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 Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 30 September 2025. Applicant’s amendment on 30 September 2025 amended Claims 1-7, and 9-23. Currently Claims 1-24 are pending and have been examined. The Examiner notes that the 101 rejection have been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 12-14 that “Determining whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception to patent-eligibility is a two-prong inquiry. First, the Examiner must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception, then the claim is patent-eligible. Second, if the claim recites a judicial exception, then the Examiner must determine whether the claim integrates the exception into a practical application of the judicial exception. If the claim integrates the exception into a practical application of the judicial exception, then the claim is patent-eligible. Otherwise, the analysis proceeds to does not recite a judicial exception. Specifically: A Claim 1 does not recite any mathematical concepts. While some of the claim recitations may be based on mathematical concepts, those concepts are not recited in the claim. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.04(a)(Q)0). B. Claim 1 does not recite any of the enumerated methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, claim 1 does not recite any “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions. C. Claim 1 does not recite any mental processes. None of the operations recited in claim 1 are “practically performed in the human mind,” at least because they require employing a subscription manager service, within a subscription manager tenancy corresponding to a first realm of the plurality of realms, as a gateway for real-time control of management and creation of cloud service subscriptions corresponding to the first realm for maintaining security of the first realm, which is not possible by a human mind. See, e.g., January 2019 Examples, supra. Claim 1 does not recite any matter that falls within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, claim 1 is patent-eligible at least under Prong One of Step 2A.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments the Examiner notes that claim 1 does not recite a mental process is not persuasive because the argument conflates the Step 2A Prong One analysis (does the claim recite an abstract idea) with the Step 2A Prong Two analysis (does the claim integrate the exception into a practical application). At Prong One, the inquiry focuses on whether the claim recites subject matter falling within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, evaluated by determining whether the limitations, aside from generic computer components, could practically be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1 recites mental processes including: (1) "detecting a first request associated with creating or managing a first subscription," which is observing/receiving information; (2) "determining that the first request is validly received from a first source within the same first realm," which is evaluating data against criteria to reach a conclusion; (3) comparing the source realm to the subscription manager tenancy realm; and (4) making a binary decision to accept or deny the request based on predetermined rules. These operations—collecting information, comparing data to established criteria, evaluating validity, and making rule-based decisions—are concepts humans routinely perform mentally when managing subscriptions, access control, or organizational boundaries, albeit at different scales or speeds. The Federal Circuit has consistently held that such information-gathering, evaluation, and decision-making processes constitute abstract ideas even when applied to technological environments. See, e.g., Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom (collecting and analyzing information is abstract); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., (verifying validity of transactions is abstract).
Applicant's assertion that the recited operations are "not possible by a human mind" because they require employing computer components for "real-time control" and "maintaining security" addresses the practical application inquiry of Step 2A Prong Two, not whether an abstract idea is recited at Prong One. The presence of computer implementation or references to technological environments does not preclude a finding that mental processes are recited. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) expressly provides that a claim may recite a mental process even if performed on a computer. The speed, volume, or efficiency improvements offered by computer implementation are properly evaluated at Prong Two when determining whether additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application, not at Prong One when identifying whether an exception exists. Applicant has not shown that the fundamental nature of the claimed operations - detecting requests, evaluating their validity against criteria, and making binary accept/deny decisions - transcends mental processes merely because the claim specifies performance within a computing environment. Accordingly, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea within the mental process grouping, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
The Applicant argues on pages 14-15 that “Even if the Office classifies claim 1 as reciting a judicial exception, claim 1 as a whole integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. The January 2019 Guidance at pp. 54-55. “[T]n revised Step 2A examiners should ensure to give weight to all additional elements, whether or not they are conventional, when evaluating whether a judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application. A claim integrates an exception into a practical application when “an additional element recites an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” Jd. Claim 1 recites a specific manner of employing a subscription manager to maintain security and isolation of cloud resources by conditioning processing of a subscription request on a determination of whether the request is validly received within the realm, providing a specific improvement over prior system. See, e.g., Specification at par. [0035], [0044], [0057], [0065]- [0067], [0070], [0075], [0089], [0092], [0111], [0218]. Specifically, claim 1 recites employing a subscription manager service, within a subscription manager tenancy corresponding to a first realm of the plurality of realms, as a gateway for real-time control of management and creation of cloud service subscriptions corresponding to the first realm for maintaining security of the first realm. In claim 1, this is done at least by detecting a first request associated with creating or managing a first subscription for a cloud service and determining that the first request is validly received from a first source within the same first realm corresponding to the subscription manager tenancy. As recited in claim 1, employing a subscription manager service as a gateway for real-time control of management and creation of cloud service subscriptions at least by determining that the first request is validly received from a first source within the same first realm corresponding to the subscription manager tenancy are practical applications in the field of computer systems security. Because claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application of that exception, claim 1 is patent-eligible under at least Prong Two of Step 2A.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments the Examiner notes that the Applicant's argument that claim 1 integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application is not persuasive. While the January 2019 Guidance instructs Examiners to consider all additional elements when evaluating practical application, the additional elements must meaningfully integrate the exception into a practical application rather than merely apply the exception using generic computer components. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
The additional elements recited in Claim 1 - a subscription manager service, subscription manager tenancy, realm, and event stream - represent generic computer components and conventional networking structures that apply the abstract idea in a generic computerized environment without providing an improvement to computer technology itself. The claim essentially uses conventional access control mechanisms to implement the abstract concept of validating requests against organizational boundaries. While Applicant characterizes this as "maintaining security" and "real-time control," the claim does not recite any particular technological means of achieving this security or control that improves upon conventional validation techniques. Courts have repeatedly held that merely adding generic computer components to perform abstract ideas, even when described as providing "security" or operating in "real-time," does not constitute a practical application. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l; DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
Applicant's reliance on "employing a subscription manager service as a gateway" and "determining that the first request is validly received from a first source within the same first realm" does not recite an improvement to computer technology but rather describes a desired result of the abstract validation process—ensuring requests originate from authorized sources within defined boundaries. This is analogous to conventional firewall or access control functionality applied to cloud subscription management. The specification sections cited by Applicant describe the benefits of realm isolation and subscription management but do not disclose unconventional computer components or technical mechanisms that improve computer functionality beyond applying known access validation techniques. An improvement to computer technology requires more than performing known functions (access control, request validation) in a particular technological environment (cloud computing); it requires a technological solution to a technological problem. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. The claimed invention addresses the business challenge of managing subscriptions across organizational boundaries, not a technological problem inherent in computer systems.
Furthermore, the "real-time" aspect cited by Applicant addresses only the speed of performing the abstract process and does not reflect a technological improvement. Courts have held that merely performing abstract ideas faster or more efficiently using computers is insufficient for practical application. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. The claim would integrate the exception into a practical application if, for example, it recited a specific technological implementation that improves computer security mechanisms, modifies computer architecture to enable realm isolation through unconventional means, or provides a technological solution that enhances how computers enforce access boundaries. Instead, Claim 1 recites the abstract concept of conditional request processing based on source validation, implemented using generic computer components performing their basic functions. Accordingly, Claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
The Applicant argues on pages 15-16 that “EVEN IF THE OFFICE CLASSIFIES CLAIM 1 AS BEING DIRECTED TO A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION, CLAIM 1 RECITES ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION. If a claim is directed to a judicial exception, one must search the claim for “inventive concept,” i.e., one or more elements “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.". A claim recites “significantly more” than an abstract idea when it adds “a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or ... unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application.” A7PEP § 2106.05(D(A)(v). See, e.g., Bascom Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments the Examiner notes that Applicant's argument that claim 1 recites significantly more than the judicial exception is not persuasive. At Step 2B, the inquiry focuses on whether the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, provide an inventive concept that transforms the claim into significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements must constitute more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity" in the field. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The additional elements recited in Claim 1 including "subscription manager service," "subscription manager tenancy," "realm," "event stream," and "downstream services" represent well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components and organizational structures in cloud computing environments. The specification describes these elements using generic functional language without disclosing specific technological implementations that would elevate them beyond conventional cloud infrastructure components. A subscription manager service performing access control and request validation, tenancies providing logical isolation, realms establishing organizational boundaries, and event streams for publish-subscribe messaging are all conventional architectural patterns in distributed computing systems. The claim merely instructs the practitioner to use these generic components to apply the abstract idea of validating requests based on source authorization—the very approach the Supreme Court rejected in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, where conventional computer components were used to implement abstract ideas without adding an inventive concept.
Applicant's reliance on Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, is misplaced. In Bascom, the Federal Circuit found an inventive concept where the claims recited a "specific, discrete implementation" of filtering content at a remote ISP server rather than locally, which was unconventional and provided a technological solution allowing both customization and efficient network management. Id. at 1350-51. The Bascom claims detailed a particular technological arrangement that improved computer network functionality in a non-conventional way. In contrast, Claim 1 recites only high-level functional results "employing a subscription manager service as a gateway for real-time control" and "maintaining security" without specifying any particular technological implementation, architecture, or mechanism that distinguishes the claimed approach from conventional access control systems. The claim does not explain how the subscription manager achieves real-time control or security in a manner that differs from well-known validation techniques, nor does it recite a specific ordered combination of elements that creates a technological improvement.
The ordered combination recited in Claim 1 likewise fails to provide significantly more. The claim recites detecting a request, determining validity based on realm matching, accepting valid requests by publishing to an event stream, and denying invalid requests—a straightforward sequence of conventional operations that any access control system performs: receive request, validate credentials/source, grant or deny access. Publishing events to a stream is a conventional publish-subscribe messaging pattern widely used in distributed systems. Courts have held that conventional step-by-step processes for applying abstract ideas using generic computer technology do not constitute an inventive concept. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA).
To establish an inventive concept, Applicant would need to demonstrate that the claim recites specific technological improvements or unconventional implementations for example, a novel security mechanism that enhances realm isolation, an unconventional data structure that enables efficient cross-realm validation, or a particular architectural approach that solves a technical problem in cloud computing beyond merely applying known access control to subscription management. The claim as currently drafted uses generic functional language to describe conventional components performing their basic functions to implement the abstract validation concept. Accordingly, Claim 1 does not recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
The Applicant argues on page 16 that “Claim 1 recites techniques that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Claim a recites employing a subscription manager service, within a subscription manager tenancy corresponding to a first realm of the plurality of realms, as a gateway for real- time control of management and creation of cloud service subscriptions corresponding to the first realm for maintaining security of the first realm. In claim 1, this is done at least by detecting a first request associated with creating or managing a first subscription for a cloud service and determining that the first request is validly received from a first source within the same first realm corresponding to the subscription manager tenancy. Determining that the first request is validly received from a first source within the same first realm improves security by mitigating security risks from subscription requests that are not validly received from sources within a realm. See, e.g., Specification as filed at par. [0035], [0044], [0057], [0065]-[0067], [0070], [0075], [0089], [0092], [0111], and [0218]. In addition, prior systems did not determine whether a request for a cloud service is validly received from a source within the same realm as a subscription manager tenancy corresponding to that realm.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments the Examiner notes that Applicant's argument that Applicant's argument that Claim 1 recites significantly more than the judicial exception is not persuasive. At Step 2B, the inquiry focuses on whether the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, provide an inventive concept that transforms the claim into significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements must constitute more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity" in the field. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The additional elements recited in Claim 1 including "subscription manager service," "subscription manager tenancy," "realm," "event stream," and "downstream services" represent well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components and organizational structures in cloud computing environments. The specification describes these elements using generic functional language without disclosing specific technological implementations that would elevate them beyond conventional cloud infrastructure components. A subscription manager service performing access control and request validation, tenancies providing logical isolation, realms establishing organizational boundaries, and event streams for publish-subscribe messaging are all conventional architectural patterns in distributed computing systems. The claim merely instructs the practitioner to use these generic components to apply the abstract idea of validating requests based on source authorization the very approach the Supreme Court rejected in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, where conventional computer components were used to implement abstract ideas without adding an inventive concept.
Applicant's reliance on Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, is misplaced. In Bascom, the Federal Circuit found an inventive concept where the claims recited a "specific, discrete implementation" of filtering content at a remote ISP server rather than locally, which was unconventional and provided a technological solution allowing both customization and efficient network management. The Bascom claims detailed a particular technological arrangement that improved computer network functionality in a non-conventional way. In contrast, Claim 1 recites only high-level functional results "employing a subscription manager service as a gateway for real-time control" and "maintaining security" without specifying any particular technological implementation, architecture, or mechanism that distinguishes the claimed approach from conventional access control systems. The claim does not explain how the subscription manager achieves real-time control or security in a manner that differs from well-known validation techniques, nor does it recite a specific ordered combination of elements that creates a technological improvement.
The ordered combination recited in Claim 1 likewise fails to provide significantly more. The claim recites detecting a request, determining validity based on realm matching, accepting valid requests by publishing to an event stream, and denying invalid requests—a straightforward sequence of conventional operations that any access control system performs: receive request, validate credentials/source, grant or deny access. Publishing events to a stream is a conventional publish-subscribe messaging pattern widely used in distributed systems. Courts have held that conventional step-by-step processes for applying abstract ideas using generic computer technology do not constitute an inventive concept. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA).
To establish an inventive concept, Applicant would need to demonstrate that the claim recites specific technological improvements or unconventional implementations—for example, a novel security mechanism that enhances realm isolation, an unconventional data structure that enables efficient cross-realm validation, or a particular architectural approach that solves a technical problem in cloud computing beyond merely applying known access control to subscription management. The claim as currently drafted uses generic functional language to describe conventional components performing their basic functions to implement the abstract validation concept. Accordingly, Claim 1 does not recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
The Applicant argues on pages 17-19 that “The Examiner has not demonstrated that the elements recited in claim 1 are well- understood, routine, conventional activity. Applicant respectfully notes that “an examiner should only conclude that an element (or combination of elements} is well-understood, routine, conventional activity when the examiner can readily conclude, based on their expertise in the art, that the element is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry.” MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The Examiner is required to consider the elements recited in the claim both individually and in combination. “Even if one or more additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity when considered individually, the combination of additional elements may amount to an inventive concept.” MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I)(3). In addition, “an additional element (or combination of elements) is net well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following four options.” USPTO, Subject Matter Eligibility: Well- Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity (April 2018). Because none of the four options above are satisfied, the Examiner has failed to demonstrate that the elements recited in claim | are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In view of the above, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, and in any event recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments the Examiner notes that Applicant's argument has not demonstrated the claim elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is not persuasive. While MPEP § 2106.05(d) requires adequate support for such findings, the Examiner need not provide exhaustive documentation when the conventional nature of claim elements is apparent based on the Examiner's expertise in the art and the applicant's own specification. The April 2018 guidance identifies four options for supporting conventionality findings, and the Examiner's rejection satisfies multiple options.
First, the Examiner takes official notice, based on expertise in cloud computing and distributed systems, that the individual elements recited in Claim 1 represent well-understood, routine, and conventional components. Subscription management services that validate and process requests are conventional in cloud computing environments. Tenancies and compartmentalization for isolating resources within cloud infrastructures are standard organizational structures widely used by major cloud providers. Event streams implementing publish-subscribe messaging patterns are conventional mechanisms for decoupling services in distributed architectures. Access control systems that validate request sources against authorization criteria and accept or deny requests accordingly represent fundamental security practices routinely implemented across computing systems. The Examiner's official notice is reasonable because these concepts pervade cloud computing literature, are taught in standard computer science curricula, and are implemented by ordinary practitioners without experimentation or specialized knowledge. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) permits official notice when the conventionality of elements would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Second, Applicant's own specification supports the conventional nature of these elements. The specification describes the claimed components using generic functional language without indicating that any element represents a departure from known cloud computing practices. For example, the specification describes "subscription manager service," "tenancies," "realms," and "event streams" as standard architectural components within cloud infrastructure environments without disclosing novel structures, algorithms, or implementations. Paragraphs [0057], [0092], and [0094] acknowledge that the described cloud infrastructure architectures "may have other components" and represent "only some examples," indicating the claimed elements are variations of known systems rather than inventive departures. The specification's treatment of these elements as fungible components that can be arranged in various conventional configurations demonstrates their routine nature. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., (specification's description of elements as known can support conventionality finding).
Third, considering the elements as an ordered combination does not change the analysis. Claim 1 recites a straightforward sequence: receive a subscription request, determine if the request originates from within the authorized realm boundary, publish an acceptance event if valid, and deny the request if invalid. This ordered combination represents the conventional logical flow of any access control system validate credentials/authorization, then grant or deny access accordingly. The claim does not recite a non-conventional arrangement, a surprising interaction between elements, or a combination that produces unexpected results. The addition of publishing to an event stream after validation represents a conventional design choice for notifying downstream services in distributed systems and does not transform the combination into something inventive. Courts have repeatedly held that conventional ordered combinations of conventional elements performing conventional functions do not provide an inventive concept. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc. (conventional database operations in conventional order lack inventive concept).
Applicant argues that "none of the four options above are satisfied" but does not identify what evidence would be required or explain why the Examiner's official notice and reliance on the specification are insufficient. If Applicant believes the claimed elements are unconventional, the burden shifts to Applicant to provide evidence demonstrating their non-conventional nature—for example, by showing that the specific combination of subscription manager operating as a realm-boundary gateway with event-stream publication represents a departure from known cloud security architectures, or that practitioners in the field would find the claimed approach unexpected or requiring specialized implementation beyond routine skill. Applicant has provided no such evidence. Merely asserting that the Examiner must satisfy documentation requirements without addressing the substance of the conventionality determination does not overcome the rejection.
To properly traverse this rejection, Applicant should provide objective evidence demonstrating that one or more claim elements or their combination represents a departure from well-understood cloud computing practices—for example, technical articles showing that the claimed approach solves a problem that existing cloud security architectures could not address, expert declarations establishing that the combination produces unexpected results, or specification disclosure explaining why the claimed implementation differs from conventional access control mechanisms in a technologically significant way. Absent such showing, the claim recites conventional components performing conventional functions in a conventional manner to apply the abstract idea. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
The remaining Applicant's arguments filed 30 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) 1-24 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) 1-24 is/are directed to the abstract idea of the management of content subscriptions for consumers. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim(s) (1-24) is/are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (from the January 2019 §101 Examination Guidelines), claim(s) (1-8) is/are directed to a system, claim(s) (9-16) is/ are directed to a method, and claims(s) (17-24) is/are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and therefore the claims recites a series of steps and, therefore the claims are viewed as falling in statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process. Specifically, the independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite a mental process as drafted, the claim recites the limitation of determining a request regarding the management of subscriptions which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the a processor language, the claim encompasses the user using previously collected subscriber data to validate the management of subscriptions. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor or even cloud computing which is used to store the subscription data in a manner inline with a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. It has been established by ongoing guidance that claims that contain a generic processor are still viewed as mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, however this is different for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (network monitoring, data encryption for communication, and rendering images). Therefore, these limitations are viewed a mental process. Additionally, with regard to the instant application the Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and determined that the underlying claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of a pen and paper, and thus it is viewed that the applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, and therefore is considered to recite a mental process.
Note to the Applicant per the 2019 October Guidance: The 2019 PEG sets forth a test that distills the relevant case law to aid in examination, and does not attempt to articulate each and every decision. As further explained in the 2019 PEG, the Office has shifted its approach from the case-comparison approach in determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea and instead uses enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent. By grouping the abstract ideas, the 2019 PEG shifts examiners’ focus from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types. In sum, the 2019 PEG synthesizes the holdings of various court decisions to facilitate examination.
Step 2A Prong 2
Specifically the determined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and additionally that data publishing and processing steps required to use the determining step do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity (including post solution activity).
The claim recites the additional element(s): that a processor is used to perform the determining steps. The processor in the step is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (managing subscriptions). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does 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 the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element(s): hosting a cloud computing environment, employing a subscription, detecting a first request, detecting a second request, and denying the second request performs the determining step. The hosting, employing, detecting, and denying steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of utilizing subscription data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data management, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the determining step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the determining step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor).
The Examiner has further determined that the claims as a whole does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in order to provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. It has been determined that based on the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. It has not been provided clearly in the disclosure that the alleged improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, but is instead in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore does not improve the technology. Second, in the instance, which in this case it is not clear that the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must not reflect the disclosed improvement (the claims must include components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification).
Note to the Applicant from the October 2019 Guidance: Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgment on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
For further clarification the Examiner points out that the claim(s) 1-24 recite(s) hosting a cloud computing environment, employing a subscription manager service, determining a first request, determining the first request, determining the first request, detecting a second request, denying the second request publishing an event message, and process the request which are viewed as an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a computer for hosting a cloud computing environment, employing a subscription manager service, detecting a first request, determining that the first request, determining that the first report is validly, accepting the first request, detecting a second request, determining that the second request is not validity and denying the second request which is the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea (management of content subscriptions for consumers) in the manner of “apply it”.
Thus, the claims recites an abstract idea directed to a mental process (i.e. to manage content subscriptions for consumers). Using a computer for hosting, employing, detecting, determining, determining, detecting, determining, and denying p the data resulting from this kind of mental process merely implements the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide 'something more' to make the claimed invention patent eligible. The claimed limitations of a computing device is not constraining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not provide significantly more.
The determining a request determining with the management of subscriptions would clearly be to a mental activity that a company would go through in order to decide which content to provide to a user. The specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is directed to the mental activity data gathering and data analysis to determine which users have access to content based on the subscription:
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’.
The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 recite limitations which further limit the claimed analysis of data.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, 20-22, and 24 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed insignificantly extra solution activity.
Using a computer to perform the data processing as claimed is merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide significantly more. Additionally with respect to the Berkheimer the Examiner points out that the steps of the claim are viewed to be to nothing more than spell out what it means to apply it on a computer and cannot confer patent-eligibility as there are no additional limitations beyond applying an abstract idea, restricted to a computer. As the claims are merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “Apply It” the need for a Berkheimer analysis does not apply and is not required. With respect to the currently filed claims the implementing steps can be found in Li which discloses how the claims alone and in combination are viewed to be well understood, routine and conventional based on point 3 of the Berkheimer memo and subsequent evidence, complying with and providing evidence.
Claims 7, 15, and 23 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed non-functional data labels.
Thus, the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on gathered and analyzed information about the management of subscriptions. This is not a technical or technological problem but is rather in the realm of subscription management and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) 1-24 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This is the case because in order for the claims to be viewed as significantly more the claims must incorporate the integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more. Additionally, another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. All together the above analysis shows there is not improvement in computer functionality, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. The claim is ineligible.
Additionally, with respect to the Berkheimer as noted above the same analysis applies to the 2B where the claims are viewed as applying it and as such no further analysis is required. However, with respect to the current claims hosting, employing, detecting, determining, detecting, determining, and denying that are viewed as extra solution or post solution activity the Examiner notes that the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional because a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). An appropriate publication such as the currently cited prior art Li provides those extra solution activities and is viewed as a form of publication which also includes a book, manual, review article, or other source that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry. The claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies of the independent claims.
With respect to the legal concept of prima facie case being a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and the applicant. MPEP § 2106.07 discusses the requirements of a prima facie case of ineligibility. In particular, the initial burden was on the Examiner and believed to be properly provided as to explain why the claim(s) are ineligible for patenting because of the above provided rejection which clearly and specifically points out in accordance with properly providing the requirement satisfying the initial burden of proof based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the burden now shifts to the applicant.
Therefore, based on the above analysis as conducted based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office the claims are viewed as a court recognized abstract idea, are viewed as a judicial exception, does not integrate the claims into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept, therefore the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0144440 A1) in view of
Referring to Claim 1, Li teaches a system:
one or more computers hardware processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (see; par. [0057] of Li teaches a processor, and non-transitory computer-readable media).
program instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable media which, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: (see; par. [0057] of Li teaches non-transitory computer readable media and a processor to perform computing).
hosting a cloud computing environment comprising a plurality of realms within which subscriptions to cloud services are provided (see; par. [0057]-[0058] and par. [0064] of Li teaches a host operating system with cloud computing).
wherein the event message is consumed by one or more downstream services to process the first request associated with creating or managing the first subscription (see; par. [0029] of Li teaches supporting multiple services that process a request to consume an event, par. [0047] as part of a subscription management).
Li does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Smith teaches employing a subscription manager service, within a subscription manager tenancy corresponding to a first realm of the plurality of realms, as a gateway for real-time control of management and creation of cloud service subscriptions corresponding to the first realm for maintaining security of the first realm at least by (see; par. [0698] of Smith teaches an example of employing a subscription service where new subscriptions which are auto created, Fig. 92 and par. [0724] that is responsive to new requests), and
detecting a first request associated with creating or managing a first subscription for a cloud service (see; par. [0698] of Smith teaches an example of employing a subscription service and requesting new subscriptions which are auto created, Fig. 92 and par. [0724] of that is responsive to new requests), and
determining that the first request is validly received from a first source within the same first realm corresponding to the subscription manager tenancy (see; par. [0345] of Smith teaches validation of the transaction, par. [0728] where an example of validating the subscription takes place, and par. [1199] where the permission guide outlines and permits the tenancy), and
responsive to detecting the first request and determining that the first request is validly received from the first source within the first realm (see; par. [0345] of Smith teaches validation of the transaction, par. [0728] where an example of validating the subscription takes place), and
accepting the first request in real-time at least by publishing, by the subscription manager service associated with the first realm to an event stream, an event message associated with creating or managing the first subscription (see; par. [1717] of Smith teaches a subscription manager, par. [0728] where a request is validated regarding a network service element), and
detecting a second request associated with creating or managing a second subscription for the cloud service (see; par. [0097] of Smith teaches the handling of new service requests (i.e. managing a second, third, etc. subscription), par. [0728] including the validation of the subscription), and
determining that the second request is not validly received from any source within the same first realm corresponding to the subscription manager tenancy (see; par. [0097] of Smith teaches the handling of new service requests (i.e. managing a second, third, etc. subscription), par. [0345] and par. [0728] including the validation of the subscription, par. [1232] deny access), and
responsive to determining that the first request is not validly received from any source within the first realm: denying the second request (see; par. [0619] of Smith teaches a validator that can refuse or ignore invalid packets for any request).
The Examiner notes that Li teaches similar to the instant application teaches streaming event content based on filtering. Specifically, Li discloses the determining that an event consumer that is a subscriber of an event stream of an event stream it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Smith teaches providing communications to a large number of Internet-of-Things and as it is comparable in certain respects to Li which streaming event content based on filtering as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Li discloses the determining that an event consumer that is a subscriber of an event stream of an event stream. However, Li fails to disclose employing a subscription manager service, within a subscription manager tenancy corresponding to a first realm of the plurality of realms, as a gateway for real-time control of management and creation of cloud service subscriptions corresponding to the first realm for maintaining security of the first realm at least by detecting a first request associated with creating or managing a first subscription for a cloud service. Determining that the first request is validly received from a first source within the same first realm corresponding to the subscription manager tenancy. Responsive to detecting the first request and determining that the first request is validly received from the first source within the first realm. Accepting the first request in real-time at least by publishing, by the subscription manager service associated with the first realm to an event stream, an event message associated with creating or managing the first subscription. Detecting a second request associated with creating or managing a second subscription for the cloud service. Determining that the second request is not validly received from any source within the same first realm corresponding to the subscription manager tenancy and responsive to determining that the first request is not validly received from any source within the first realm: denying the second request.
Smith discloses employing a subscription manager service, within a subscription manager tenancy corresponding to a first realm of the plurality of realms, as a gateway for real-time control of management and creation of cloud service subscriptions corresponding to the first realm for maintaining security of the first realm at least by detecting a first request associated with creating or managing a first subscription for a cloud service. Determining that the first request is validly received from a first source within the same first realm corresponding to the subscription manager tenancy. Responsive to detecting the first request and determining that the first request is validly received from the first source within the first realm. Accepting the first request in real-time at least by publishing, by the subscription manager service associated with the first realm to an event stream, an event message associated with creating or managing the first subscription. Detecting a second request associated with creating or managing a second subscription for the cloud service. Determining that the second request is not validly received from any source within the same first realm corresponding to the subscription manager tenancy and responsive to determining that the first request is not validly received from any source within the first realm: denying the second request.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Li the employing a subscription manager service, within a subscription manager tenancy corresponding to a first realm of the plurality of realms, as a gateway for real-time control of management and creation of cloud service subscriptions corresponding to the first realm for maintaining security of the first realm at least by detecting a first request associated with creating or managing a first subscription for a cloud service. Determining that the first request is validly received from a first source within the same first realm corresponding to the subscription manager tenancy. Responsive to detecting the first request and determining that the first request is validly received from the first source within the first realm. Accepting the first request in real-time at least by publishing, by the subscription manager service associated with the first realm to an event stream, an event message associated with creating or managing the first subscription. Detecting a second request associated with creating or managing a second subscription for the cloud service. Determining that the second request is not validly received from any source within the same first realm corresponding to the subscription manager tenancy and responsive to determining that the first request is not validly received from any source within the first realm: denying the second request as taught by Smith since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Li and Smith teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to maximize the utilization of resource using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 2, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Li in view of Smith teaches the system above, Li further discloses a system having the limitations of:
wherein the first realm is associated with a first entity: the subscription manager service operates independently of a second subscription manager service operating within a subscription manager tenancy of a second realm associated with a second entity (see; par. [0053] of Li teaches utilizing a multi tenancy architecture to handle multiple instances (i.e. multiple realms), par. [0035]-[0041] that takes advantage of a subscription manager that works with a delivery manager to multiple entities).
wherein the first entity is a first operator that provides subscriptions to customers within realms associated with the first operator (see; par. [0046] of Li teaches a subscription manager that provides subscriptions for customers and based on different operators associated with the customer such as a location (i.e. 1st operator)).
wherein the second entity is a second operator that provides subscriptions to customers within realms associated with the second operator (see; par. [0046] of Li teaches a subscription manager that provides subscriptions for customers and based on different operators associated with the customer such as a location (i.e. 2nd operator)).
Referring to Claim 3, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Li in view of Smith teaches the system above, Li further discloses a system having the limitations of:
determining the first request is validly received from the first source comprises (see; par. [0039] and par. [0065] of Li teaches determining the validity of a request as part of a subscription).
determining a compartment associated with the first request is authorized to communicate the first request to the subscription manager service for processing (see; par. [0065] of Li teaches determining an authorized user for a subscription).
Referring to Claim 4, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Li in view of Smith teaches the system above, Li further discloses a system having the limitations of:
the event message associated with the first subscription is generated, by the subscription manager service, prior to being published to the event stream (see; par. [0019] of Li teaches an event producer that is utilized for the recordation (i.e. generated) prior to the distribution of the event, and based on the subscribed topic the event is delivered (i.e. stream)).
Referring to Claim 5, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Li in view of Smith teaches the system above, Li further discloses a system having the limitations of:
in response to the event message being consumed by downstream services to process the first request associated with creating or managing the first subscription, one or more responses are generated by the downstream services (see; par. [0037] of Li teaches processing the request where the delivery of subscribed events in concerts with the subscription manager and can provide topics or partitions for the appropriate event).
Referring to Claim 6, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Li in view of Smith teaches the system above, Li further discloses a system having the limitations of:
in response to the downstream services generating one or more responses, the subscription manager service generates another event message associated with the first subscription (see; par. [0030] of Li teaches the vent publication manager generates to external event distribution and recordation system, par. [0035] then creates the vent distribution based on the subscription request).
wherein the other event message is published, by the subscription manager service, to the event stream (see; par. [0035] of Li teaches a subscription manager, par. [0033] used to publish events on a stream).
Referring to Claim 7, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Li in view of Smith teaches the system above, Li further discloses a system having the limitations of:
Wherein the first realm is associated with a first entity; an operator tenancy is defined within the first realm, the operator tenancy being associated with the first entity (see; par. [0028] of Li teaches each of the instance events is managed by the multi-tenant system and a first event is sent to a consumer (i.e. first entity)).
wherein an intermediate resource tenancy is defined within the first realm, the intermediate resource tenancy being associated with the first entity (see; par. [0035]-[0041] of Li teaches the subscription manager access multiple resources that are a part of different tenants which are different organizations (i.e. intermediate resources)).
wherein the subscription manager tenancy is associated with a provider of the cloud computing environment (see; par. [0064] of Li teaches a multi-tenant cloud system, par. [0041] that provides a subscription service to consumers).
Referring to Claim 8, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Li in view of Smith teaches the system above, Li further discloses a system having the limitations of:
the system of wherein the subscription manager service accesses resources owned by the first entity via the intermediate resource tenancy (see; par. [0035]-[0041] of Li teaches the subscription manager access multiple resources that are a part of different tenants which are different organizations (i.e. intermediate resources)).
Referring to Claim 9, Li in view of Smith teaches a method. Claim 9 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1, except for the following noted exception.
wherein the method is performed on one or more computers comprising one or more processors, wherein the cloud computing environment operates on the one or more computers (see; par. [0057] of Li teaches a processor, par. [0064] in a cloud computing environment, par. [0020] in order manage subscriptions for streaming content).
wherein the method is performed by at least one device including a hardware processor (see; par. [0029] of Li teaches performing a streaming event content on a device).
Referring to Claim 10, see discussion of claim 9 above, while in view of Smith teaches the system above Claim 10 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 2, Claim 10 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 2.
Referring to Claim 11, see discussion of claim 9 above, while in view of Smith teaches the system above Claim 11 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3, Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 3.
Referring to Claim 12, see discussion of claim 9 above, while in view of Smith teaches the system above Claim 12 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4, Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 4.
Referring to Claim 13, see discussion of claim 9 above, while in view of Smith teaches the system above Claim 13 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5, Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 5.
Referring to Claim 14, see discussion of claim 9 above, while in view of Smith teaches the system above Claim 14 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6, Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 6.
Referring to Claim 15, see discussion of claim 9 above, while in view of Smith teaches the system above Claim 15 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7, Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 7.
Referring to Claim 16, see discussion of claim 9 above, while in view of Smith teaches the system above Claim 16 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 8, Claim 16 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 8.
Referring to Claim 17, in view of Smith teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Claim 17 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1
Referring to Claim 18, see discussion of claim 17 above, while in view of Smith teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium above Claim 18 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 2, Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 2.
Referring to Claim 19, see discussion of claim 17 above, while in view of Smith teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium above Claim 19 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3, Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 3.
Referring to Claim 20, see discussion of claim 17 above, while in view of Smith teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium above Claim 20 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4, Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 4.
Referring to Claim 21, see discussion of claim 17 above, while in view of Smith teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium above Claim 21 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5, Claim 21 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 5.
Referring to Claim 22, see discussion of claim 17 above, while in view of Smith teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium above Claim 22 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6, Claim 22 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 6.
Referring to Claim 23, see discussion of claim 17 above, while in view of Smith teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium above Claim 23 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7, Claim 23 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 7.
Referring to Claim 24, see discussion of claim 17 above, while in view of Smith teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium above Claim 24 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 8, Claim 24 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Kostov et al. (U.S. Patent 11,070,492 B2) discloses pooling public cloud resources from different subscriptions using reservations.
Doering et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0074793 A1) discloses a service archive support.
Vasudevan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0075034 A1) discloses a customizable model for throttling and prioritizing orders in a cloud environment.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571 272-. 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.
/SSS/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623