DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination in this application. The application filing date on 03/26/2024. Claims 1, 11 and 16 are independent.
Examiner notes
(A). Drawings submitted on 03/26/2024 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(d),
(B) Limitations have been provided with the Bold fonts in order to distinguish from the cited part of the reference (Italic).
(C). Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2141.02 VI and 2123.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Priority
Applicant claims priority to provisional application No. 63/465,139 filed on May 9, 2023, related to this application. The submission claim is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.78. Accordingly, the provisional application’s date is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “a resolver that maintains a lookup table …”; and “… a test manager that causes, during execution … ;” in claim 1;
The “…wherein the test manager is configured to add … ;” in claim 5;
The “…system overrides a default selection by the resolver of and … ;” in claim 6;
The “…system, provided by the resolver… ;” in claim 7;
The “…further comprising a key generator configured …;” in claim 8;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
FAILURE TO IDENTIFY CORRESPONDING STRUCTURE
As to claim 1, the “a resolver that maintains a lookup table …”; and “… a test manager that causes, during execution …” limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It generally discloses a resolver can use a lookup table
to track which instances of the policy management system are associated with corresponding
instances of policy data at par. [001]. Further, test manage generally disclose the test manager causes, during execution of a software test associated with a particular test scenario, a service executing outside the plurality of clusters to operate in association with particular policy data, associated with a key, via a particular instance of the policy management system that is configured based on the particular test scenario at par. [0012], but provides no explanation as to how this test manager is performed. See M.P.E.P. § 2181(II)(B).
As to claim 5, the “…wherein the test manager is configured to add … ;” limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It generally discloses the test manager 120 may cause policy management system instance 104A to add policy data that will be used and/or accessed during the particular software test to the policy database 106A, at par. [0048], but provides no explanation as to how this test manager is performed. See M.P.E.P. § 2181(II)(B).
As to claim 6, the “…system overrides a default selection by the resolver of and … ;” limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It generally discloses in some examples, the test manager 120 may provide the policy data to the
selected instance of the policy management system 104 in part by informing the resolver 110
that the policy data will be added to the instance of the policy database 106 that corresponds
with the instance of the policy management system 104 selected at block 202, at par. [0069], but provides no explanation as to how the selectin by the resolver is performed. See M.P.E.P. § 2181(II)(B).
As to claim 7, the “…system, provided by the resolver… ;” limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose , at par. [0069], but provides no explanation as to how the selectin by the resolver is performed. See M.P.E.P. § 2181(II)(B). It generally discloses the resolver 110 can return the instance identifier of the policy management system instance 104A to the service 108. The service 108 can thus use the instance identifier of policy management system instance 104A, provided by the resolver 110, at par. [0034], but provides no explanation as to how the selectin by the resolver is performed. See M.P.E.P. § 2181(II)(B).
As to claim 8, the “…further comprising a key generator configured …;” limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose , at par. [0069], but provides no explanation as to how the selectin by a key generator is performed. See M.P.E.P. § 2181(II)(B). It generally discloses a key generator At block 206, the selected instance of the policy management system 104 can obtain a key 114 for the policy data provided at block 204 from the key generator 118. As described above, the key generator 118 can provide a unique key for the policy data that is not used for any other policy data stored in any of the clusters 102, at par. [0070], but provides no explanation as to how the selectin by the resolver is performed. See M.P.E.P. § 2181(II)(B).
As to claims 2-4 and 9-10 these claims are dependent on claim 1 but do not cure any of the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1 and 5-8, these claims invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 without sufficient corresponding structure in the specification as set forth above. Such claims also lack written description. See M.P.E.P. § 2163.063(V).
As to claims 2-4 and 9-10 these claims are dependent on claim 1 but do not cure any of the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are directed to computer implemented system and fall within the statutory category of machines; Claims 11-15 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 16-20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As to claim 11, Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim recites limitations that recite an abstract idea. The limitations “configuring different instances of a policy management system based on different configurations;” recites a mental process since “configuring … configurations” is a concept that can be reasonably performed in the human mind (with the aid of pen and paper). Further, the limitation “keys corresponding to instances of the policy data;” The BRI of this limitation is policy in the database that can be reasonably performed in the human mind (with the aid of pen and paper).
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements “wherein the different instances of the policy management system are associated with different instances of a policy database that store different sets of policy data;” , “maintaining, by a resolver associated with the different instances of the policy management system, a lookup table that stores pairs of: instance identifiers of the different instances of the policy management system;” , “receiving, by the resolver, and from a service configured to interact with the different instances of the policy management system, a key corresponding to a particular policy data instance;” and “providing, by the resolver, a particular instance identifier that is paired with the key in the lookup table, wherein the particular instance identifier causes the service to perform at least one operation associated with the particular policy data instance via a particular instance of the policy management system that is associated with the particular instance identifier.” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claims recite the following additional elements – “the policy management system that, is associated with different instances of a policy database, receiving, by the resolver, and from a service associated with the particular instance identifier.” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Under step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claimed invention merely recites generic computer system for carrying out or applying the abstract idea. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that mere data gathering, such as those defined in the claim, are well-understood, routine, and convention computer functions which cannot serve as an inventive concept according to MPEP 21.06.05(d).
For the above reasons, the claims of this application are not patentable under 35 USC 101.
As to claim 1, Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim recites limitations that recite an abstract idea. The limitations “different instances of a policy management system that are configured differently for different test scenarios;” recites a mental process since “policy management system that are configured differently for different test scenarios” is a concept that can be reasonably performed in the human mind (with the aid of pen and paper).
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements “a plurality of clusters, wherein different clusters in the plurality of clusters comprise: and different instances of a policy database that store different sets of policy data;” , “a resolver that maintains a lookup table indicating associations between: keys associated with policy data instances, and instance identifiers, of the different instances of the policy management system, that correspond to the keys;” and
“a test manager that causes, during execution of a software test associated with a
particular test scenario, a service executing outside the plurality of clusters to operate in
association with particular policy data, associated with a key, via a particular instance of the policy management system that is configured based on the particular test scenario by: providing, by the service, the key to the resolver;” , “receiving, by the service, and from the resolver based on the lookup table, a particular instance identifier corresponding to the particular instance of the policy management system;” and “performing, by the service, and based on the particular instance identifier, an operation based on the particular policy data via the particular instance of the policy management system.” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claims recite the following additional elements – “the policy management system that, is associated with different instances of a policy database, receiving, by the resolver, and from a service associated with the particular instance identifier.” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Under step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claimed invention merely recites generic computer system for carrying out or applying the abstract idea. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that mere data gathering, such as those defined in the claim, are well-understood, routine, and convention computer functions which cannot serve as an inventive concept according to MPEP 21.06.05(d).
For the above reasons, the claims of this application are not patentable under 35 USC 101.
As to claim 16, Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim recites limitations that recite an abstract idea. The limitations “in an instance of a policy database associated with an instance of a policy management system configured based on the test scenario, wherein: the instance of the policy management system is within a plurality of different instances of the policy management system that are configured differently for different test scenarios and are associated with different instances of the policy database;” recites a mental process since “policy management system that are configured based on the test scenarios and are associated with different instances of the policy database” is a concept that can be reasonably performed in the human mind (with the aid of pen and paper).
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements “store policy data associated with a software test, corresponding to a test scenario, a key associated with the policy data is associated with an instance identifier of the instance of the policy management system within a lookup table maintained by a resolver associated with the plurality of different instances of the policy management system;” and “initiate the software test, wherein the software test invokes a service and causes the service to perform an operation based on the policy data associated with the key by: providing, by the service, the key to the resolver;” , “receiving, by the service, and from the resolver based on the lookup table, the instance identifier of the instance of the policy management system;” and “performing, by the service, and based on the instance identifier, the operation based on the policy data via the instance of the policy management system.” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claims recite the following additional elements – “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors with the policy management system that, associated within a lookup table, the policy data associated with the key by: providing, by the service, the key to the resolve performing, by the service, and based on the instance identifier.” .” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Under step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claimed invention merely recites generic computer system for carrying out or applying the abstract idea. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that mere data gathering, such as those defined in the claim, are well-understood, routine, and convention computer functions which cannot serve as an inventive concept according to MPEP 21.06.05(d).
For the above reasons, the claims of this application are not patentable under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-4, 12-13 and 17 are not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1, wherein the “… the policy management system are configured differently. … configured to present different user interface … configured to operate based on different system clock times … ” are merely a generic computer component for applying the abstract idea, thus fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor an inventive concept.
Claims 5-6 and 18 are not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1, wherein the “… the policy management system are configured differently. … configured to present different user interface … configured to operate based on different system clock times … ” are merely a generic computer component for applying the abstract idea, thus fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor an inventive concept.
Further dependent claims 7 and 15 expand on the abstract idea in its policy management system, are Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) … URL associated with the particular
instance of the policy management system that is used that does not integrate the invention into a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more.
Further dependent claims 8-10 cited “generator configured to generate the keys associated with the policy data … configured differently for the different test scenarios, different cloud computing elements, different containers, or different virtual machines” is a generic computing apparatus that does not allude to a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more.
Further dependent claim 14 cited “storing the particular policy … initiating a software test … provide the key and … perform the at least one operation …” is a generic computing apparatus that does not allude to a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more.
Further dependent claims 17 and 19-20 expand on the abstract idea in its “configured based on different rules and regulations … , perform the operation based on second policy data … service uses a same configuration of the service and the policy management system configured
based on the test scenario … ” is merely a generic computer component for applying the abstract idea, thus fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor an inventive concept.
Conclusion
Prior arts made of record are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP § 707.05 (C) For Examples:
I. Roy et al. (US 20230252572 A1) discloses: “To generate a new insurance product, the product design system 110 collects requirements for the insurance product from an upstream system 102 and one or more downstream systems 104. The upstream system 102 can be a policy admin system that is configured to perform a plurality of tasks related to insurance products. The policy admin system can be one of DuckCreek, Guidwire, Majesco, or other customized configuration-based policy admin system. The plurality of tasks may include, for example, rating, quoting, binding, issuing, endorsements, and renewals of insurance policies. The one or more downstream systems many include one or more of a financial system, a claim system, an operational and bureau reporting system, or a billing system”. “The test data and test scenarios 122 are used to test the new insurance product once it is implemented on different systems. The test data and test script will help a quality testing system to quickly validate these systems against the requirements and specification of the new insurance product. (please see [0030 and 0054]).
II. Liu et al. (US 20210287298 A1) discloses: “It can be understood that, because services have different requirements for different policy data, by storing the target policy data after the data cleaning to respective data storage paths, it is more convenient for a salesperson to query the target policy data according to different needs. For example, on a path named “NB”, only new policy data generated this year are stored; and the path named “kaohe” is used to distinguish policy data from different databases. In the above step 106, specifically, the data storage paths are further added as a grouping basis, so that each data subgroup to be actuarially processed that is obtained after the grouping can be further refined, and it is avoided that the target policy data originally stored on different data storage paths are divided into one data subgroup to be actuarially processed, thereby ensuring the processing efficiency of the actuarial program to a certain extent.” (please see [0048]).
III. Mulingan et al. (US 20220188949 A1) discloses: “As referenced herein, an “entity” can comprise a human, a client, a user, a computing device, a software application, an agent, a machine learning (ML) model, an artificial intelligence (AI) model, and/or another entity. As referenced herein, a “policy” can comprise textual documents describing principles to guide decisions and achieve outcomes, where such principles can be described in the form of conditions or rules. Examples of policies include, but are not limited to, car insurance policies, home insurance policies, private health policies, public and/or state health policies, financial compliance regulations, and/or another policy. It will be understood that when an element is referred to herein as being “coupled” to another element, it can describe one or more different types of coupling including, but not limited to, chemical coupling, communicative coupling, electrical coupling, electromagnetic coupling, operative coupling, optical coupling, physical coupling, thermal coupling, and/or another type of coupling.” (please see [0014]).
IV. Cottrell et al. (US 20220164889 A1) discloses: “FIG. 6 shows a flowchart of an example method 600 the policy consolidator 102 can use to consolidate insurance policies. In some examples, the policy consolidator 102 can access policy data for a single set of insurance policies stored in a single database, or mirrored instances of the same database, as shown in FIG. 2. In other examples, the policy consolidator 102 can be positioned at the cross-cluster service 310 and can access policy data for multiple sets of insurance policies that are stored in databases of different clusters 302, as shown in FIG. 3. In still other examples, different clusters 302 can have different policy consolidators as shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, and the policy consolidator that executes method 600 can be associated with one of the clusters 302.” (please see [0091]).
V. Jenkins et al. (US 10896469 B1) discloses: “The applied search mode may dictate which database(s)/sources are searched by the integrated search tool 144, and/or the manner in which search results are provided. For example, the claim associate may activate (e.g., click on) control 342A to select the “Policy and People” search mode (e.g., to cause the integrated search unit 144 to search policy records 132 and/or an enterprise customer information system), control 342B to select the “Services” search mode (e.g., to cause the integrated search unit 144 to use an external search engine for finding service providers such as auto repair shops), or control 342C to select the “Web and Maps” search mode (e.g., to cause the integrated search unit 144 to use an external search engine or mapping service for finding location information and/or viewing maps). A search field 344 may allow the claim associate to enter terms/keywords that are to be searched according to the selected search mode (e.g., by searching the sources associated with the selected search mode).” (please see [col. 16, ll. 53-ll. 3 of col. 17]).
VI. Cai et al. (US 20200342068 A1) discloses: “In response to receiving the search query, search head 210 uses extraction rules to extract values for the fields associated with a field or fields in the event data being searched. The search head 210 obtains extraction rules that specify how to extract a value for certain fields from an event. Extraction rules can comprise regex rules that specify how to extract values for the relevant fields. In addition to specifying how to extract field values, the extraction rules may also include instructions for deriving a field value by performing a function on a character string or value retrieved by the extraction rule. For example, a transformation rule may truncate a character string, or convert the character string into a different data format. In some cases, the query itself can specify one or more extraction rules. The search head 210 can apply the extraction rules to event data that it receives from indexers 206. Indexers 206 may apply the extraction rules to events in an associated data store 208. Extraction rules can be applied to all the events in a data store, or to a subset of the events that have been filtered based on some criteria (e.g., event time stamp values, etc.). Extraction rules can be used to extract one or more values for a field from events by parsing the event data and examining the event data for one or more patterns of characters, numbers, delimiters, etc., that indicate where the field begins and, optionally, ends.” (please see [0130-0131]).
VII. Arnatt et al. (US 20140222470 A1) discloses: “Block 202 represents Activities and illustrates the user input required for integration of data workflow required to evaluate the cost of insurance. The Activity is subsequently displayed on the insurance policy and insurance certificate. The Activity is the condition of involvement that the user of the facility is conducting to which their insurance underwrites. Depending on the venue, certain activities may or may not be available for choosing by the venue or facility user. Therefore, the venue's available Activities are maintained within the Venue Database tables. In addition, each activity contains a sub-table of related lookup data which is capable of displaying an insurance underwriter for inclusion and display on the insurance policy so as to provide the means to provide multiple carriers of insurance and also provides the ability to select a carrier based on the individual activity that the user is engaged.” (please see [0104]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Kabir whose telephone number is (571)270-13411. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sam Sough can be reached on (571) 272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohammad Kabir/
Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192