DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a FINAL office action in response to the Applicant’s response filed 7 November 2025.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 18, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 11, 12, and 17 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-10, 13-16, and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 November 2025 with regards to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 7 of their response, “The present Application is directed to a system and computer-readable medium which utilizes a spreadsheet tool to provide indications to a user regarding the status of an external data source or flagging inconsistencies between a docketing system and a data source. The problem to be solved by the invention is improved synchronicity between technological databases. Applicant respectfully submits that the claim limitations present a technological solution to a technological problem relating to the interconnectivity of databases, rather than business relations and human relationships as asserted in the Office Action. For at least this reason, the limitations are not directed toward an abstract idea and are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. With respect to the Applicant’s argument that the, “the claim limitations present a technological solution to a technological problem relating to the interconnectivity of databases, rather than business relations and human relationships,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, the Applicant has made a conclusory statement that the claims present a technological solution to a technological problem relating to the interconnectivity of databases, however they have failed to rebut any portion of the previously stated rejection, which stated in paragraphs 6 of the previous Non-Final rejection, “In particular, producing a user interface describing a plurality of matters associated with parameters, receiving an indication in a change in a parameter, creating an embedded alert in the user interface according to the change in the parameter, and notifying a user of the embedded alerts in the interface; encompasses tracking changes in a record, and notifying a managing entity of the changes; which is the management of commercial activity (business relations), and managing human relationships. Therefore, the claims recite elements that fall into the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.” That is, the Applicant’s conclusory statement that the claims present a technological solution to a technological problem relating to the interconnectivity of databases, without identifying any specific elements of the claims that recite this, and without rebutting why the specifically identified elements recite an abstract idea, the Examiner is not persuaded of error. In addition, it is noted that the claims do not recite any elements with regards to synchronizing databases, as the Applicant has argued the claims reflect, but instead state, “producing a user-configurable spreadsheet user interface, the spreadsheet user interface describing a plurality of matters stored in an external data source in an external data source accessed by a spreadsheet driven alert system, the spreadsheet alert system comprising a spreadsheet alert database including the plurality of matters; associating each matter of the plurality of matters included in the spreadsheet alert database with one or more alert parameters, wherein the one or more alert parameters indicate at least one of a status of the spreadsheet alert database or a change in the status of the spreadsheet alert database; associating each matter of the plurality of matters stored in the external database with one or more external parameters, wherein the one or more external parameters indicate at least one of a status of the external database or a change in the status of the external database; identifying an inconsistency between the one or more alert parameters and the one or more external parameters; creating one or more embedded alerts in the spreadsheet user interface in response to the inconsistency, each of the one or more embedded alerts associated with one of the plurality of matters; and notifying a user of the one or more embedded alerts in the spreadsheet user interface.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the Applicant’s claims have stated producing a spreadsheet that describes a plurality of matters in an external database that is accessed by an alert system that has a spreadsheet alert database that includes the matters, associating each matter of the plurality of matters included in the spreadsheet alert database with one or more alert parameters that indicate a status of the spreadsheet alert database, associating the matters in the external database with external parameters that represent the status of the matters, identifying an inconsistency between the alert parameters and the external parameters, creating an alert in the spreadsheet, and notifying a user with the alert. As shown here, the claims do not recite any elements regarding synchronizing databases, and instead recite alerting users to inconsistencies in parameters stored in databases; which is line with the previous and current rejection. It is also noted, that with regards to the Applicant’s general argument with regards to improvements in technology, MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but 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), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the Applicant’s conclusory statement of improvement does not include any evidence, as set forth in the original description, that describes the argued improvement, and thus, the Applicant’s argument is deemed not persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 8 of their response, “Similar to the filtering patent in Bascom, the claims in combination recite a specific implementation of a non-generic method for synchronizing data sources. The claim limitations disclosing the use of a processor and memory to produce a user-configurable spreadsheet user interface describing a plurality of matters located in an external data source, associate each matter of the plurality of matters stored in each database with one or more parameters, identify an inconsistency between the one or more alert parameters and the one or more external parameters, and create one or more embedded alerts in the spreadsheet user interface in response to the inconsistency represents a specific non-generic use of computer elements that improves existing technology for synchronizing data sources. For at least these reasons, the claims in combination are not directed to an abstract idea and are therefore patent eligible. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 101 rejection to claims 1-20 are respectfully requested.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. With regards to the Applicant’s argument that, “the claims in combination recite a specific implementation of a non-generic method for synchronizing data sources. The claim limitations disclosing the use of a processor and memory to produce a user-configurable spreadsheet user interface describing a plurality of matters located in an external data source, associate each matter of the plurality of matters stored in each database with one or more parameters, identify an inconsistency between the one or more alert parameters and the one or more external parameters, and create one or more embedded alerts in the spreadsheet user interface in response to the inconsistency represents a specific non-generic use of computer elements that improves existing technology for synchronizing data sources,” the Examiner is not persuaded. As discussed above with respect to the Applicant’s argument of improving synchronicity between databases, the claims do not recite any elements directed towards synchronizing databases; but instead, are directed to notifying users of inconsistencies between alert parameters and external parameters, wherein the alert parameters and external parameters relate to the status or change of status in alert and external databases. As such, the Applicant’s argument that the claims represent a specific non-generic use of computer elements that improves existing technology for synchronizing data sources, the Examiner notes that no such improvement has been shown. Additionally, it is noted that, as noted above, the Applicant has failed to show any evidence of the argued improvement, as required under MPEP 2106.05(a), but instead, they have merely made a conclusory statement of improvement. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 18 with regards to alert and external parameters and identifying an inconsistency between the two have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-10, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite producing a user-configurable spreadsheet user interface, the spreadsheet user interface describing a plurality of matters stored in an external data source accessed by a spreadsheet driven alert system, the spreadsheet alert system comprising a spreadsheet alert database including the plurality of matters; associating each matter of the plurality of matters included in the spreadsheet alert database with one or more alert parameters, wherein the one or more alert parameters indicate at least one of a status of the spreadsheet alert database or a change in the status of the spreadsheet alert database; associating each matter of the plurality of matters stored in the external database with one or more external parameters, wherein the one or more external parameters indicate at least one of a status of the external database or a change in the status of the external database; identifying an inconsistency between the one or more alert parameters and the one or more external parameters; creating one or more embedded alerts in the spreadsheet user interface in response to the inconsistency, each of the one or more embedded alerts associated with one of the plurality of matters; and notifying a user of the one or more embedded alerts in the spreadsheet user interface.
The limitations of producing a user-configurable spreadsheet user interface describing a plurality of matters stored in an external data source accessed by a spreadsheet driven alert system, associating each matter of the plurality of matters with one or more alert parameters which indicate a status of the spreadsheet alert database a change in the status, associating each matter of the plurality of matters stored in the external database with one or more external parameters that indicate a status of the external database or a change in the status, identifying an inconsistency between the one or more alert parameters and the one or more external parameters, creating an alert in the spreadsheet user interface in response to the inconsistency, and notifying a user of the alerts in the spreadsheet user interface; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses the management of commercial activity (business relations), and managing human relationships. That is, other than reciting the user of generic computer elements (user-configurable spreadsheet interface, processor, memory, alert system, alert database, external database, data source), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, producing a user spreadsheet user interface describing a plurality of matters stored in an external data source, associating each matter of the plurality of matters with one or more alert parameters which indicate a status of the spreadsheet alert database a change in the status, associating each matter of the plurality of matters stored in the external database with one or more external parameters that indicate a status of the external database or a change in the status, identifying an inconsistency between the one or more alert parameters and the one or more external parameters, creating an alert in the spreadsheet user interface in response to the inconsistency, and notifying a user of the alerts in the spreadsheet user interface; which is the management of commercial activity (business relations), and managing human relationships, including identifying the inconsistencies between two data sets (parameters stored in different places) that are relevant to the user, and notifying the user of the inconsistency. Therefore, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (user-configurable spreadsheet interface, processor, memory, alert system, alert database, external database, data source) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. Additionally, it is noted that the that the type of interface being presented (spreadsheet), is merely a narrowing of the field of use by generally describing the generic format in which information is presented and interacted with. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-10, 13-16, 19 and 20, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite that the interface produces information from a type of source (docketing system, governmental database), which merely further narrows the field of use by defining the source type for data to be retrieved, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 2, 3, 19, and 20). In addition, the claims further recite that the type of matters that are evaluated (patent cases), which merely further narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 4). In addition, the claims further recite the type of parameters evaluated for changes and the type of changes, which merely further narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 5-7). In addition, the claims further recite content of alerts and conditions for providing an alert of a change, which merely further narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 8-10). In addition, the claims further recite notifying a user of a change in status of a data source (e.g. offline, disconnected, no response), which merely further recites the abstract idea of managing commercial interactions and managing human interactions (e.g. informing a party of failure to communicate with another party); thus, the claims further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 13). In addition, the claims further recite the type of alerts and conditions for alerts to be generated (e.g. a discrepancy in data is found); which merely further narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 14-16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bebber (US 2018/0218451 A1) (hereinafter Bebber), in view of Sherman (US 2024/0185203 A1) (hereinafter Sherman).
With respect to claims 1 and 18, Bebber teaches:
Producing a user-configurable spreadsheet user interface, the spreadsheet user interface describing a plurality of matters stored in an external data source accessed by a spreadsheet driven alert system (See at least paragraphs 38, 42, 53, 54, 106, 107, 109, 183, 184, and 185 which describe generating a user interface, which can be in a spreadsheet form, wherein the interface is used to track matters concerning patents and trademarks in a user portfolio).
Associating each matter of the plurality of matters stored in the external database with one or more external parameters, wherein the one or more external parameters indicate at least one of a status of the external database or a change in the status of the external database; Identifying an inconsistency between the one or more alert parameters and the one or more external parameters (See at least paragraphs 93, 137, and 148 which describe associating a user’s patent and trademark application data that is stored on government databases with parameters indicating the status of the applications).
Creating one or more embedded alerts in the spreadsheet user interface in response to the inconsistency each of the one or more embedded alerts associated with one of the plurality of matters; and notifying a user of the one or more embedded alerts in the spreadsheet user interface (See at least paragraphs 42-45, 59, 67, 93, 97, 107, 110, 137, 141, 143, 148, and 183 which describe receiving updates from a data source regarding status updates of for matters that are monitored, wherein the updates include a response from a government body, deadlines, correspondences, and fees due, and wherein notifications about the updates are provided on the user interface).
Bebber discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 18 as stated above. Bebber does not explicitly disclose the following, however Sherman teaches:
Producing a user-configurable spreadsheet user interface, the spreadsheet user interface describing a plurality of matters stored in an external data source accessed by a spreadsheet driven alert system, the spreadsheet alert system comprising a spreadsheet alert database including the plurality of matters (See at least paragraphs 190-194, 199, and 212 which describe creating a user dashboard interface which describes applications in a government database (e.g. the USPTO’s database), wherein the government database is accessed by the an alert system of the dashboard system that tracks desired applications).
Associating each matter of the plurality of matters included in the spreadsheet alert database with one or more alert parameters, wherein the one or more alert parameters indicate at least one of a status of the spreadsheet alert database or a change in the status of the spreadsheet alert database; Identifying an inconsistency between the one or more alert parameters and the one or more external parameters; Creating one or more embedded alerts in the spreadsheet user interface in response to the inconsistency, each of the one or more embedded alerts associated with one of the plurality of matters (See at least paragraphs 190-194, 199, 208, 212, and 213 which describe associating information in the alert system with the status of applications, wherein the system identifies when there is inconsistency between the government database status information regarding the user’s applications and the status information stored in the alert system, wherein the dashboard generates an alert for users regarding the inconsistency and updates the status with the current status).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of monitoring an IP office’s database for updates to matters being considered, wherein the system generates notifications for the interested party based on changes in the matters and requirements for the matters of Bebber, with the system and method of associating information in the alert system with the status of applications, wherein the system identifies when there is inconsistency between the government database status information regarding the user’s applications and the status information stored in the alert system, wherein the dashboard generates an alert for users regarding the inconsistency and updates the status with the current status of Sherman. By associating matters in an alert system with status information, and alerting users to inconsistencies between the alert system and a government system that stores status information for pending applications, a patent and trademark tracking system, which practitioners and clients use, will predictably be able to keep track of the current status of pending applications and a user’s portfolio, thus enabling them to stay current with regards to their pending and allowed applications.
With respect to claims 2 and 19, The combination of Bebber and Sherman discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 18 as stated above. In addition, Bebber teaches:
Wherein producing the user-configurable spreadsheet user interface comprising automatically producing data from a docketing system, connected to the spreadsheet alert system (See at least paragraphs 38, 42-45, 52, 59, 89, 93, 137, 150, and 183 which describe the interface collecting information from a docketing system of a government body, such as a Patent or Trademark Office).
With respect to claims 3 and 20, Bebber/Sherman discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 18 as stated above. In addition, Bebber teaches:
Wherein producing the user-configurable spreadsheet user interface comprises scraping case data from a governmental database (See at least paragraphs 38, 42-45, 52, 59, 89, 93, 137, 150, and 183 which describe the interface collecting information from a docketing system of a government body, such as a Patent or Trademark Office).
With respect to claim 4, Bebber/Sherman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Bebber teaches:
Wherein the plurality of matters comprises patent cases (See at least paragraphs 42, 52, 54, 78, and 80 which describe the matters monitored are patent cases).
With respect to claim 5, Bebber/Sherman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Bebber teaches:
Wherein the one or more alert parameters and the one or more external parameters comprises at least a status of each of the plurality of matters (See at least paragraphs 42, 45, 52, 54, 59, 93, 137, 141, and 143 which describe monitoring matters for status updates, including examination reports, notice of allowances, fees due, deadline for responses, etc.).
With respect to claim 6, Bebber/Sherman discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 5 as stated above. In addition, Bebber teaches:
Wherein the status comprises one or more of unfiled, pending, published, allowed, granted, issued, expired, completed, restricted, rejected, finally rejected, appealed, or other status indicators (See at least paragraphs 42, 45, 52, 54, 59, 93, 137, 141, and 143 which describe monitoring matters for status updates, including examination reports, notice of allowances, fees due, deadline for responses, etc.).
With respect to claim 7, Bebber discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Bebber teaches:
Wherein identifying an inconsistency between the one or more alert parameters and the one or more external parameters occurs in response to receiving a notification of a notice of allowance (See at least paragraphs 42, 45, 52, 54, 59, 93, 137, 141, and 143 which describe monitoring matters for status updates, including examination reports, notice of allowances, fees due, deadline for responses, etc.).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bebber and Sherman as applied to claims 1 and 7 as stated above, and further in view of Chen (US 2010/0049769 A1) (hereinafter Chen).
With respect to claim 8, Bebber/Sherman discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7 as stated above. Bebber and Sherman do not explicitly disclose the following, however Chen teaches:
Wherein creating the one or more embedded alerts comprises creating an alert of a potential information disclosure statement (See at least paragraphs 61-64 which describe a system for monitoring information concerning correspondences from IP offices, from related applications, and from court cases, wherein the system provides an alert that a user needs to cite a reference on an IDS with the IP office).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of monitoring an IP office’s database for updates to matters being considered, wherein the system generates notifications for the interested party based on changes in the matters and requirements for the matters of Bebber, with the system and method of associating information in the alert system with the status of applications, wherein the system identifies when there is inconsistency between the government database status information regarding the user’s applications and the status information stored in the alert system, wherein the dashboard generates an alert for users regarding the inconsistency and updates the status with the current status of Sherman, with the system and method of monitoring information concerning correspondences from IP offices, from related applications, and from court cases, wherein the system provides an alert that a user needs to cite a reference on an IDS with the IP office of Chen. By monitoring sources for indications that an IDS should be filed with citations to references, a system will predictably provide assistance to parties to make sure they file required documentations with IP offices, thus ensuring that the parties do not have defective applications.
With respect to claim 9, Bebber/Sherman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Bebber and Sherman do not explicitly disclose the following, however Chen teaches:
Wherein identifying inconsistency between the one or more alert parameters and the one or more external parameters occurs in response to receiving a notification of a new citation (See at least paragraphs 61-64 which describe a system for monitoring information concerning correspondences from IP offices, from related applications, and from court cases, wherein the system provides an alert that a user needs to cite a reference on an IDS with the IP office).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of monitoring an IP office’s database for updates to matters being considered, wherein the system generates notifications for the interested party based on changes in the matters and requirements for the matters of Bebber, with the system and method of associating information in the alert system with the status of applications, wherein the system identifies when there is inconsistency between the government database status information regarding the user’s applications and the status information stored in the alert system, wherein the dashboard generates an alert for users regarding the inconsistency and updates the status with the current status of Sherman, with the system and method of monitoring information concerning correspondences from IP offices, from related applications, and from court cases, wherein the system provides an alert that a user needs to cite a reference on an IDS with the IP office of Chen. By monitoring sources for indications that an IDS should be filed with citations to references, a system will predictably provide assistance to parties to make sure they file required documentations with IP offices, thus ensuring that the parties do not have defective applications.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Bebber, Sherman, and Chen discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as stated above. In addition, Chen teaches:
Wherein creating the one or more embedded alerts comprises creating an alert of a potential information disclosure statement (See at least paragraphs 61-64 which describe a system for monitoring information concerning correspondences from IP offices, from related applications, and from court cases, wherein the system provides an alert that a user needs to cite a reference on an IDS with the IP office).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of monitoring an IP office’s database for updates to matters being considered, wherein the system generates notifications for the interested party based on changes in the matters and requirements for the matters of Bebber, with the system and method of associating information in the alert system with the status of applications, wherein the system identifies when there is inconsistency between the government database status information regarding the user’s applications and the status information stored in the alert system, wherein the dashboard generates an alert for users regarding the inconsistency and updates the status with the current status of Sherman, with the system and method of monitoring information concerning correspondences from IP offices, from related applications, and from court cases, wherein the system provides an alert that a user needs to cite a reference on an IDS with the IP office of Chen. By monitoring sources for indications that an IDS should be filed with citations to references, a system will predictably provide assistance to parties to make sure they file required documentations with IP offices, thus ensuring that the parties do not have defective applications.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bebber and Sherman as applied to claim 1 as stated above, and further in view of Thrasher (US 7685269 B1) (hereinafter Thrasher).
With respect to claim 13, Bebber/Sherman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Bebber and Sherman do not explicitly disclose the following, however Thrasher teaches:
Wherein the change in the status of the data source comprises a loss of connection between a database tool and the data source (See at least column 5 line 36 through column 6 line 17 which describe a system that contacts a remote database for updates regarding matters, wherein the system receives and displays a notification when a change in the status of the database has been determined, such as when it is offline and can’t respond to queries).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of monitoring an IP office’s database for updates to matters being considered, wherein the system generates notifications for the interested party based on changes in the matters and requirements for the matters of Bebber, with the system and method of associating information in the alert system with the status of applications, wherein the system identifies when there is inconsistency between the government database status information regarding the user’s applications and the status information stored in the alert system, wherein the dashboard generates an alert for users regarding the inconsistency and updates the status with the current status of Sherman, with the system and method of a system that contacts a remote database for updates regarding matters, wherein the system receives and displays a notification when a change in the status of the database has been determined, such as when it is offline and can’t respond to queries of Thrasher. By providing notification updates regarding the status of a data source, such as it’s connection status, a system will predictably alert parties to downtimes and uptimes regarding a data source’s system, which will predictably decrease customer dissatisfaction, and allow parties to take remedial actions when needed.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bebber and Sherman as applied to claim 1 as stated above, and further in view of Odutola (US 2015/0286734 A1) (hereinafter Odutola).
With respect to claim 14, Bebber/Sherman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Bebber and Sherman do not explicitly disclose the following, however Odutola teaches:
Wherein the one or more alert parameters and the one or more external parameters comprises a discrepancy in data associated with at least one of the plurality of matters (See at least paragraph 110 which describes a system that collects information pertaining to matters from multiple IP offices, wherein the system compares the information from the different sources against each other to identify discrepancies in the information and alert a party to the discrepancy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of monitoring an IP office’s database for updates to matters being considered, wherein the system generates notifications for the interested party based on changes in the matters and requirements for the matters of Bebber, with the system and method of associating information in the alert system with the status of applications, wherein the system identifies when there is inconsistency between the government database status information regarding the user’s applications and the status information stored in the alert system, wherein the dashboard generates an alert for users regarding the inconsistency and updates the status with the current status of Sherman, with the system and method of a system that collects information pertaining to matters from multiple IP offices, wherein the system compares the information from the different sources against each other to identify discrepancies in the information and alert a party to the discrepancy of Odutola. By comparing information from different sources in order to identify discrepancies, a IP management system will predictably be able to identify incorrect entries in data, such as ownership or inventor names, that comes with human error, thus reducing the likelihood of a mistake being missed during managing of an IP application.
With respect to claim 15, Bebber/Sherman/Odutola discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Odutola teaches:
Wherein creating one or more embedded alerts comprises notifying a user of the discrepancy (See at least paragraph 110 which describes a system that collects information pertaining to matters from multiple IP offices, wherein the system compares the information from the different sources against each other to identify discrepancies in the information and alert a party to the discrepancy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of monitoring an IP office’s database for updates to matters being considered, wherein the system generates notifications for the interested party based on changes in the matters and requirements for the matters of Bebber, with the system and method of associating information in the alert system with the status of applications, wherein the system identifies when there is inconsistency between the government database status information regarding the user’s applications and the status information stored in the alert system, wherein the dashboard generates an alert for users regarding the inconsistency and updates the status with the current status of Sherman, with the system and method of a system that collects information pertaining to matters from multiple IP offices, wherein the system compares the information from the different sources against each other to identify discrepancies in the information and alert a party to the discrepancy of Odutola. By comparing information from different sources in order to identify discrepancies, a IP management system will predictably be able to identify incorrect entries in data, such as ownership or inventor names, that comes with human error, thus reducing the likelihood of a mistake being missed during managing of an IP application.
With respect to claim 16, Bebber/Sherman/Odutola discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Odutola teaches:
Wherein the discrepancy occurs between two different sources of data related to at least one of the plurality of matters (See at least paragraph 110 which describes a system that collects information pertaining to matters from multiple IP offices, wherein the system compares the information from the different sources against each other to identify discrepancies in the information and alert a party to the discrepancy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the time of filing the invention to combine the system and method of monitoring an IP office’s database for updates to matters being considered, wherein the system generates notifications for the interested party based on changes in the matters and requirements for the matters of Bebber, with the system and method of associating information in the alert system with the status of applications, wherein the system identifies when there is inconsistency between the government database status information regarding the user’s applications and the status information stored in the alert system, wherein the dashboard generates an alert for users regarding the inconsistency and updates the status with the current status of Sherman, with the system and method of a system that collects information pertaining to matters from multiple IP offices, wherein the system compares the information from the different sources against each other to identify discrepancies in the information and alert a party to the discrepancy of Odutola. By comparing information from different sources in order to identify discrepancies, a IP management system will predictably be able to identify incorrect entries in data, such as ownership or inventor names, that comes with human error, thus reducing the likelihood of a mistake being missed during managing of an IP application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
11 February 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628