DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant’s Communication of application S/N 18/647,603 filed on March 09, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending with the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, the limitations directed towards determining, utilizing a lifespan filter algorithm to process the genealogical parameters of the record query, a query lifespan corresponding to the genealogical parameters of the record query; utilizing the lifespan filter algorithm to process a candidate record from a plurality of candidate records stored within the genealogical record database by analyzing relative-data fields from the relative records indicating dates associated with life events for relatives of the candidate record, and based on analyzing the relative-data fields, determining a record lifespan corresponding to genealogical parameters of the candidate record is a process that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation, covers performance of these limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database for a target tree person corresponding to a node of a genealogical tree within a tree database, retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record, and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query, nothing in the claim precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human with pen and paper and organizing human activity.
For example, but for the limitations stating a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database for a target tree person corresponding to a node of a genealogical tree within a tree database, retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record, and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query, the mention of determining, utilizing a lifespan filter algorithm to process the genealogical parameters of the record query, a query lifespan corresponding to the genealogical parameters of the record query; utilizing the lifespan filter algorithm to process a candidate record from a plurality of candidate records stored within the genealogical record database by analyzing relative-data fields from the relative records indicating dates associated with life events for relatives of the candidate record, and based on analyzing the relative-data fields, determining a record lifespan corresponding to genealogical parameters of the candidate record, encompasses a user observing genealogical data and coming up with a judgement or determining which of plurality of data satisfies the user inquiry. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by additional elements. In particular, a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database for a target tree person corresponding to a node of a genealogical tree within a tree database, retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record, and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database for a target tree person corresponding to a node of a genealogical tree within a tree database, retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record, and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of storing and reading data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database for a target tree person corresponding to a node of a genealogical tree within a tree database, retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record, and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query is considered by the examiner to be mere data gathering such that it amounts to no more than insignificant extra solution activity. These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and it merely confines the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database for a target tree person corresponding to a node of a genealogical tree within a tree database, retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record, and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query is recited at a high level of generality to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements, a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database for a target tree person corresponding to a node of a genealogical tree within a tree database, retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record, and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query is interpreted to be well understood, routine and conventional activity (Receiving or transmitting data over a network e.g., using the internet to gather data, Symantec (see MPEP 2106.05(d))). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. To further elaborate, the additional limitations of a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database for a target tree person corresponding to a node of a genealogical tree within a tree database, retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record, and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and it merely confines the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations as in claim 1. Therefore claim 8 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. See claim 1 for analysis.
With respect to claim 2, the limitations are directed towards wherein receiving the record query comprises receiving a set of genealogical parameters indicating one or more dates associated with one or more life events. These additional elements are interpreted to merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 2, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 3, the limitations are directed towards wherein determining the query lifespan comprises utilizing the lifespan filter algorithm to determine one or more of a known-living range, a possibly-living range, a maximum birth date, or a minimum death date from the genealogical parameters associated with the record query. These elements further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can determine the query lifespan by utilizing the lifespan filter algorithm to determine one or more of a known-living range, a possibly-living range, a maximum birth date, or a minimum death date from the genealogical parameters associated with the record query. Therefore, claim 3, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 4, the limitations are directed towards wherein determining the record lifespan comprises utilizing the lifespan filter algorithm to determine one or more of a known-living range, a possibly-living range, a maximum birth date, or a minimum death date for the candidate record. These elements further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can determine the record lifespan by utilizing the lifespan filter algorithm to determine one or more of a known-living range, a possibly-living range, a maximum birth date, or a minimum death date for the candidate record. Therefore, claim 4, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 5, the limitations are directed towards wherein determining the record lifespan comprises utilizing the lifespan filter algorithm to: determine a set of relative lifespans for relatives associated with the candidate record; and determine the record lifespan based on the set of relative lifespan. These elements further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can determine the record lifespan by utilizing the lifespan filter algorithm to: determine a set of relative lifespans for relatives associated with the candidate record; and determine the record lifespan based on the set of relative lifespan. Therefore, claim 5, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 6, the limitations are directed towards wherein generating the query result comprises: comparing the query lifespan and the record lifespan according to the lifespan filter algorithm to determine that the query lifespan and the record lifespan overlap; and based on determining that the query lifespan and the record lifespan overlap, adding the candidate record to the query result. These elements further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can come up with the query result by comparing the query lifespan and the record lifespan according to the lifespan filter algorithm to determine that the query lifespan and the record lifespan overlap; and based on determining that the query lifespan and the record lifespan overlap, determine the candidate record is sought after query result. Therefore, claim 6, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 7, the limitations are directed towards claim 1 further comprising filtering the plurality of candidate records based on respective record lifespans for each candidate record; generating filtered query results based on the filtering of the plurality of candidate records; and providing the filtered query results for display on the client device. The elements directed to filtering the plurality of candidate records based on respective record lifespans for each candidate record further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can filter the plurality of candidate records based on respective record lifespans for each candidate record. The additional elements directed to generating filtered query results based on the filtering of the plurality of candidate records and providing the filtered query results for display on the client device are interpreted to merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 7, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 9, the limitations are directed towards determine the plurality of candidate records as records stored in the genealogical record database that include at least one matching genealogical parameter with the record query. These elements further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can determine the plurality of candidate records as records stored in the genealogical record database that include at least one matching genealogical parameter with the record query. Therefore, claim 9, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 10, the limitations are directed towards determine the record lifespan by analyzing a relative-data field included within the candidate record, the relative-data field indicating timing data for a life event of a relative of an individual represented by the candidate record. These elements further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can determine the record lifespan by analyzing a relative-data field included within the candidate record, the relative-data field indicating timing data for a life event of a relative of an individual represented by the candidate record. Therefore, claim 10, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 11, the limitations are directed towards determine the record lifespan according to a buffer metric indicating an error window for dates of the life events for the relatives of the candidate record. These elements further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can determine the record lifespan according to a buffer metric indicating an error window for dates of the life events for the relatives of the candidate record. Therefore, claim 11, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 12, the limitations are directed towards determine the record lifespan based on a possibly-living range indicating a timespan from an earliest-possible birth year to a latest-possible death year indicated by the life events for the relatives of the candidate record. These elements further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can determine the record lifespan based on a possibly-living range indicating a timespan from an earliest-possible birth year to a latest-possible death year indicated by the life events for the relatives of the candidate record. Therefore, claim 12, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 13, the limitations are directed towards ordering the candidate record within the query result based on an amount of lifespan overlap between the record lifespan and the query lifespan. These elements further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can order the candidate record within the query result based on an amount of lifespan overlap between the record lifespan and the query lifespan. Therefore, claim 13, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 14, the limitations are directed towards providing the query result for display on the client device. These additional elements are interpreted to merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 14, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 16, the limitations are directed towards generate the query result to include the candidate record based on determining that the record lifespan overlaps the query lifespan by at least a threshold amount. These elements further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can come up with the query result to include the candidate record by determining that the record lifespan overlaps the query lifespan by at least a threshold amount. Therefore, claim 16, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 17, the limitations are directed towards determine a possibly-living range of a relative associated with the candidate record based on the relative-data fields; and determine, as part of the record lifespan of the candidate record and based on the possibly-living range of the relative, a maximum birth date indicating a latest possible year of birth for an individual represented by the candidate record. These elements further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can determine a possibly-living range of a relative associated with the candidate record based on the relative-data fields; and determine, as part of the record lifespan of the candidate record and based on the possibly-living range of the relative, a maximum birth date indicating a latest possible year of birth for an individual represented by the candidate record. Therefore, claim 17, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 18, the limitations are directed towards determine lifespan data of a relative associated with the candidate record based on the relative-data fields; and determine, as part of the record lifespan of the candidate record and based on the lifespan data of the relative, one or more of a possibly-living range, a maximum birth date, or a minimum death date. These elements further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can determine lifespan data of a relative associated with the candidate record based on the relative-data fields; and determine, as part of the record lifespan of the candidate record and based on the lifespan data of the relative, one or more of a possibly-living range, a maximum birth date, or a minimum death date. Therefore, claim 18, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 19, the limitations are directed towards determine the record lifespan by: determining, from the relative-data fields, a set of relative lifespans for relatives associated with the candidate record; and determining the record lifespan based on the set of relative lifespans. These elements further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can determine the record lifespan by: determining, from the relative-data fields, a set of relative lifespans for relatives associated with the candidate record; and determining the record lifespan based on the set of relative lifespans. Therefore, claim 19, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 20, the limitations are directed towards filtering out, from the record query, one or more candidate records with record lifespans that do not overlap the query lifespan by at least a threshold amount. These elements further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can filter out, from the record query, one or more candidate records with record lifespans that do not overlap the query lifespan by at least a threshold amount. Therefore, claim 20, does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allgaier et al. (WIPO WO-2015195959-A1) hereinafter Allgaier and in view of Kranik et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20100199222 A1) hereinafter Kranik.
As to claim 1:
Allgaier discloses:
A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database [Paragraph 0021 teaches the user can determine how wide a search to conduct in determining the historical background.]; utilizing a lifespan filter algorithm to process the genealogical parameters of the record query, a query lifespan corresponding to the genealogical parameters of the record query [Paragraph 0009 teaches prioritization according to a relevance algorithm establishes the results that are most relevant to the individual and the user. Paragraph 0021 teaches the search radius can be narrowed to a various number of ranges including, among other things. Paragraph 0022 teaches a relocation path of the individual can be mapped on the geographical map. In one form, the relocation map takes into account the birth and death locations of the individual and draws a path connecting these two locations. In more elaborate examples, an individual's residences can be included to form a more complete relocation path… This information can be obtained either directly from the user, or from historical records including, among other records, birth, death, marriage, property, work, tax, and educational records. This relocation path, and its corresponding timeframe (usually the lifespan of the individual assuming this is known) allows for a more customized historical background. This relocation path, and its corresponding timeframe (usually the lifespan of the individual assuming this is known) allows for a more customized historical background. Note: The lifespan used for the query (a query lifespan) is used as genealogical parameters used in narrowing process (narrowing algorithm) reads on the claims.]; determining, utilizing the lifespan filter algorithm to process a candidate record from a plurality of candidate records stored within the genealogical record database by analyzing relative-data fields from the relative records indicating dates associated with life events for relatives of the candidate record, based on analyzing the relative-data fields, determining a record lifespan corresponding to genealogical parameters of the candidate record [Paragraph 0009 teaches prioritization according to a relevance algorithm establishes the results that are most relevant to the individual and the user. Paragraph 0047 teaches Timeline 10 covers a variable span of time which includes Lifespan of the Individual 11. It can also include Lifespans of the Individual's Direct Ancestor 12 and/or Lifespans of the Individual's Direct Descendant 13 a- c. FIG.2 also shows Historical Content 14 that, in at least some embodiments, would have been relevant to the individual.]; and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query [Paragraph 0019 teaches as the user interacts with and modifies the interface settings, the relevance of the data continuously recalculates according to a relevance algorithm and the user's preference settings resulting in real-time changes to the content that is presented to the user. Paragraph 0020 teaches the more data on a given individual that a user can provide, either from personal knowledge or through genealogical or other databases, the more specific and tailored the resulting historical background.]
Allgaier discloses most of the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not appear to expressly disclose receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database and retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record.
Kranik discloses:
receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database [Paragraph 0054 teaches as with establishing the target family member, the family relationship may either be received by the user via interface functionality or obtained by querying the patient database. Alternatively, a family tree module may present interface functionality that allows a user to access and display a previously established family relationship. For example, the family tree module may present to the user one or more browser or search windows that allow the user to browse to or search for an already existing established family relationship and/or a family member whose information already exists in the patient database] retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record [Paragraph 0054 teaches as with establishing the target family member, the family relationship may either be received by the user via interface functionality or obtained by querying the patient database. Alternatively, a family tree module may present interface functionality that allows a user to access and display a previously established family relationship. For example, the family tree module may present to the user one or more browser or search windows that allow the user to browse to or search for an already existing established family relationship and/or a family member whose information already exists in the patient database. Note: Searching a family tree for a family member, wherein family in the family are linked (genealogical records clustered) and grouped together by relationship reads on the claims.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Allgaier, by incorporating searching a family tree for a family member, wherein family in the family are linked (genealogical records clustered) and grouped together by relationship, as taught by Kranik (see Paragraph 0054), because both applications are directed to genealogy analysis; incorporating searching a family tree for a family member, wherein family in the family are linked (genealogical records clustered) and grouped together by relationship provides useful to have the ability to identify family relationships in family studies and to display a graphical representation of a family tree as a way to visualize family relationships and information, thus facilitating organization of information and further analysis in a family study (see Kranik Paragraph 0040).
As to claim 2:
Allgaier discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein receiving the record query comprises receiving a set of genealogical parameters indicating one or more dates associated with one or more life events [Paragraph 0021 teaches the search radius can be narrowed to a various number of ranges including, among other things. Paragraph 0022 teaches a relocation path of the individual can be mapped on the geographical map. In one form, the relocation map takes into account the birth and death locations of the individual and draws a path connecting these two locations. In more elaborate examples, an individual's residences can be included to form a more complete relocation path… This information can be obtained either directly from the user, or from historical records including, among other records, birth, death, marriage, property, work, tax, and educational records. This relocation path, and its corresponding timeframe (usually the lifespan of the individual assuming this is known) allows for a more customized historical background. This relocation path, and its corresponding timeframe (usually the lifespan of the individual assuming this is known) allows for a more customized historical background.]
As to claim 3:
Allgaier discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the query lifespan comprises utilizing the lifespan filter algorithm to determine one or more of a known-living range [Paragraph 0020 teaches the more data on a given individual that a user can provide, either from personal knowledge or through genealogical or other databases, the more specific and tailored the resulting historical background. Paragraph 0021 teaches the search radius can be narrowed to a various number of ranges including, among other things. Paragraph 0022 teaches a relocation path of the individual can be mapped on the geographical map. In one form, the relocation map takes into account the birth and death locations of the individual and draws a path connecting these two locations. In more elaborate examples, an individual's residences can be included to form a more complete relocation path… This information can be obtained either directly from the user, or from historical records including, among other records, birth, death, marriage, property, work, tax, and educational records. This relocation path, and its corresponding timeframe (usually the lifespan of the individual assuming this is known) allows for a more customized historical background. This relocation path, and its corresponding timeframe (usually the lifespan of the individual assuming this is known) allows for a more customized historical background. Note: Known parameters establishing a lifespan of an individual is interpreted to read on the claims.], a possibly-living range, a maximum birth date, or a minimum death date from the genealogical parameters associated with the record query.
As to claim 4:
Allgaier discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the record lifespan comprises utilizing the lifespan filter algorithm to determine one or more of a known-living range [Paragraph 0020 teaches the more data on a given individual that a user can provide, either from personal knowledge or through genealogical or other databases, the more specific and tailored the resulting historical background. Paragraph 0021 teaches the search radius can be narrowed to a various number of ranges including, among other things. Paragraph 0022 teaches a relocation path of the individual can be mapped on the geographical map. In one form, the relocation map takes into account the birth and death locations of the individual and draws a path connecting these two locations. In more elaborate examples, an individual's residences can be included to form a more complete relocation path… This information can be obtained either directly from the user, or from historical records including, among other records, birth, death, marriage, property, work, tax, and educational records. This relocation path, and its corresponding timeframe (usually the lifespan of the individual assuming this is known) allows for a more customized historical background. This relocation path, and its corresponding timeframe (usually the lifespan of the individual assuming this is known) allows for a more customized historical background. Note: Known parameters establishing a lifespan of an individual is interpreted to read on the claims. The examiner interprets known parameters to also include a record lifespan that must exist to determine relevance with the query lifespan as part of the search utilizing the relevance algorithm.], a possibly-living range, a maximum birth date, or a minimum death date for the candidate record.
As to claim 5:
Allgaier discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the record lifespan comprises utilizing the lifespan filter algorithm to: determine a set of relative lifespans for relatives associated with the candidate record; and determine the record lifespan based on the set of relative lifespans [Paragraph 0009 teaches the user-provided data is compared with a database of historical dates, locations and content such as event names, historical figure names, descriptions, and narrative elements. Matches are then identified and prioritized. Prioritization according to a relevance algorithm establishes the results that are most relevant to the individual and the user. Matches can be made according to criteria such as, among other things, those most impactful to the individual, those most recognizable/familiar to the user, and/or those most geographically proximate to the individual. Note: Determining matches (set of relative lifespans) for relevant historical data and using those matches then determine most relevant records or lifespans that satisfy the query reads on the claims.]
As to claim 6:
Allgaier discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the query result comprises: comparing the query lifespan and the record lifespan according to the lifespan filter algorithm to determine that the query lifespan and the record lifespan overlap [Paragraph 0009 teaches the user-provided data is compared with a database of historical dates, locations and content such as event names, historical figure names, descriptions, and narrative elements. Matches are then identified and prioritized. Prioritization according to a relevance algorithm establishes the results that are most relevant to the individual and the user. Matches can be made according to criteria such as, among other things, those most impactful to the individual, those most recognizable/familiar to the user, and/or those most geographically proximate to the individual.]; and based on determining that the query lifespan and the record lifespan overlap, adding the candidate record to the query result [Paragraph 0009 teaches matches can be made according to criteria such as, among other things, those most impactful to the individual, those most recognizable/familiar to the user, and/or those most geographically proximate to the individual.]
As to claim 7:
Allgaier discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising filtering the plurality of candidate records based on respective record lifespans for each candidate record; generating filtered query results based on the filtering of the plurality of candidate records; and providing the filtered query results for display on the client device [Paragraph 0009 teaches prioritization according to a relevance algorithm establishes the results that are most relevant to the individual and the user. Paragraph 0019 teaches as the user interacts with and modifies the interface settings, the relevance of the data continuously recalculates according to a relevance algorithm and the user's preference settings resulting in real-time changes to the content that is presented to the user. Paragraph 0020 teaches the more data on a given individual that a user can provide, either from personal knowledge or through genealogical or other databases, the more specific and tailored the resulting historical background. Paragraph 0047 teaches Timeline 10 covers a variable span of time which includes Lifespan of the Individual 11. It can also include Lifespans of the Individual's Direct Ancestor 12 and/or Lifespans of the Individual's Direct Descendant 13 a- c. FIG.2 also shows Historical Content 14 that, in at least some embodiments, would have been relevant to the individual.]
As to claim 9:
Allgaier discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, further storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the plurality of candidate records as records stored in the genealogical record database that include at least one matching genealogical parameter with the record query [Paragraph 0009 teaches matches are then identified and prioritized. Prioritization according to a relevance algorithm establishes the results that are most relevant to the individual and the user. Paragraph 0039 teaches Personal Data 220 is combined with Historical Database 100 in Matching and Relevance Engine 300. Matching and Relevance Engine 300 can include various parts including Map Rendering Engine 310, Narrative Rendering Engine 320, Timeline Rendering Engine 330, and Movie Rendering Engine 340.]
As to claim 10:
Allgaier discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, further storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the record lifespan by analyzing a relative-data field included within the candidate record, the relative-data field indicating timing data for a life event of a relative of an individual represented by the candidate record [Paragraph 0021 teaches the search radius can be narrowed to a various number of ranges including, among other things. Paragraph 0022 teaches a relocation path of the individual can be mapped on the geographical map. In one form, the relocation map takes into account the birth and death locations of the individual and draws a path connecting these two locations. In more elaborate examples, an individual's residences can be included to form a more complete relocation path… This information can be obtained either directly from the user, or from historical records including, among other records, birth, death, marriage, property, work, tax, and educational records. This relocation path, and its corresponding timeframe (usually the lifespan of the individual assuming this is known) allows for a more customized historical background. This relocation path, and its corresponding timeframe (usually the lifespan of the individual assuming this is known) allows for a more customized historical background.]
As to claim 13:
Allgaier discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, further storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to order the candidate record within the query result based on an amount of lifespan overlap between the record lifespan and the query lifespan [Paragraph 0009 teaches matches can be made according to criteria such as, among other things, those most impactful to the individual, those most recognizable/familiar to the user, and/or those most geographically proximate to the individual. Paragraph 0020 teaches the more data on a given individual that a user can provide, either from personal knowledge or through genealogical or other databases, the more specific and tailored the resulting historical background. Paragraph 0021 teaches the search radius can be narrowed to a various number of ranges including, among other things. Paragraph 0022 teaches a relocation path of the individual can be mapped on the geographical map. In one form, the relocation map takes into account the birth and death locations of the individual and draws a path connecting these two locations. In more elaborate examples, an individual's residences can be included to form a more complete relocation path… This information can be obtained either directly from the user, or from historical records including, among other records, birth, death, marriage, property, work, tax, and educational records. This relocation path, and its corresponding timeframe (usually the lifespan of the individual assuming this is known) allows for a more customized historical background. This relocation path, and its corresponding timeframe (usually the lifespan of the individual assuming this is known) allows for a more customized historical background. Note: Determining matches and using the matching records associated with lifespan data in the database must include determining data records that are associated that with lifespan do overlap read on the claims.]
As to claim 14:
Allgaier discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, further storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to provide the query result for display on the client device [Paragraph 0047 teaches FIG. 4 in a screenshot of the historical content being displayed in timeline format. Timeline 10 covers a variable span of time which includes Lifespan of the Individual 11. It can also include Lifespans of the Individual's Direct Ancestor 12 and/or Lifespans of the Individual's Direct Descendant 13 a- c. FIG.2 also shows Historical Content 14 that, in at least some embodiments, would have been relevant to the individual.]
As to claim 16:
Allgaier discloses:
The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to generate the query result to include the candidate record based on determining that the record lifespan overlaps the query lifespan by at least a threshold amount [Paragraph 0009 teaches prioritization according to a relevance algorithm establishes the results that are most relevant to the individual and the user. Paragraph 0047 teaches Timeline 10 covers a variable span of time which includes Lifespan of the Individual 11. It can also include Lifespans of the Individual's Direct Ancestor 12 and/or Lifespans of the Individual's Direct Descendant 13 a- c. FIG.2 also shows Historical Content 14 that, in at least some embodiments, would have been relevant to the individual. Note: Determining data to be most relevant (overlap) must include satisfying a threshold condition (by at least a threshold amount).]
As to claim 20:
Allgaier discloses:
The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to filter out, from the record query, one or more candidate records with record lifespans that do not overlap the query lifespan by at least a threshold amount [Paragraph 0009 teaches matches can be made according to criteria such as, among other things, those most impactful to the individual, those most recognizable/familiar to the user, and/or those most geographically proximate to the individual. Paragraph 0020 teaches the more data on a given individual that a user can provide, either from personal knowledge or through genealogical or other databases, the more specific and tailored the resulting historical background. Paragraph 0021 teaches the search radius can be narrowed to a various number of ranges including, among other things. Paragraph 0022 teaches a relocation path of the individual can be mapped on the geographical map. In one form, the relocation map takes into account the birth and death locations of the individual and draws a path connecting these two locations. In more elaborate examples, an individual's residences can be included to form a more complete relocation path… This information can be obtained either directly from the user, or from historical records including, among other records, birth, death, marriage, property, work, tax, and educational records. This relocation path, and its corresponding timeframe (usually the lifespan of the individual assuming this is known) allows for a more customized historical background. This relocation path, and its corresponding timeframe (usually the lifespan of the individual assuming this is known) allows for a more customized historical background. Note: Determining matches and using the matching records associated with lifespan data in the database must include determining data records that are associated with lifespan data do not overlap with the related information, wherein to determine matching records there must include a threshold condition that needs to be satisfied.]
Claim(s) 11, 12, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allgaier et al. (WIPO WO-2015195959-A1) hereinafter Allgaier, in view of Kranik et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20100199222 A1) hereinafter Kranik, and further in view of Stone (U.S. Publication No.: US 20070168368 A1) hereinafter Stone.
As to claim 11:
Allgaier and Kranik discloses all of the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not appear to expressly disclose determine the record lifespan according to a buffer metric indicating an error window for dates of the life events for the relatives of the candidate record.
Stone discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, further storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the record lifespan according to a buffer metric indicating an error window for dates of the life events for the relatives of the candidate record [Paragraph 0027 teaches improve genealogical searching is to expand the options for selecting names in the drop down lists described above. Such a method might be available to the individual researcher as well as a system/database administrator. The first step in the method is to generate input fields in a GUI (graphic user interface) to receive a first name not in an existing drop down list box or button, the next step is to type or otherwise enter the letters/characters of the first name, which is then received in the database. Paragraph 0029 teaches database field for dates permits an exact date or an approximate date, thus accounting for the possibility of a two-year error arising from the inaccuracy of recording and reporting ten-year census records in the U.S.A… using buttons 134, a range of birth years may be specified. Using buttons 144, a range of the year of death may be specified.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Allgaier, by incorporating accounting for the possibility of a two-year error arising from the inaccuracy of recording birth and death information, as taught by Stone (see Paragraph 0027 and 0029), because both applications are directed to genealogy analysis; incorporating accounting for the possibility of a two-year error arising from the inaccuracy of recording birth and death information improves genealogical searching (see Stone Paragraph 0026).
As to claim 12:
Allgaier and Kranik discloses all of the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not appear to expressly disclose determine the record lifespan based on a possibly-living range indicating a timespan from an earliest-possible birth year to a latest-possible death year indicated by the life events for the relatives of the candidate record.
Stone discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, further storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to determine the record lifespan based on a possibly-living range indicating a timespan from an earliest-possible birth year to a latest-possible death year indicated by the life events for the relatives of the candidate record [Paragraph 0029 teaches database field for dates permits an exact date or an approximate date, thus accounting for the possibility of a two-year error arising from the inaccuracy of recording and reporting ten-year census records in the U.S.A… using buttons 134, a range of birth years may be specified. Using buttons 144, a range of the year of death may be specified. Note: Searching for ancestor information using the ranges as seen in Fig. 130 that indicate an earliest time date entered by the user and a latest death year entered in by the user, wherein ancestor information is interpreted to include relatives of a candidate ancestor who falls within the range of the search reads on the claims.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Allgaier and Kranik, by incorporating searching for ancestor information using the ranges as seen in Fig. 130 indicating an earliest time date entered by the user and a latest death year entered in by the user, wherein ancestor information is interpreted to include relatives of a candidate ancestor who falls within the range of the search, as taught by Stone (see Paragraph 0029), because the three applications are directed to genealogy analysis; incorporating searching for ancestor information using the ranges as seen in Fig. 130 indicating an earliest time date entered by the user and a latest death year entered in by the user, wherein ancestor information is interpreted to include relatives of a candidate ancestor who falls within the range of the search improves genealogical searching (see Stone Paragraph 0026).
As to claim 17:
Allgaier and Kranik discloses all of the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not appear to expressly disclose determine a possibly living range of a relative associated with the candidate record based on the relative-data fields; and determine, as part of the record lifespan of the candidate record and based on the possibly-living range of the relative, a maximum birth date indicating a latest possible year of birth for an individual represented by the candidate record.
Stone discloses:
The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to: determine a possibly-living range of a relative associated with the candidate record based on the relative-data fields; and determine, as part of the record lifespan of the candidate record and based on the possibly-living range of the relative, a maximum birth date indicating a latest possible year of birth for an individual represented by the candidate record [Paragraph 0029 teaches database field for dates permits an exact date or an approximate date, thus accounting for the possibility of a two-year error arising from the inaccuracy of recording and reporting ten-year census records in the U.S.A… using buttons 134, a range of birth years may be specified. Using buttons 144, a range of the year of death may be specified. Note: Searching for ancestor information using the ranges as seen in Fig. 130 that indicates a maximum birth date entered by the user as part of a range ending in the claimed latest possible year of birth, wherein ancestor information is interpreted to include relatives of a candidate ancestor relevant to the range of the user’s search reads on the claims.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Allgaier and Kranik, by incorporating searching for ancestor information using the ranges as seen in Fig. 130 that indicates a maximum birth date entered by the user as part of a range ending the claimed latest possible year of birth, wherein ancestor information is interpreted to include relatives of a candidate ancestor relevant to the range of the user’s search, as taught by Stone (see Paragraph 0029), because the three applications are directed to genealogy analysis; incorporating searching for ancestor information using the ranges as seen in Fig. 130 that indicates a maximum birth date entered by the user as part of a range ending the claimed latest possible year of birth, wherein ancestor information is interpreted to include relatives of a candidate ancestor relevant to the range of the user’s search improves genealogical searching (see Stone Paragraph 0026).
As to claim 18:
Allgaier and Kranik discloses all of the limitations as set forth in claim 15 but does not appear to expressly disclose determine lifespan data of a relative associated with the candidate record based on the relative-data fields; and determine, as part of the record lifespan of the candidate record and based on the lifespan data of the relative, one or more of a possibly-living range, a maximum birth date, or a minimum death date.
Stone discloses:
The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to: determine lifespan data of a relative associated with the candidate record based on the relative-data fields; and determine, as part of the record lifespan of the candidate record and based on the lifespan data of the relative, one or more of a possibly-living range, a maximum birth date, or a minimum death date [Paragraph 0029 teaches database field for dates permits an exact date or an approximate date, thus accounting for the possibility of a two-year error arising from the inaccuracy of recording and reporting ten-year census records in the U.S.A… using buttons 134, a range of birth years may be specified. Using buttons 144, a range of the year of death may be specified. Note: Searching for ancestor information using the ranges as seen in Fig. 130 that indicates a maximum birth date entered by the user as part of a range ending in the claimed latest possible year of birth, wherein ancestor information is interpreted to include relatives of a candidate ancestor relevant to the range of the user’s search reads on the claims.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Allgaier and Kranik, by incorporating searching for ancestor information using the ranges as seen in Fig. 130 that indicates a maximum birth date entered by the user as part of a range ending the claimed latest possible year of birth, wherein ancestor information is interpreted to include relatives of a candidate ancestor relevant to the range of the user’s search, as taught by Stone (see Paragraph 0029), because the three applications are directed to genealogy analysis; incorporating searching for ancestor information using the ranges as seen in Fig. 130 that indicates a maximum birth date entered by the user as part of a range ending the claimed latest possible year of birth, wherein ancestor information is interpreted to include relatives of a candidate ancestor relevant to the range of the user’s search improves genealogical searching (see Stone Paragraph 0026).
As to claim 19:
Allgaier and Kranik discloses all of the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not appear to expressly disclose determine a possibly living range of a relative associated with the candidate record based on the relative-data fields; and determine, as part of the record lifespan of the candidate record and based on the possibly-living range of the relative, a maximum birth date indicating a latest possible year of birth for an individual represented by the candidate record.
Stone discloses:
The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to determine the record lifespan by: determining, from the relative-data fields, a set of relative lifespans for relatives associated with the candidate record; and determining the record lifespan based on the set of relative lifespans [Paragraph 0029 teaches database field for dates permits an exact date or an approximate date, thus accounting for the possibility of a two-year error arising from the inaccuracy of recording and reporting ten-year census records in the U.S.A… using buttons 134, a range of birth years may be specified. Using buttons 144, a range of the year of death may be specified. Note: Searching for ancestor information using the ranges as seen in Fig. 130 that indicates a maximum birth date entered by the user as part of a range ending the claimed latest possible year of birth, wherein ancestor information is interpreted to include relatives of a candidate ancestor relevant to the range of the user’s search and associated with the process to determine desired ancestor information including the ranges of birth year and death year reads on the claims.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Allgaier and Kranik, by incorporating searching for ancestor information using the ranges as seen in Fig. 130 that indicates a maximum birth date entered by the user as part of a range ending the claimed latest possible year of birth, wherein ancestor information is interpreted to include relatives of a candidate ancestor relevant to the range of the user’s search, as taught by Stone (see Paragraph 0029), because the three applications are directed to genealogy analysis; incorporating searching for ancestor information using the ranges as seen in Fig. 130 that indicates a maximum birth date entered by the user as part of a range ending the claimed latest possible year of birth, wherein ancestor information is interpreted to include relatives of a candidate ancestor relevant to the range of the user’s search improves genealogical searching (see Stone Paragraph 0026).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 1 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.
Applicant presents the following arguments in March 9, 2026 remarks page 11-13:
“…Applicant submits that the claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as amended.”
Examiner respectfully presents the following response to Applicant’s remarks:
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding independent claim 1, but for the limitations stating a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database for a target tree person corresponding to a node of a genealogical tree within a tree database, retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record, and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query, the mention of determining, utilizing a lifespan filter algorithm to process the genealogical parameters of the record query, a query lifespan corresponding to the genealogical parameters of the record query; utilizing the lifespan filter algorithm to process a candidate record from a plurality of candidate records stored within the genealogical record database by analyzing relative-data fields from the relative records indicating dates associated with life events for relatives of the candidate record, and based on analyzing the relative-data fields, determining a record lifespan corresponding to genealogical parameters of the candidate record, encompasses a user observing genealogical data and coming up with a judgement or determining which of plurality of data satisfies the user inquiry. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the examiner maintains claim 1 recites abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by additional elements. In particular, a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database for a target tree person corresponding to a node of a genealogical tree within a tree database, retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record, and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database for a target tree person corresponding to a node of a genealogical tree within a tree database, retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record, and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of storing and reading data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database for a target tree person corresponding to a node of a genealogical tree within a tree database, retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record, and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query is considered by the examiner to be mere data gathering such that it amounts to no more than insignificant extra solution activity. The examiner maintains these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and it merely confines the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database for a target tree person corresponding to a node of a genealogical tree within a tree database, retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record, and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query is recited at a high level of generality to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements, a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database for a target tree person corresponding to a node of a genealogical tree within a tree database, retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record, and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query is interpreted to be well understood, routine and conventional activity (Receiving or transmitting data over a network e.g., using the internet to gather data, Symantec (see MPEP 2106.05(d))). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. To further elaborate, the additional limitations of a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a client device, a record query indicating genealogical parameters for searching a genealogical record database for a target tree person corresponding to a node of a genealogical tree within a tree database, retrieving, utilizing a cluster database storing genealogical records clustered according to respective tree persons of the tree database, relative records associated with relatives of the candidate record, and generating, based on the query lifespan and the record lifespan, a query result comprising the candidate record to provide to the client device in response to the record query does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and it merely confines the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the examiner maintains claim 1 is not patent eligible.
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 EARL LEVI ELIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-9762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (IFP).
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/EARL LEVI ELIAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2169
/SHERIEF BADAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights