends/transmits to the user device the draft copy of the form (in its current form that was not updated in anyway). 0033 clearly states “The processing system may transmit, and the user device may receive, the draft copy in response to the indication of the interaction.” 0033 does not state 1) the draft copy is updated in any way and 2) the processing system sends/transmits an updated draft copy of the form reflecting the indication to the user device. 0033 only states the processing system sending only the current (non-updated) generated draft copy of the form to the user device. The Examiner provides MPEP 2173.03 which states "A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty." Therefore, the subject matter explained in Claim 14 is inconsistent with its explanation as described in 0033. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitations of Claim 14 as “in response to the indication of the interaction, receive, from processing system, the draft copy of the form”
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As per dependent claim 12, in conjunction with the 112b rejection of Claim 8, Claim 12 just repeats the similar limitation/subject matter “receiving, from the user device, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the form; transmitting, to the user device, the draft copy of the form in response to the indication of the interaction.” already being claimed in independent claim 8. Therefore, Claim 12 does not further limit the subject matter as originally disclosed in Claim 8.
As per dependent claim 19, in conjunction with the 112b rejection of Claim 14, Claim 19 just repeats the similar limitation/subject matter “receive, from the processing system, the draft copy of the form” already being claimed in independent claim 14. Therefore, Claim 19 does not further limit the subject matter as originally disclosed in Claim 14.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-9, 11-13 remain and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitation of “extract, from the at least one relevant email message, a snippet corresponding to a field in the form”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more memories” and “one or more processors” language,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step “extract” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “one or more memories” and “one or more processors” language, “extract” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually rewriting text from a first text onto a new sheet of paper.
Similarly, the limitation of “mapping the snippet to a pattern associated with the field, the pattern including at least one of a currency pattern or a date pattern” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “map” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining if a first text is the same as a second text that resembles a date.
Similarly, the limitation of “generate a draft copy of the form that includes the snippet in the field” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “one or more memories” and “one or more processors” language, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually creating a form with fields having the selected information from another text.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
receive the plurality of email messages from an email service;
provide the plurality of email messages to a classification model in order to receive an indication of at least one relevant email message in the plurality of email messages;
output, to a user device, an indication that the snippet was added to the form; wherein the indication includes instructions for a graphical indication included in a preview of the relevant email message
provide the snippet to a machine learning model in order to receive a suggested change for an organization associated with the email service;
output, to the user device, an indication of the suggested change.
receive, from the user device, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the form; and
in response to the indication of the interaction, transmit, to the user device, an updated draft copy of the form reflecting the interaction.
Each of the “receive” limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). Each of the “provide” and “transmit” limitations are merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. The email service and user device in the limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the email service and user device is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “output” (displaying) limitations are a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The user device in the output limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the user device is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recitation of “provide the plurality of email messages to a classification model” and “provide the snippet to a machine learning model” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements of “provide the plurality of email messages to a classification model” and “provide the snippet to a machine learning model” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional element(s): memories, processors, email service, and the user device perform the multiple receive, the multiple provide, the multiple output, extract, generate, and transmit steps. The memories, processors, email service, and the user device in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receive, provide, output, extract, and generate functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Each of the “provide”, “transmit” and “receive” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of an email service in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Each of the “output”” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to presenting offers and gathering statistics, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of a user device in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of using the memories, processors, email service, and the user device to perform the multiple receive, the multiple provide, the multiple output, extract, generate and transmit steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitation of “extracting, by the processing system and from the at least one relevant email message, a snippet corresponding to a field in the form”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper, but the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the processing system” language,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step “extracting” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the processing system” language, “extracting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually rewriting text from a first text onto a new sheet of paper..
Similarly, the limitation of “generating a draft copy of the form that includes the snippet in the field” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “the processing system”, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually creating a form with fields having the selected information from another text.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
receiving, by the processing system, the plurality of email messages from an email service;
providing the plurality of email messages to a classification model in order to receive an indication of at least one relevant email message in the plurality of email messages;
outputting, from the processing system and to a user device, an indication that the snippet was added to the form, wherein the indication includes instructions for a graphical indication included in a preview of the relevant email message
receiving, from the user device, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the form; and
in response to the indication of the interaction, transmit, to the user device, an updated draft copy of the form reflecting the interaction.
Each of the “receiving/receive” limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). Each of the “providing” and “transmit” limitations are merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. The email service, processing system and user device in the limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the email service and user device is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “outputting” (displaying) limitations are a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The user device and processing system in the output limitation is claimed at a high level of generality such that the user device is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recitation of “providing…the plurality of email messages to a classification model” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements of “provide…the plurality of email messages to a classification model” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional element(s): email service, processing system, and the user device perform the multiple receive/receiving, providing, outputting, extracting, generating, and transmit steps. The email service, processing system, and the user device in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receive/receiving, providing, outputting, extracting, and generating functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Each of the “provide”, “receive”, and transmit limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of an email service and processing system in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Each of the “output”” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to presenting offers and gathering statistics, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of a user device and processing system in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of using email service, processing system, and the user device to perform the receive/receiving, providing, outputting, extracting, generating, and transmit steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-13, 21
As per dependent claim 2, the limitation(s) of “receive…an authorization…” and “transmit…a request” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receive and transmit data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 3, the additional limitations of “the classification model uses at least one of natural language processing or a neutral network” would be generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology (e.g., AI/machine learning). Accordingly, these additional elements 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 that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of the “the classification model uses at least one of natural language processing or a neutral network” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 4, the additional limitations of “the classification model used by the email service” would be generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology (e.g., AI/machine learning). Accordingly, these additional elements 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 that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of the “the classification model used by the email service” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, the limitation(s) of “indication…is received” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receive data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 5, the limitation(s) of “receive…an indication…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receive data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, the limitation of “copy the snippet” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “copy” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually writing the same text over again in a new location.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 6, the limitation of “map the snippet” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “map” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining if a first text is the same as a second text.
In addition, the limitation of “copy the snippet” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “copy” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually writing the same text over again in a new location.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim(s) 7 ,the claim does not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 9, the limitation(s) of “outputting instructions…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, display(ing) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 11, the limitation(s) of “transmit…a request” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, transmit data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 12, the limitation(s) of “receiving…an indication…” and “transmit…the draft copy” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receive and transmit data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 13, the limitation(s) of “receiving…a response…” and “transmit…a request” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receive and transmit data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 21, The recitation of “providing the snippet to a machine learning model” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements of “providing the snippet to a machine learning model” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (natural language AI) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
In addition, the limitation(s) of “receive a suggested change…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receive and transmit data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, the limitation(s) of “outputting…an indication…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, display(ing) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 14-20 are/remain eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al (US20230048345, 2/6/2023) in further view of Cobzarenco et al (US20240242021, EFD 1/12/2023) in further view of Scott et al (US20140146200, 2014) in further view of Mutha et al (US2020084170, 2020) in further view of Fields et al (US20240281891, filed 6/1/2023)
As per independent claim 1, Cheng et al discloses a system comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: (FIG 4; Claim 1)
receive the plurality of email messages from an email service; (0163: Disclosing accessing an email account comprising a plurality of emails 0020-0021; Claim 9 discloses obtaining these emails from an email server.)
provide the plurality of email messages to a classification model in order to receive an indication of at least one relevant email message in the plurality of email messages; (0023-0024, 0063, 00163 discloses identify, using one or more machine learning models, a set of email messages included in the email account that are relevant. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that identified emails is a form of receiving an indication)
Furthermore, 0024 (Cheng) discloses parsing emails in order to extract relevant data. However, Cheng et al fails to specifically disclose extract, from the at least one relevant email message, a snippet corresponding to a field in the form; generate a draft copy of the form that includes the snippet in the field; output, to a user device, an indication that the snippet was added to the form; receive, from the user device, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the form; and in response to the indication of the interaction, transmit, to the user device, an updated draft copy of the form in response to the indication of the interaction. However, based on the 112b rejection and the rationale incorporated, Cobzarenco et al disclose automatically filling form based on email extractions. (0090, 0101, 0145) Cobzarenco et al discloses extracting all intents and entities from that email conversation (e.g. “snippet”) and derive a relationship between the extracted intents and entities (i.e., provide automatic form filling from the email conversation). Further, Cobzarenco et al identifies and uses entity values to pre-fill the corresponding form fields (e.g., relationships between the intents and entities are used to pre-fill a form using the form schema). (0090, 0101-0103, 0161) Further, the user can review the pre-filed form associated with each assigned label and remove the extracted value (as per prediction) to select the correct entity value for the corresponding field of the form. (FIG. 15; 0161-0162) Providing the pre-filled form with the ability for the user to review each of the entities in a field of a form is a form of output, to a user device, an indication that the snippet was added to the form.
Furthermore, Cobzarenco et al discloses receiving, from the user device, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the form; and transmitting, to the user device, the draft copy of the form in response to the indication of the interaction. (FIG 15 & 0161 discloses the user can confirm or deny the extract email data that was placed into a displayed form by interacting with the interface that displays the form and allows the interaction. 0163 discloses fields not confirmed have a color while confirmed fields have another color. One of a skilled artisan would have realized each time a pre-filled field in the form is confirmed and a new color is assigned, a new version of the form is presented for display. Furthermore, Cobzarenco et al discloses the extracting, filling, and review/confirming is performed using module 545. (0095, 0101-0103) Module 545 is part of computer system 500. (FIG 5) 0094 discloses the user may interact with computing system 500 remotely via another computing system in communication therewith. Therefore, one of a skilled artisan would have realized if the user can perform the reviewing/confirming of the pre-filled values in fields remotely with their own device which results in communicating instructions/commands back and forth between the computing system and the user’s device. Thus, using their own device, the user can select the “tick” mark to confirm a field (as explained in 0161). This instruction would be sent to the computing system to process which in return would update the interface on the computing system by updating the interface with a confirm value with its assigned color. In response, the computing system would send the updated interface to the user device indicating the field being confirmed visually.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Cobzarenco since it would have provided the benefit of providing automation with respect to email and ticket extraction without extensive user input or intensive processing power that determine which portions of the email are related to an identified purpose when there are multiple purposes determined from the email (0002)
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose extracting…a snippet…mapping the snippet to a pattern associated with the field, the pattern including at least one of a currency pattern or a date pattern. However, Scott et al discloses extracting text information from a document wherein the extracted text is analyzed by a text recognition method to recognize and categorize text that appears to be associated with electronic calendar fields. (Abstract, 0057-0058; 0064) 0019 discloses “Recognized … text is considered to be "matched" to a calendar event if the handwriting or text contains at least information representing in text/numerical form representing a date that can be extracted from the handwriting or text and associated with the electronic calendar date. For example, "Dec. 25, 2012", "December 25", "12/25/12", "12-25-2012" or "Christmas" may all be interpreted to represent a date”. Thus, a skilled artisan in the art would have realized data containing these forms of text in these particular order or format(s) (e.g. Month/Day/year) is considered a pattern for a date value. The examples shown are analogous to a similar pattern shown in para 0027 of Applicant’s specification. Thus, once text is recognized to be considered a “date” based on the its format (pattern), then that text is populated into a corresponding field in a digital version (form of a “form”). (Abstract, 0057-0058; 0064)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Scott et al since it would have provided the benefit of provide an easy way of taking a paper document and translating it into a digital version that can be accessed at a location other than that of the document. (0022)
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the indication includes instructions for a graphical indication included in a preview of the relevant email message. However, Mutha et al discloses (outputting) instructions for a graphical indication included in a preview of the at least one relevant email message. (FIG 5; 0280:portions of the emails are only displayed, form of a preview of the email. These particular emails were outputted by a ML model that filtered a large amount of email messages).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Mutha et al since it would have provided the benefit of enabling an information management system to utilize machine learning processes to modify and/or reconfigure presentation of mailbox contents (0017)
Furthermore, Cobzarenco et al discloses providing suggested changes since Cobzarenco discloses directing the autocomplete prediction engine to another interface for selecting a correct entity from the text body (0162). However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose provide the snippet to a machine learning model in order to receive a suggested change for an organization associated with the email service; and output, to the user device, an indication of the suggested change. However, Fields et al discloses natural language processing (NLP) algorithm to analyze text of a email of a customer (0110, 0116, 0138) which the analyzed text is fed into a machine learning model. (0072, 0110) The machine learning model determines a recommendation change (suggested change) for the customer (0008, 0072, 0094, 0111) and displays this recommendation to the customer (FIG 2; 0064, 0149)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Fields since it would have provided the benefit of providing a more convenient and efficient system using the most up to date data that provide recommendations in a natural language form to the insurance agent and/or insurance underwriter. (0003-0006)
As per dependent claim 2, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale incorporated, Cheng et al discloses receive, from the user device, an authorization associated with the email service; and transmit, to the email service, a request for the plurality of email messages, the request including the authorization, wherein the plurality of email messages are received in response to the request. (0019-0020; Claim 8: request authorization to access to email account to obtain the emails on the account. Once authorized, the emails in the account are obtained)
As per dependent claim 3, Cheng et al discloses wherein the classification model uses at least one of natural language processing or a neural network (0040)
As per dependent claim 4, Cheng et al wherein the classification model is used by the email service (0020-0024, 0063, 00163: Emails provided to the “classification model”, form of the model used by the email service which is similar as explained within applicant’s specification) In addition, Cheng et al discloses the indication of the at least one relevant email message is received from the email service. (0023-0024, 0063, 00163 discloses identify, using one or more machine learning models, a set of email messages included in the email account that are relevant. One of a skilled artisan would have realized if the ML was able to receive and identify a set of email messages included in the email account that are relevant then an indication of the at least one relevant email message is received from the email service had to be provided.)
As per dependent claim 5, Claim 5 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Cheng et al parsing emails in order to extract relevant data. (0024) However, Cheng fails to explicitly disclose receive, from the classification model, an indication of the snippet; and copy the snippet from the at least one relevant email message into the field. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Cobzarenco discloses receive, from the classification model, an indication of the snippet; and copy the snippet from the at least one relevant email message into the field. (0101-0103, 0145: model extracts intents and entities from that email conversation, derive a relationship between the extracted intents and entities, and identifies and uses entity values to pre-fill the corresponding form fields. In other words, the model obtains the snippet places its into the form)
As per dependent claim 7, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Fields et al wherein the suggested change for the organization is associated with a supplier or with a customer. (0008, 0072, 0094, 0111)
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al in further view of Cobzarenco et al in further view of Scott et al in further view of Mutha et al in further view of Fields et al in further view of Van Rotterdam (US 20200250262, 2020)
As per dependent claim 6, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Cobzarenco et al discloses map the snippet to the field; and copy the snippet from the at least one relevant email message into the field. (0101-0103, 0160: extract all intents and entities from that email conversation and derive a relationship between the extracted intents and entities (i.e., provide automatic form filling from the email conversation). Further, the module 545 identifies and uses entity values to pre-fill the corresponding form fields (e.g., relationships between the intents and entities are used to pre-fill a form using the form schema). 0148 discloses the entity values are obtained (extracted) from the email conversation. In other words, the extract texted is map to a particular field and placed (copied) in that particular field (i.e. identifies the corresponding field that the extract value should be placed into)) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose map the snippet to a pattern associated with the field. (Note: “pattern” is not defined by the language of the claim or in Applicant’s specification. Therefore, the BRI of the term ““pattern” can be applied.) However, Van Rotterdam discloses extracting data from a document, analyzing the extract data, analyzing a form of its target form fields, operate a pattern matching algorithm to match at least a portion of the extracted data to the target form fields, and migrate the matched extracted data to the form as target data values associated with the target form fields (FIG 8; 0075; Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Van Rotterdam since it would have provided the benefit of allowing a gradual migration of data from a source application to a target application based on migrating data from one document at a time which leads more accurate data migration since the user is able to verify the migrated data before it is stored within the target application. (0023)
Claim(s) 8-9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al in further view of Cobzarenco et al in further view of Mutha et al
As per independent claim 8, Cheng et al discloses a system comprising:
receiving, at a processing system, the plurality of email messages from an email service; (0163: Disclosing accessing an email account comprising a plurality of emails 0020-0021; Claim 9 discloses obtaining these emails from an email server.)
providing, by the processing system, the plurality of email messages to a classification model in order to receive an indication of at least one relevant email message in the plurality of email messages; (0023-0024, 0063, 00163 discloses identify, using one or more machine learning models, a set of email messages included in the email account that are relevant. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that identified emails is a form of receiving an indication)
Furthermore, 0024 (Cheng) discloses parsing emails in order to extract relevant data. However, Cheng et al fails to specifically disclose extracting, by the processing system and from the at least one relevant email message, a snippet corresponding to a field in the form; generating, by the processing system, a draft copy of the form that includes the snippet in the field; outputting, from the processing system to a user device, an indication that the snippet was added to the form; receiving, from the user device, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the form; and in response to the indication of the interaction, transmit, to the user device, an updated draft copy of the form in response to the indication of the interaction. However, based on the 112b rejection and the rationale incorporated, Cobzarenco et al disclose automatically filling form based on email extractions. (0090, 0101, 0145) Cobzarenco et al discloses extracting all intents and entities from that email conversation (e.g. “snippet”) and derive a relationship between the extracted intents and entities (i.e., provide automatic form filling from the email conversation). Further, Cobzarenco et al identifies and uses entity values to pre-fill the corresponding form fields (e.g., relationships between the intents and entities are used to pre-fill a form using the form schema). (0090, 0101-0103, 0161) Further, the user can review the pre-filed form associated with each assigned label and remove the extracted value (as per prediction) to select the correct entity value for the corresponding field of the form. (FIG. 15; 0161-0162) Providing the pre-filled form with the ability for the user to review each of the entities in a field of a form is a form of outputting, to a user device, an indication that the snippet was added to the form.
Furthermore, Cobzarenco et al discloses receive, from the user device, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the form; and in response to the indication, transmit, to the user device, an updated draft copy of the form in response to the indication of the interaction. (FIG 15 & 0161 discloses the user can confirm or deny the extract email data that was placed into a displayed form by interacting with the interface that displays the form and allows the interaction. 0163 discloses fields not confirmed have a color while confirmed fields have another color. One of a skilled artisan would have realized each time a pre-filled field in the form is confirmed and a new color is assigned, a new version of the form is presented for display. Furthermore, Cobzarenco et al discloses the extracting, filling, and review/confirming is performed using module 545. (0095, 0101-0103) Module 545 is part of computer system 500. (FIG 5) 0094 discloses the user may interact with computing system 500 remotely via another computing system in communication therewith. Therefore, one of a skilled artisan would have realized if the user can perform the reviewing/confirming of the pre-filled values in fields remotely with their own device which results in communicating instructions/commands back and forth between the computing system and the user’s device. Thus, using their own device, the user can select the “tick” mark to confirm a field (as explained in 0161). This instruction would be sent to the computing system to process which in return would update the interface on the computing system by updating the interface with a confirm value with its assigned color. In response, the computing system would send the updated interface to the user device indicating the field being confirmed visually.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Cobzarenco since it would have provided the benefit of providing automation with respect to email and ticket extraction without extensive user input or intensive processing power that determine which portions of the email are related to an identified purpose when there are multiple purposes determined from the email (0002)
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the indication includes instructions for a graphical indication included in a preview of the relevant email message. However, Mutha et al discloses (outputting) instructions for a graphical indication included in a preview of the at least one relevant email message. (FIG 5; 0280:portions of the emails are only displayed, form of a preview of the email. These particular emails were outputted by a ML model that filtered a large amount of email messages).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Mutha et al since it would have provided the benefit of enabling an information management system to utilize machine learning processes to modify and/or reconfigure presentation of mailbox contents (0017)
As per dependent claim 9, the cited art fails to specifically disclose outputting instructions for a graphical indication of the at least one relevant email message. However, based on the rejection of claim 8 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Mutha et al discloses a ML model filtering a large amount of email messages to form a subset of email messages and displaying the selected subset of email messages (FIG 5; 0262, 0280 0284-0286)
As per dependent claim 11, Cheng et al discloses transmitting, to the email service, a request for the plurality of email messages, the request including a set of credentials, wherein the plurality of email messages are received in response to the request. (0019-0020; Claim 8)
As per dependent claim 12, based on the rejection of Claim 8 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Cobzarenco et al discloses receiving, from the user device, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the form; and transmitting, to the user device, the draft copy of the form in response to the indication of the interaction. (FIG 15 & 0161 discloses the user can confirm or deny the extract email data that was placed into a displayed form by interacting with the interface that displays the form and allows the interaction. 0163 discloses fields not confirmed have a color while confirmed fields have another color. One of a skilled artisan would have realized each time a pre-filled field in the form is confirmed and a new color is assigned, a new version of the form is presented for display. Furthermore, Cobzarenco et al discloses the extracting, filling, and review/confirming is performed using module 545. (0095, 0101-0103) Module 545 is part of computer system 500. (FIG 5) 0094 discloses the user may interact with computing system 500 remotely via another computing system in communication therewith. Therefore, one of a skilled artisan would have realized if the user can perform the reviewing/confirming of the pre-filled values in fields remotely with their own device which results in communicating instructions/commands back and forth between the computing system and the user’s device. Thus, using their own device, the user can select the “tick” mark to confirm a field (as explained in 0161). This instruction would be sent to the computing system to process which in return would update the interface on the computing system by updating the interface with a confirm value with its assigned color. In response, the computing system would send the updated interface to the user device indicating the field being confirmed visually. Thus, the cited art teaches the claimed language of claim 12.
As per dependent claim 13, Cheng et al discloses transmitting, to a machine learning host, a request with the plurality of email messages; and receiving, from the machine learning host, a response including the indication of the at least one relevant email message.(0023-0024, 0063, 00163 discloses the credit decision platform using a ML model to perform the identifying. The ML model, that identifies a set of email messages that are relevant, is performed using a machine learning system which may be a server/device other than the credit decision platform. (0032) Thus, after the platform has downloaded the email messages from the email server and since the ML model is on a separate device from the platform, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that the platform must have communicated/transmitted the received email messages to the ML model in order for the ML model to identify relevant emails wherein the ML model would have communicated back to the platform which emails are deemed relevant.)
Claim(s) 14-15, 18-19, 21 are and 17 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al in further view of Cobzarenco et al in further view of Mutha et al in further view of Fields et al
As per independent claim 14, Cheng et al discloses a medium comprising:
medium; and instructions when executed by one or more processors, (FIG 4; Claim 1)
transmit, to a processing system, an authorization to access an email service hosting the plurality of email messages (0019-0020; Claim 8: request authorization to access to email account to obtain the emails on the account. Once authorized, the emails in the account are obtained; 0020,0163: Disclosing accessing an email account comprising a plurality of emails)
receive, from the processing system, an indication of at least one relevant email message in the plurality of email messages (0023-0024, 0063, 00163 discloses identify, using one or more machine learning models, a set of email messages included in the email account that are relevant. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that identified emails is a form of receiving an indication)
Furthermore, 0024 (Cheng) discloses parsing emails in order to extract relevant data. However, Cheng et al fails to specifically disclose receive, from the processing system, an indication that a snippet, from the at least one relevant email message, was added to a draft copy of the form; transmit, to the processing system, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the form; and in response to the indication of the interaction, receive, from the processing system, an updated draft copy of the form in response to the indication of the interaction. However, based on the 112b rejection and the rationale incorporated, Cobzarenco et al disclose automatically filling form based on email extractions from an email conversation. (0090, 0101, 0145) Cobzarenco et al discloses extracting all intents and entities from that email conversation (e.g. “snippet”) and derive a relationship between the extracted intents and entities (i.e., provide automatic form filling from the email conversation). Further, Cobzarenco et al identifies and uses entity values to pre-fill the corresponding form fields (e.g., relationships between the intents and entities are used to pre-fill a form using the form schema). (0090, 0101-0103, 0161) Further, the user can review the pre-filed form associated with each assigned label and remove the extracted value (as per prediction) to select the correct entity value for the corresponding field of the form. (FIG. 15; 0161-0162) Providing the pre-filled form with the ability for the user to review each of the entities in a field of a form is a form of obtaining an indication that the snippet was added to the form.
Furthermore, Cobzarenco et al discloses transmit, to the processing system, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the form; and in response to the indication of the interaction, receive, from the processing system, an updated draft copy of the form in response to the indication of the interaction. (FIG 15 & 0161 discloses the user can confirm or deny the extract email data that was placed into a displayed form by interacting with the interface that displays the form and allows the interaction. 0163 discloses fields not confirmed have a color while confirmed fields have another color. One of a skilled artisan would have realized each time a pre-filled field in the form is confirmed and a new color is assigned, a new version of the form is presented for display. Furthermore, Cobzarenco et al discloses the extracting, filling, and review/confirming is performed using module 545. (0095, 0101-0103) Module 545 is part of computer system 500. (FIG 5) 0094 discloses the user may interact with computing system 500 remotely via another computing system in communication therewith. Therefore, one of a skilled artisan would have realized if the user can perform the reviewing/confirming of the pre-filled values in fields remotely with their own device which results in communicating instructions/commands back and forth between the computing system and the user’s device. Thus, using their own device, the user can select the “tick” mark to confirm a field (as explained in 0161). This instruction would be sent to the computing system to process which in return would update the interface on the computing system by updating the interface with a confirm value with its assigned color. In response, the computing system would send the updated interface to the user device indicating the field being confirmed visually.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Cobzarenco since it would have provided the benefit of providing automation with respect to email and ticket extraction without extensive user input or intensive processing power that determine which portions of the email are related to an identified purpose when there are multiple purposes determined from the email (0002)
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the indication includes instructions for a graphical indication included in a preview of the relevant email message. However, Mutha et al discloses (outputting) instructions for a graphical indication included in a preview of the at least one relevant email message. (FIG 5; 0280:portions of the emails are only displayed, form of a preview of the email. These particular emails were outputted by a ML model that filtered a large amount of email messages).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Mutha et al since it would have provided the benefit of enabling an information management system to utilize machine learning processes to modify and/or reconfigure presentation of mailbox contents (0017)
Furthermore, Cobzarenco et al discloses providing suggested changes since Cobzarenco discloses directing the autocomplete prediction engine to another interface for selecting a correct entity from the text body (0162) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose receive, from the processing system, an indication of a suggested change, for an organization associated with the email service, based on the snippet. However, Fields et al discloses natural language processing (NLP) algorithm to analyze text of a email of a customer (0110, 0116, 0138) which the analyzed text is fed into a machine learning model. (0072, 0110) The machine learning model determines a recommendation change (suggested change) for the customer (0008, 0072, 0094, 0111) and displays this recommendation to the customer (FIG 2; 0064, 0149)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Fields since it would have provided the benefit of providing a more convenient and efficient system using the most up to date data that provide recommendations in a natural language form to the insurance agent and/or insurance underwriter. (0003-0006)
As per dependent claim 15, Cheng et al discloses wherein the authorization includes a set of credentials associated with a user of the email service. (0019: includes credentials)
As per dependent claim 17, the cited art fails to specifically disclose output a representation of the indication of the at least one relevant email message. However, based on the rejection of claim 14 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Mutha et al discloses a ML model filtering a large amount of email messages to form a subset of email messages and displaying the selected subset of email messages (FIG 5; 0262, 0280 0284-0286)
As per dependent claim 18, Claim 18 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and 9 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Cobzarenco et al discloses output a representation of the indication that the snippet was added to the draft copy of the form. (FIG 15 + 0161 discloses the user can confirm or deny the extract email data that was placed into a displayed form by interacting with the interface that displays the form and allows the interaction. 0163 discloses fields not confirmed have a color while confirmed fields have another color. One of a skilled artisan would have realized each time a pre-filled form is confirmed and a new color is assigned, a new version of the form is presented for display. Thus, Cobzarenco et al discloses another embodiment of a form of an output a representation of the indication that the snippet was added to the draft copy of the form.
As per dependent claim 19, Claim 19 recites similar limitations as in Claim and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Cobzarenco discloses receive, from the processing system, the draft copy of the form. In particular, Cobzarenco discloses the user can review the pre-filed form associated with each assigned label and remove the extracted value (as per prediction) to select the correct entity value for the corresponding field of the form. (FIG. 15; 0161-0162: discloses an interface displaying the form with pre-filled form for confirming/rejecting the inputted field values) Providing the pre-filled form to the user with the ability for the user to review each of the entities in a field of a form is a form of receiving a draft copy of the form.
As per dependent claim 21, Cobzarenco et al discloses providing suggested changes since Cobzarenco discloses directing the autocomplete prediction engine to another interface for selecting a correct entity from the text body (0162). However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose providing the snippet to a machine learning model in order to receive a suggested change for an organization associated with the email service; and outputting, to the user device, an indication of the suggested change. However, Fields et al discloses natural language processing (NLP) algorithm to analyze text of a email of a customer (0110, 0116, 0138) which the analyzed text is fed into a machine learning model. (0072, 0110) The machine learning model determines a recommendation change (suggested change) for the customer (0008, 0072, 0094, 0111) and displays this recommendation to the customer (FIG 2; 0064, 0149)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Fields since it would have provided the benefit of providing a more convenient and efficient system using the most up to date data that provide recommendations in a natural language form to the insurance agent and/or insurance underwriter. (0003-0006)
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al in further view of Cobzarenco et al in further view of Mutha et al in further view of Fields et al in further view of Kras (US20210075828, 2021)
As per dependent claim 16, Cheng et al discloses wherein the authorization includes a data structure representing permission to access the email service. (0019). However, the cited art does teach permissions to access an API associated with the email service. However, Kras teach permissions to access an API associated with the email services (0096)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Kras since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of a secure method of granting an application permission to access your email. Therefore, in conjunction with the cited art, the combination of Kras with the cited art teaches the authorization includes a data structure representing permission to access an application programming interface associated with the email service.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al in further view of Cobzarenco et al in further view of Mutha et al in further view of Fields et al in further view of Gujarathi (US 20200210463, 2020)
As per dependent claim 20, Cheng et al discloses transmit, to the processing system, an indication of an additional email message in the plurality of email messages (0023-0024, 0063, 00163 discloses the credit decision platform using a ML model to perform the identifying. The ML model, that identifies a set of email messages that are relevant, is performed using a machine learning system which may be a server/device other than the credit decision platform. (0032) Thus, after the platform has downloaded the email messages from the email server and since the ML model is on a separate device from the platform, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that the platform must have communicated/transmitted the received email messages to the ML model in order for the ML model to identify relevant emails wherein the ML model would have communicated back to the platform which emails are deemed relevant. Thus, multiple relevant emails are transmitted by the ML to the platform; therefore, an additional email message is transmitted. Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motiviation, incorporated, Cobzarenco discloses receive, from the processing system, an indication that a snippet, from the additional email message, was added to the draft copy of the form. In particular, Cobzarenco et al disclose automatically filling form based on email extractions from the inputted email conversation. (0090, 0101, 0145) Cobzarenco et al discloses extracting all intents and entities from that email conversation and derive a relationship between the extracted intents and entities (i.e., provide automatic form filling from the email conversation). Further, Cobzarenco et al identifies and uses entity values to pre-fill the corresponding form fields (e.g., relationships between the intents and entities are used to pre-fill a form using the form schema). (0090, 0101-0103, 0161). However, Cobzarenco et al fails to specifically disclose the email conversation includes extracting from more than one email within the email conversation. However, Gujarathi discloses extracting text from multiple separate emails within an email conversation and places the combined extracted text into a single document.(FIG 2C; 0042) Thus, Gujarathi discloses the receiving of a transmitted additional email message and receiving snippets/extracted text to be added to a single report/document.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Gujarathi since it would have provided the benefit of automatically generating conversation-based reports from email threads for easier and more intuitive user-consumption. (0003)
Therefore, in conjunction with the cited art, the combination of Gujarathi of the cited art teaches receive, from the processing system, an indication that a snippet, from the additional email message, was added to the draft copy of the form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12, in regards to the drawings objections, the Applicant presents the following arguments/remarks:
In regards to “reference character 100”, Applicant respectfully submits that reference character 100 in Figs. 1A-1E designates the same exemplary implementation, just at different points in the workflow, as described in paragraphs [0019]-[0040] of the specification. The steps in the workflow are represented by reference numbers 105, 110, and 115 in Fig. lA, 120 and 125 in Fig. 1B, Fig. 135a and 135b in Fig. 1C, 140 and 145 in Fig. 1D, and 150, 155, and 160 in Fig. 1E.
In response, the Examiner respectfully states that 1A-1E are showing 5 different exemplary steps of the overall exemplary workflow; not the same exact example in each one. Therefore, while all 5 of these exemplary steps may make up the exemplary workflow, each of these exemplary steps are not the same overall. Thus, FIG 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E are same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing. Thus, the drawing objection remains for this reason. The Examiner recommended changing the reference character “100” for each individual exemplary workflow step of FIG. 1 to 100a (for FIG. 1A), 100b (for FIG. 1B), 100c (for FIG 1C), 100d (for FIG. 1D) and 100e (for FIG 1E) to overcome this issue.
In regards to “reference character 135b”, Applicant respectfully submits that the indication of the relevant email message from the processing system and from the email service is the same. For example, paragraph [0029] states that "as shown by reference number 135b, the processing system may output the indication of the relevant email message and/or the indication that the snippet was added to the form to the user device via the email service" (emphasis added). Therefore, the designation as both with the same reference character '135b' is appropriate
In response, the Examiner respectfully states that 0029 clearly indicates that 135b may a first functionality and a second functionality which is also confirmation by the illustration of these functionalities in FIG 1C. FIG 1C clearly shows the communication step of a processing system outputting the indication of the relevant email message/snippet to the email service and the communication step of after the email service receiving the indication, the email service outputting the indication of the relevant email message/snippet to the user device. Thus, FIG 1C shows the illustration of 0029 by clearly showing 135b being associated with two different communication steps. Thus, the drawing objection remains for this reason. The Examiner recommends the communication step between the email service and the user device be associated with reference character “135c” to overcome this issue.
In regards to “reference character 260” used to designate both 'a preview' and 'graphical indication, Applicant replacement drawing to FIG 2B has overcame this issue.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully states a number of other drawings issues remain (see “Drawings” section above) that were not addressed by the Applicant in any matter; therefore, the drawing objections remain for these reasons also.
On page(s) 13-17, in regards to independent claims 1 and 8 rejected under 35 USC 101, Applcant argues that independent claims 1 and 8, as amended, and the claims that depend thereon, are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In particular:
A) Under Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant states that claim 1 has been amended as: recites "receiv[ing], from the processing system, an indication that a snippet, from the at least one relevant email message, was added to a draft copy of the form, wherein the indication includes instructions for a graphical indication included in a preview of the at least one relevant email; receiv[ing], from the processing system, an indication of a suggested change, for an organization associated with the email service, based on the snippet; transmit[ting], to the processing system, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the draft copy of the form; and in response to the indication of the interaction, receiv[ing], from the processing system, an updated draft copy of the form reflecting the interaction.” Claim 8 was amended similarly. In summary, Applicant argues amend claim(s) claims do not recite a mental process, but instead require concrete, technical steps that go beyond what can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. For these reason(s), claims 1 and 8 do not recite a judicial exception and are patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong One. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, the Examiner does agree, the argued limitations “"receiv[ing], from the processing system, an indication that a snippet, from the at least one relevant email message, was added to a draft copy of the form, wherein the indication includes instructions for a graphical indication included in a preview of the at least one relevant email; receiv[ing], from the processing system, an indication of a suggested change, for an organization associated with the email service, based on the snippet; transmit[ting], to the processing system, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the draft copy of the form; and in response to the indication of the interaction, receiv[ing], from the processing system, an updated draft copy of the form reflecting the interaction.” cannot be performed in the human mind and/or performed by a human with pen and paper. Thus, these argued limitations are eligible under Step 2A, Prong 1. However, these particular limitations in the independent claims still recite an abstract idea without significantly more because this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since these additional elements do integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. See the Examiner’s response to Argument B) from the Applicant for the reasoning.
B) Under Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant states claim 1 have been amended to recite the following limitations: "transmit[ting], to the processing system, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the draft copy of the form; and in response to the indication of the interaction, receiv[ing], from the processing system, an updated draft copy of the form reflecting the interaction." Applicant argues: “These steps are not generic computer functions, but rather define a specific technical solution for enabling interactive, real-time collaboration between the user and the automated form-completion system. This workflow allows the user to review, confirm, or modify automatically extracted information, and ensures that the system dynamically updates and presents the draft form in response to user input. As a result, the system addresses technical challenges such as reducing manual copy-and-paste actions, minimizing errors, and maintaining data integrity and user control in the automated completion of forms” For these reason(s), claims 1 and 8 do not recite a judicial exception and are patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, Examiner respectfully states that Applicant’s invention does not result in integrating the claimed abstract into a practical application being performed. In other words, the Examiner states that the argued limitations of the claim recites a judicial exception wherein the argued limitations of Applicant’s invention recite additional elements that do not integrate claimed abstract into a practical application. In particular, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application:
transmit[ting], to the processing system, an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the draft copy of the form; and in response to the indication of the interaction,
receiv[ing], from the processing system, an updated draft copy of the form reflecting the interaction."
The “transmit[ting]” limitations are merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. The “receiv[ing]” limitation(s) are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. The user device in the limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the email service and user device is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the argued claim recites these other additional element(s): the user device perform the transmit[ting] and receiv[ing] steps. The user device in the argued transmit[ting] and receiv[ing] steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of transmit[ting] and receiv[ing] functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
C) Applicant argues that “The specification explicitly describes these technical improvements. For example, paragraph [0015] explains that "as a result of auto-insertion of the snippets, power and processing resources are conserved, and memory overhead is reduced, that a user device otherwise would have consumed in copy-and-paste actions." Paragraph [0040] further states that "the processing system generating the draft copy of the form conserves power and processing resources, and reduces memory overhead, as compared with the user device executing numerous copy-and-paste actions while the user generates the draft copy of the form." Paragraph [0032] describes how the system receives "an indication of an interaction with the indication that the snippet was added to the form," and [0033] explains that, in response, "the processing system may transmit, and the user device may receive, the draft copy of the form," enabling efficient review and updating. Accordingly, the claims, as a whole, are not merely directed to an abstract idea, but instead integrate any such idea into a practical application that provides a specific, technical improvement in the field of automated data extraction and form completion, as described in the specification and reflected in the claim language. The recited steps of transmitting an indication of user interaction and receiving an updated draft copy of the form reflecting that interaction are central to this practical application, as they enable an interactive, adaptive, and user-responsive system.” Therefore, the Applicant argues that the above features of the amended claims provide an improvement to a technology or technical field. Thus, Applicant argues the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, in regards to improvement of a technological field, the Examiner respectfully states MPEP 2106.05(a) states “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome”. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In addition, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology”.
The Examiner respectfully states the applicant fails to identify that the claims and the limitations themselves at issue are directed toward overcoming a problem within the technology. In addition, the Examiner respectfully states the claims themselves provide no evidence of an improvement in computer- related technology beyond the abstract idea, and the computer hardware cited/claimed (i.e. the processing system, user device) is merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea as opposed to claiming the process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result. Thus, the claims are merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. Furthermore, while the Applicant states that the present invention provides the effect of “enables efficient review and updating; provides a specific, technical improvement in the field of automated data extraction and form completion; enable an interactive, adaptive, and user-responsive system”; the Examiner states these statement(s) are merely conclusionary statements that provide no evidence/reasoning to counter the Examiner’s reasoning/rationale on how the claims or elements within the claims provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained, the claim limitations of “transmit[ting]” and “receiv[ing]” do not include additional elements 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 of a using f the processing system, user device to perform the “transmit[ting]” and “receiv[ing]” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The MPEP 2105.06(a) states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” Thus, the additional elements of Applicant’s claims are merely improving the abstract idea and not an improvement in technology.
Thus, the 101 rejection of the claims still remains and the claim is not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9, 11-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 have been considered but are moot because the new claim has not been examined before which requires a new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights