DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed are currently pending and considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the application filed on May 08, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Application 18658801 was filed on May 08, 2024 and claims priority to provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 63/465,171 filed May 9, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 08, 2024 is in compliance with
the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the
examiner.
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.
Claims 1-11 are directed to an are directed to a method (process), 12- 16 are directed to a computing system (machine/apparatus), and Claims 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (machine/apparatus). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes)
For step 2A, the examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 12 and 17. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by a document inference system executed by a computing system, user input indicating a natural language definition of a condition corresponding to a document type; converting, by the document inference system, the natural language definition of the condition into a document inference rule that is applicable by a decision engine of the document inference system; receiving, by the document inference system, operation data associated with an operation performed within a management system that is separate from the document inference system; determining, by the decision engine of the document inference system, that the operation data satisfies the document inference rule associated with the document type; and generating, by the document inference system, based on determining that the operation data satisfies the document inference rule, a document inference that identifies the document type.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of generating documents associated with insurance policies, and more particularly to a system configured to determine which documents to generate in response to insurance policy operations that have been performed within a policy management system. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor (computer) the claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. For example, for the document inference system and related computing components, this claim encompasses receiving a natural language condition for a document type, converting it into a decision-engine rule, evaluating operation data from a separate management system against that rule, and generating a document inference when the rule is satisfied, steps that could conventionally be performed by administrative or document management personnel as part of known classification or compliance reviews. A person could manually review operational records, apply written or internal guidelines that correspond to the stated condition, determine whether the records meet those criteria, and then classify or label the document accordingly. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers legal and commercial interactions between parties, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a “a document inference system executed by a computing system”, and “a decision engine of the document inference system”, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, claims 1, 12, and 17 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A). In particular, Claim 1 recites additional elements of a “document inference system executed by a computing system”, and “a decision engine of the document inference system”. Claim 12 recites the same additional elements of Claim 1 with the addition of “processor”, “memory”, and “management system”. Claim 17 recites the same additional elements of Claim 1 with the addition of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “management system”, and “a processor”. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. The computing devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements are considered nothing more than a general link to a technological environment because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Thus, Claims 1, 12, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. The additional elements (processors, decision engines, and document inference system, management system) are performing generic functions in their ordinary manner (such as receiving input, applying rules, analyzing data, and generating output) without any specialized configuration or technical improvement. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1, 12, and 17 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Claims 2-5, 13, 18 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein providing the document inference wherein the document inference causes the generate an instance of the document type, the operation data comprises synchronous operation data sent as a notification and the document inference is generated in response to determining that the synchronous operation data satisfies the document inference rule, accessing, , asynchronous operation data that comprises additional information associated with the operation performed, generating, a document payload indicating at least one content element for an instance of the document type based on at least one of the synchronous operation data or the asynchronous operation data; and wherein: the asynchronous operation data is published to a message table, accesses the asynchronous operation data from the message table. In addition, the claims recite a new additional element of “document generation system”, “document inference system”, and “management system” which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claim 6, 8-9, 15, and 20 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein display, a placeholder indicating that an instance of the document type will be generated by in response to the operation, and replace the placeholder, by presenting the instance of the document type, determining, by the document inference rule, that a suppression rule associated with the document type is satisfied; adding, by the document inference rule, a suppression indicator associated with the document type to the document inference, and determining, by the document inference rule, that a suppression rule associated with the document type is satisfied; adding, by the document inference rule, a suppression indicator associated with the document type to the document inference; and providing by the document inference system, the document inference to the management system, wherein the document inference and the suppression indicator causes the management system to display, in a user interface, a notification that the document type corresponds to the operation but that generation of an instance of the document type is being suppressed. In addition, the claims recite a new additional element of “document inference system”, and “user interface” which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 7, 10-11, and 16 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the document inference provide additional operation data, the additional operation data is associated with the operation, and the additional operation data corresponds to the document type and wherein converting the natural language definition of the condition into the document inference rule comprises: using, mapping data to convert natural language descriptions of data types used within the natural language definition to corresponding data identifiers, defined by a schema, of data elements within the operation data. In addition, the claims recite a new additional element of “document inference system”, and “management system” which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 14 and 19 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include receive user input associated with a natural language definition of the conditions associated with the document inference rule; and translate the natural language definition of the conditions into the document inference rule that is applicable to the operation data. In addition, the claims recite a new additional element of “document inference system” which is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Tyree et al. (US 20090241165) in view of Stollman (US20120179961).
With regards to Claim 1, Tyree et al. teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising (See FIG 1 & Abstract):
receiving, by a document inference system executed by a computing system, user input indicating a natural language definition of a condition corresponding to a document type; (See [0008] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary compliance policy management system according to an exemplary embodiment. Also See [0044]-] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary compliance policy management system 400. As shown in FIG. 4, compliance policy management system 400 (or simply "system 400") may include a compliance policy processing subsystem 410 selectively and communicatively coupled to a rules management subsystem 420. Also See [0020]- a compliance policy processing subsystem is selectively and communicatively coupled to a rules management subsystem. The rules management subsystem is configured to maintain a rules database. The rules database includes one or more rules that have been derived from one or more compliance policies associated with a business organization. Also See [0021]- the compliance policy processing subsystem is configured to facilitate selection by a user of a section of text within a compliance policy and direct the rules management subsystem to identify one or more rules within the rules database that are relevant to the selected section of text.)
converting, by the document inference system, the natural language definition of the condition into a document inference rule that is applicable by a decision engine of the document inference system; (See [0039]- FIG. 3 graphically shows how sections of text within a plurality of compliance policies 200-1 through 200-3 may be mapped to a common set of rules 300. Three compliance policies 200 are shown in FIG. 3 for illustrative purposes only. It will be recognized that a common set of rules 300 may be derived from any number of compliance policies 200. Also See [0040]-[0041]- a section may include a particular sentence, paragraph, group of words, or any other portion of text within the compliance policy 200. In some examples, a section of compliance policy text may represent a particular regulatory requirement contained within the compliance policy 200…one or more rules 300 may be derived from each section 310 of the compliance policies 200. For example, rules 300-1 and 300-2 may be derived from section 310-1 of compliance policy 200-1. Hence, section 310-2 may also be mapped rule 300-2. FIG. 3 also shows the relationships between various other sections 310 (e.g., sections 310-2 through 310-4) within compliance policies 200-2 and 200-3 and the rules within common set of rules 300.)
receiving, by the document inference system, operation data associated with an operation performed within a management system that is separate from the document inference system; (See [0044]- FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary compliance policy management system 400. As shown in FIG. 4, compliance policy management system 400 (or simply "system 400") may include a compliance policy processing subsystem 410 selectively and communicatively coupled to a rules management subsystem 420. Also See [0051]- compliance policy processing subsystem 410 is configured to process data representative of one or more compliance policies. For example, compliance policy processing subsystem 410 may be configured to process compliance policy data (e.g., a compliance policy file) to display the text of a compliance policy, allow selection of one or more sections of the policy, and facilitate or provide for association of the selected sections with one or more rules, including one or more rules associated with multiple compliance policies. Also See [0065]- As an example, processor 640 may be configured to process data communicated to the rules management subsystem 420 from the compliance policy processing subsystem 410. Also See [0087]- compliance policy processing subsystem 410 may be configured to facilitate analysis of a compliance policy and association of one or more sections within the compliance policy with one or more rules within the rules database. To this end, as shown in FIG. 10, compliance policy processing subsystem 410 may be configured to provide a GUI 1000 configured to facilitate viewing and selection of one or more sections of text within a compliance policy.)
*Examiner is interpreting the “compliance policy processing subsystem” disclosed by the art to equate to the “a management system” recited in the claim language.
determining, by the decision engine of the document inference system, that the operation data satisfies the document inference rule associated with the document type; (See [0091]- In response to the section of text being selected, compliance policy processing subsystem 410 may be configured to analyze the words contained within the selected section of text, communicate with rules management subsystem 420 to determine which rules within the rules database are relevant to the content of the selected section, and display a representation of one or more rules that are determined to be relevant to the selected section of the content policy. Also See [0093]- For example, the selected section 1100 may be parsed to locate one or more keywords. These keywords may then be communicated to rules management subsystem 420, which may be configured to search for the communicated keywords within the rules database. See [0115]- [0117] In step 1310, the compliance policy document is analyzed to calculate the probability of each of the stemmed words appearing in the document. In step 1320, one or more of the words within the selected section that have the least probability of appearing within the entire compliance policy document are designated as keywords.
In step 1330, the keywords as determined in step 1320 are used to search within the rules database for one or more relevant rules. In this manner, a listing of rules relevant to the selected section of compliance policy text may be determined and sorted in order of relevance.)
Tyree et al. teaches a document inference system but does not teach generating, by the document inference system, based on determining that the operation data satisfies the document inference rule, a document inference that identifies the document type and
Stollman teaches:
generating, [by the document inference system], based on determining that the operation data satisfies the document inference rule, a document inference that identifies the document type (See [0005]- A document type is associated with the document based on at least one of the portions of text or an identifier associated with the document. Also See [0017]- an action can be performed and/or triggered based on whether the comparison satisfies a threshold condition. Also See [0021]- In some embodiments, the sections within a template can be defined so that they correspond with one or more sections associated with the document 164. In some embodiments, the template 162 can include sections that typically appear in a particular type of document identified for analysis using the document analysis engine 110. Also See [0028]- One or more sections within the template 162 can be associated with one or more conditions and/or actions that can be performed (triggered) based on whether or not the conditions are satisfied. Also See [0040]- For example, if the document analysis engine 110 determines that a first portion of the document 164 corresponds with a EULA (e.g., is a EULA document type) and that a second portion of the document 164 corresponds with a real estate contract (e.g., is a real estate contract document type), the first portion of the document 164 can be processed based on a document parsing function associated with the EULA and the second portion of the document 164 can be processed based on a document parsing function associated with the real estate contract.).
Tyree et al. and Stollman are both considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating documents associated with compliance policies. Stollman reference is directed to generally to document processing, and, in particular, to methods and apparatus related to processing of at least a portion of a document based on a document template (See Abstract).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Tyree et al. reference to further include generating, by the document inference system, based on determining that the operation data satisfies the document inference rule, a document inference that identifies the document type as taught by Stollman. This is desirable such that it allows for the document analysis engine can function as a policy filter on behalf of the user by applying policies defined within the document template (See Stollman, [0015]).
With regards to Claim 7, the Tyree-Stollman combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Tyree et al. teaches:
providing, by the document inference system, the document inference to the management system, wherein: the document inference causes the management system to provide additional operation data to the document inference system, the additional operation data is associated with the operation, and the additional operation data corresponds to the document type; (See [0044]- FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary compliance policy management system 400. As shown in FIG. 4, compliance policy management system 400 (or simply "system 400") may include a compliance policy processing subsystem 410 selectively and communicatively coupled to a rules management subsystem 420. Also See [0065]- As an example, processor 640 may be configured to process data communicated to the rules management subsystem 420 from the compliance policy processing subsystem 410. Also See [0087]- compliance policy processing subsystem 410 may be configured to facilitate analysis of a compliance policy and association of one or more sections within the compliance policy with one or more rules within the rules database. To this end, as shown in FIG. 10, compliance policy processing subsystem 410 may be configured to provide a GUI 1000 configured to facilitate viewing and selection of one or more sections of text within a compliance policy. Also See [0078]- For example, if one of the keywords is "building," a user may enter words such as "facility," "lobby," "loading dock," and the like as words related to the word "building." These related words may also facilitate more effective searching of the rules and/or association of a policy section to one or more of the rules within the rules database. The related words may be stored within the rules database.).
With regards to Claim 9, the Tyree-Stollman combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Tyree et al. teaches:
wherein a user interface of the document inference system presents user options configured to allow a user to provide the user input and associated with the document inference rule (See [0078]- In some examples, a "related words" link 850 may additionally or alternatively be provided that, when selected, allows a user to associate one or more related words to one of the keywords. For example, if one of the keywords is "building," a user may enter words such as "facility," "lobby," "loading dock," and the like as words related to the word "building." These related words may also facilitate more effective searching of the rules and/or association of a policy section to one or more of the rules within the rules database. The related words may be stored within the rules database. Also See [0079]-GUI 800 may additionally or alternatively allow a user to edit the description of the selected rule. For example, a user may select an "edit" link 860 to edit the description of rule 35. Also See [0040]- As used herein, a "section" of a compliance policy 200 refers to a user-definable portion of the compliance policy 200. For example, a section may include a particular sentence, paragraph, group of words, or any other portion of text within the compliance policy 200. In some examples, a section of compliance policy text may represent a particular regulatory requirement contained within the compliance policy 200.).
Tyree et al. does not teach define the natural language definition of the condition.
Stollman teaches:
define the natural language definition of the condition (See [0036]- the document parsing functions 152 (or a portion thereof) used by the parsing module 150 and/or the template 162 (or a portion thereof) used by the template module 160 to process the document 164 can be selected based on a document type associated with the document 164 based on analysis of an identifier and/or a term from the document 164. Also See [0038]- the document parsing functions and/or the templates can be selected based on threshold conditions defined by, for example, the requesting entity 140. Also See [0025]- The ontological structure(s) and/or the semantic rule(s) included within the language processing portion(s) of the document parsing function 152 can be used by the parsing function to interpret a portion of a document 164. In some embodiments, the interpretation can be based on probabilistic rules (e.g., probabilistic matching with an interpretation) encoded within the document parsing function 152. In some embodiments, the document parsing function 152 can be configured to interpret the document 164 based on natural language processing techniques.)
Tyree et al. and Stollman are both considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating documents associated with compliance policies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Tyree-Stollman combination to further include define the natural language definition of the condition as taught by Stollman. This is desirable such that it allows for the document analysis engine 110 can use the identifier to fetch the customized document parsing functions and/or templates so that the document 164 can be processed based on the customized document parsing functions and/or templates. (See Stollman, [0041]).
With regards to Claim 10, the Tyree-Stollman combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Tyree et al. teaches:
using, by the document inference system, mapping data to convert natural language descriptions of data types used within the natural language definition to corresponding data identifiers, defined by a schema, of data elements within the operation data used by the management system (See [0007]- FIG. 3 shows how sections of text within a plurality of compliance policies may be mapped to a common set of rules according to an exemplary embodiment. Also See [0039]-FIG. 3 graphically shows how sections of text within a plurality of compliance policies 200-1 through 200-3 may be mapped to a common set of rules 300. See [0091]- In response to the section of text being selected, compliance policy processing subsystem 410 may be configured to analyze the words contained within the selected section of text, communicate with rules management subsystem 420 to determine which rules within the rules database are relevant to the content of the selected section, and display a representation of one or more rules that are determined to be relevant to the selected section of the content policy. Also See [0093]- For example, the selected section 1100 may be parsed to locate one or more keywords. These keywords may then be communicated to rules management subsystem 420, which may be configured to search for the communicated keywords within the rules database.)
Tyree et al. does not teach wherein converting the natural language definition of the condition into the document inference rule comprises.
Stollman teaches:
wherein converting the natural language definition of the condition into the document inference rule comprises: (See [0036]- the document parsing functions 152 (or a portion thereof) used by the parsing module 150 and/or the template 162 (or a portion thereof) used by the template module 160 to process the document 164 can be selected based on a document type associated with the document 164 based on analysis of an identifier and/or a term from the document 164. Also See [0038]- the document parsing functions and/or the templates can be selected based on threshold conditions defined by, for example, the requesting entity 140. Also See [0025]- The ontological structure(s) and/or the semantic rule(s) included within the language processing portion(s) of the document parsing function 152 can be used by the parsing function to interpret a portion of a document 164. In some embodiments, the interpretation can be based on probabilistic rules (e.g., probabilistic matching with an interpretation) encoded within the document parsing function 152. In some embodiments, the document parsing function 152 can be configured to interpret the document 164 based on natural language processing techniques.)
Tyree et al. and Stollman are both considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating documents associated with compliance policies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Tyree-Stollman combination to further include wherein converting the natural language definition of the condition into the document inference rule comprises as taught by Stollman. This is desirable such that it allows for the document analysis engine 110 can use the identifier to fetch the customized document parsing functions and/or templates so that the document 164 can be processed based on the customized document parsing functions and/or templates. (See Stollman, [0041]).
With regards to Claim 11, the Tyree-Stollman combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Tyree et al. teaches:
wherein the computing system that executes the document inference system is different from a second computing system that executes the management system (See [0008] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary compliance policy management system according to an exemplary embodiment. Also See [0044]-] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary compliance policy management system 400. As shown in FIG. 4, compliance policy management system 400 (or simply "system 400") may include a compliance policy processing subsystem 410 selectively and communicatively coupled to a rules management subsystem 420. Also See [0020]- a compliance policy processing subsystem is selectively and communicatively coupled to a rules management subsystem. The rules management subsystem is configured to maintain a rules database. Also See [0045]- Compliance policy processing subsystem 410 and rules management subsystem 420 may communicate using any communication platforms and technologies suitable for transporting data, including known communication technologies, devices,).
Claims 2-3, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Tyree et al. (US 20090241165) in view of Stollman (US20120179961), further in view of Anagnoson (US 8650052).
With regards to Claim 2, the Tyree-Stollman combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Tyree et al. further teaches:
the document inference system (See [0008] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary compliance policy management system according to an exemplary embodiment. Also See [0044]-] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary compliance policy management system 400. As shown in FIG. 4, compliance policy management system 400 (or simply "system 400") may include a compliance policy processing subsystem 410 selectively and communicatively coupled to a rules management subsystem 420.
However, the Tyree-Stollman combination does not teach providing, [by the document inference system], the document inference to a document generation system, wherein the document inference causes the document generation system to generate an instance of the document type.
Anagnoson teaches:
providing, [by the document inference system], the document inference to a document generation system, wherein the document inference causes the document generation system to generate an instance of the document type (See Col. 6, lines 26-67 – Col. 7, lines 1-8 “policy server 206 is configured to provide insurance policy form inference for policy instances at one or more configured events… In various embodiments, at the occurrence of a configured event associated with a policy instance, policy server 206 is configured to apply the various sets of stored inference logic by comparing at least a portion of the policy instance to the inference logic stored for each insurance policy form. In the event that there is a match between the at least portion of the policy instance with the inference logic stored for a particular insurance policy form, then that insurance policy form is determined to be inferred for the policy instance and is marked to be printed for that policy instance In some embodiments, policy server 206 is configured to send identifiers corresponding to the one or more inferred insurance policy forms to document management system 208 (where they are stored), which in turn sends copies of such forms to printer 210 to be printed. In some embodiments, printer 210 is configured to generate physical prints [documents] (e.g., onto paper) of the inferred forms and in some embodiments.).
Tyree et al., Stollman, and Anagnoson are all considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating documents associated with compliance policies. Anagnoson is directed to providing configuration of inference logic for insurance policy forms and the determination of which forms are to be printed (See Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Tyree-Stollman combination to further include providing, [by the document inference system], the document inference to a document generation system, wherein the document inference causes the document generation system to generate an instance of the document type as taught by Anagnoson. This is desirable such that it allows for the inference logic of each of the existing set of insurance policy forms is compared to the policy instance corresponding to that policyholder to determine whether the inference logic matches at least a portion of the policy instance. (See Anagnoson, Col.3 lines 61-67).
With regards to Claim 3, the Tyree-Stollman combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Tyree et al. teaches:
the document inference system (See [0008] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary compliance policy management system according to an exemplary embodiment. Also See [0044]-] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary compliance policy management system 400. As shown in FIG. 4, compliance policy management system 400 (or simply "system 400") may include a compliance policy processing subsystem 410 selectively and communicatively coupled to a rules management subsystem 420.)
However, the Tyree-Stollman combination does not teach wherein: the operation data comprises synchronous operation data sent as a notification from the management system to [the document inference system] as part of, or substantially immediately following, performance of the operation within the management system, and the document inference is generated in response to determining that the synchronous operation data satisfies the document inference rule.
Anagnoson teaches:
wherein: the operation data comprises synchronous operation data sent as a notification from the management system to [the document inference system] as part of, or substantially immediately following, performance of the operation within the management system, and the document inference is generated in response to determining that the synchronous operation data satisfies the document inference rule (See Col. 6, lines 26-67 – Col. 7, lines 1-8 “policy server 206 is configured to provide insurance policy form inference for policy instances at one or more configured events… In various embodiments, at the occurrence of a configured event associated with a policy instance, policy server 206 is configured to apply the various sets of stored inference logic by comparing at least a portion of the policy instance to the inference logic stored for each insurance policy form. In the event that there is a match between the at least portion of the policy instance with the inference logic stored for a particular insurance policy form, then that insurance policy form is determined to be inferred for the policy instance and is marked to be printed for that policy instance In some embodiments, policy server 206 is configured to send identifiers corresponding to the one or more inferred insurance policy forms to document management system 208 (where they are stored), which in turn sends copies of such forms to printer 210 to be printed. In some embodiments, printer 210 is configured to generate physical prints [documents] (e.g., onto paper) of the inferred forms and in some embodiments. Also See Col.9, lines 48-52 “In some embodiments, each inference rule type comprises a type or category of conditions that a policy instance can meet or match. In some embodiments, to create an insurance policy form includes printing the form and in some embodiments, prepopulating the insurance policy form with at least some relevant values.”)
Tyree et al., Stollman, and Anagnoson are all considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating documents associated with compliance policies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Tyree-Stollman combination to further include wherein: the operation data comprises synchronous operation data sent as a notification from the management system to [the document inference system] as part of, or substantially immediately following, performance of the operation within the management system, and the document inference is generated in response to determining that the synchronous operation data satisfies the document inference rule as taught by Anagnoson. This is desirable such that it allows for the inference logic of each of the existing set of insurance policy forms is compared to the policy instance corresponding to that policyholder to determine whether the inference logic matches at least a portion of the policy instance. (See Anagnoson, Col.3 lines 61-67).
With regards to Claim 12, the Tyree-Stollman combination teaches the claimed invention similar to Claim 1 with the addition of:
Tyree et al. teaches:
A computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing computer-executable instructions associated with a document inference system that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (See [0048]- In general, a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) receives instructions, e.g., from a memory, a computer-readable medium, etc., and executes those instructions, thereby performing one or more processes, including one or more of the processes described herein. Such instructions may be stored and transmitted using a variety of known computer-readable media.)
Tyree et al. teaches the document inference system but the Tyree-Stollman combination does no teach provide the document inference to at least one of: the management system, or a document generation system configured to generate an instance of the document type in response to the operation performed within the management system.
Anagnoson teaches:
provide the document inference to at least one of: the management system, or a document generation system configured to generate an instance of the document type in response to the operation performed within the management system (See Col. 6, lines 26-67 – Col. 7, lines 1-8 “policy server 206 is configured to provide insurance policy form inference for policy instances at one or more configured events… In various embodiments, at the occurrence of a configured event associated with a policy instance, policy server 206 is configured to apply the various sets of stored inference logic by comparing at least a portion of the policy instance to the inference logic stored for each insurance policy form. In the event that there is a match between the at least portion of the policy instance with the inference logic stored for a particular insurance policy form, then that insurance policy form is determined to be inferred for the policy instance and is marked to be printed for that policy instance In some embodiments, policy server 206 is configured to send identifiers corresponding to the one or more inferred insurance policy forms to document management system 208 (where they are stored), which in turn sends copies of such forms to printer 210 to be printed. In some embodiments, printer 210 is configured to generate physical prints [documents] (e.g., onto paper) of the inferred forms and in some embodiments.).
Tyree et al., Stollman, and Anagnoson are all considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating documents associated with compliance policies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Tyree-Stollman combination to further include provide the document inference to at least one of: the management system, or a document generation system configured to generate an instance of the document type in response to the operation performed within the management system as taught by Anagnoson. This is desirable such that it allows for the inference logic of each of the existing set of insurance policy forms is compared to the policy instance corresponding to that policyholder to determine whether the inference logic matches at least a portion of the policy instance. (See Anagnoson, Col.3 lines 61-67).
With regards to Claim 17, the Tyree-Stollman combination teaches the claimed invention similar to Claim 1 with the addition of:
Tyree et al. teaches:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions associated with a document inference system that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (See [0048]-Accordingly, one or more processes described herein may be implemented at least in part as computer-executable instructions, i.e., instructions executable by one or more computing devices, tangibly embodied in a computer-readable medium. In general, a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) receives instructions, e.g., from a memory, a computer-readable medium, etc., and executes those instructions, thereby performing one or more processes, including one or more of the processes described herein. Such instructions may be stored and transmitted using a variety of known computer-readable media.)
Tyree et al. teaches the document inference system but the Tyree-Stollman combination does not teach provide the document inference to at least one of: the management system, or a document generation system configured to generate an instance of the document type in response to the operation performed within the management system.
Anagnoson teaches:
provide the document inference to at least one of: the management system, or a document generation system configured to generate an instance of the document type in response to the operation performed within the management system (See Col. 6, lines 26-67 – Col. 7, lines 1-8 “policy server 206 is configured to provide insurance policy form inference for policy instances at one or more configured events… In various embodiments, at the occurrence of a configured event associated with a policy instance, policy server 206 is configured to apply the various sets of stored inference logic by comparing at least a portion of the policy instance to the inference logic stored for each insurance policy form. In the event that there is a match between the at least portion of the policy instance with the inference logic stored for a particular insurance policy form, then that insurance policy form is determined to be inferred for the policy instance and is marked to be printed for that policy instance In some embodiments, policy server 206 is configured to send identifiers corresponding to the one or more inferred insurance policy forms to document management system 208 (where they are stored), which in turn sends copies of such forms to printer 210 to be printed. In some embodiments, printer 210 is configured to generate physical prints [documents] (e.g., onto paper) of the inferred forms and in some embodiments.).
Tyree et al., Stollman, and Anagnoson are all considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating documents associated with compliance policies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Tyree-Stollman combination to further include provide the document inference to at least one of: the management system, or a document generation system configured to generate an instance of the document type in response to the operation performed within the management system as taught by Anagnoson. This is desirable such that it allows for the inference logic of each of the existing set of insurance policy forms is compared to the policy instance corresponding to that policyholder to determine whether the inference logic matches at least a portion of the policy instance. (See Anagnoson, Col.3 lines 61-67).
With regards to Claim 14, the Tyree-Stollman- Anagnoson combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Tyree et al. teaches:
receive user input associated with a natural language definition of the conditions associated with the document inference rule; (See [0078]- In some examples, a "related words" link 850 may additionally or alternatively be provided that, when selected, allows a user to associate one or more related words to one of the keywords. For example, if one of the keywords is "building," a user may enter words such as "facility," "lobby," "loading dock," and the like as words related to the word "building." These related words may also facilitate more effective searching of the rules and/or association of a policy section to one or more of the rules within the rules database. The related words may be stored within the rules database. Also See [0079]-GUI 800 may additionally or alternatively allow a user to edit the description of the selected rule. For example, a user may select an "edit" link 860 to edit the description of rule 35. Also See [0040]- As used herein, a "section" of a compliance policy 200 refers to a user-definable portion of the compliance policy 200. For example, a section may include a particular sentence, paragraph, group of words, or any other portion of text within the compliance policy 200. In some examples, a section of compliance policy text may represent a particular regulatory requirement contained within the compliance policy 200.).
the operation data by the document inference system (See [0091]- In response to the section of text being selected, compliance policy processing subsystem 410 may be configured to analyze the words contained within the selected section of text, communicate with rules management subsystem 420 to determine which rules within the rules database are relevant to the content of the selected section, and display a representation of one or more rules that are determined to be relevant to the selected section of the content policy. Also See [0093]- For example, the selected section 1100 may be parsed to locate one or more keywords. These keywords may then be communicated to rules management subsystem 420, which may be configured to search for the communicated keywords within the rules database.)
Tyree et al. teaches the operation data by the document inference system, but does not teach translate the natural language definition of the conditions into the document inference rule that is [applicable to the operation data by the document inference system].
Stollman teaches:
translate the natural language definition of the conditions into the document inference rule that is [applicable to the operation data by the document inference system] (See [0050] In some embodiments, the document analysis engine 110 can be configured to analyze documents that include text and/or images related to various languages and/or cultures. In some embodiments, for example, the document parsing function 152 can be configured to translate one or more portions of the document 164 for comparison with a section of the template 162. Also See [0038]- the document parsing functions and/or the templates can be selected based on threshold conditions defined by, for example, the requesting entity 140. Also See [0025]- The ontological structure(s) and/or the semantic rule(s) included within the language processing portion(s) of the document parsing function 152 can be used by the parsing function to interpret a portion of a document 164. In some embodiments, the interpretation can be based on probabilistic rules (e.g., probabilistic matching with an interpretation) encoded within the document parsing function 152. In some embodiments, the document parsing function 152 can be configured to interpret the document 164 based on natural language processing techniques.)
Tyree et al., Stollman, and Anagnoson are all considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating documents associated with compliance policies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Tyree-Stollman-Anagnoson combination to further include translate the natural language definition of the conditions into the document inference rule that is [applicable to the operation data by the document inference system] as taught by Stollman. This is desirable such that it allows for the document analysis engine 110 can use the identifier to fetch the customized document parsing functions and/or templates so that the document 164 can be processed based on the customized document parsing functions and/or templates. (See Stollman, [0041]).
With regards to Claim 15, the Tyree-Stollman- Anagnoson combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Tyree et al. teaches:
wherein a user interface of the document inference system presents user options configured to allow a user to provide the user input and associated with the document inference rule (See [0078]- In some examples, a "related words" link 850 may additionally or alternatively be provided that, when selected, allows a user to associate one or more related words to one of the keywords. For example, if one of the keywords is "building," a user may enter words such as "facility," "lobby," "loading dock," and the like as words related to the word "building." These related words may also facilitate more effective searching of the rules and/or association of a policy section to one or more of the rules within the rules database. The related words may be stored within the rules database. Also See [0079]-GUI 800 may additionally or alternatively allow a user to edit the description of the selected rule. For example, a user may select an "edit" link 860 to edit the description of rule 35. Also See [0040]- As used herein, a "section" of a compliance policy 200 refers to a user-definable portion of the compliance policy 200. For example, a section may include a particular sentence, paragraph, group of words, or any other portion of text within the compliance policy 200. In some examples, a section of compliance policy text may represent a particular regulatory requirement contained within the compliance policy 200.).
Tyree et al. does not teach define the natural language definition of the condition.
Stollman teaches:
define the natural language definition of the condition (See [0036]- the document parsing functions 152 (or a portion thereof) used by the parsing module 150 and/or the template 162 (or a portion thereof) used by the template module 160 to process the document 164 can be selected based on a document type associated with the document 164 based on analysis of an identifier and/or a term from the document 164. Also See [0038]- the document parsing functions and/or the templates can be selected based on threshold conditions defined by, for example, the requesting entity 140. Also See [0025]- The ontological structure(s) and/or the semantic rule(s) included within the language processing portion(s) of the document parsing function 152 can be used by the parsing function to interpret a portion of a document 164. In some embodiments, the interpretation can be based on probabilistic rules (e.g., probabilistic matching with an interpretation) encoded within the document parsing function 152. In some embodiments, the document parsing function 152 can be configured to interpret the document 164 based on natural language processing techniques.)
Tyree et al., Stollman, and Anagnoson are all considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating documents associated with compliance policies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Tyree-Stollman-Anagnoson combination to further include define the natural language definition of the condition as taught by Stollman. This is desirable such that it allows for the document analysis engine 110 can use the identifier to fetch the customized document parsing functions and/or templates so that the document 164 can be processed based on the customized document parsing functions and/or templates. (See Stollman, [0041]).
With regards to Claim 16 and 19, the Tyree-Stollman-Anagnoson combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Tyree et al. teaches:
using, by the document inference system, mapping data to convert natural language descriptions of data types used within the natural language definition to corresponding data identifiers, defined by a schema, of data elements within the operation data used by the management system (See [0007]- FIG. 3 shows how sections of text within a plurality of compliance policies may be mapped to a common set of rules according to an exemplary embodiment. Also See [0039]-FIG. 3 graphically shows how sections of text within a plurality of compliance policies 200-1 through 200-3 may be mapped to a common set of rules 300. See [0091]- In response to the section of text being selected, compliance policy processing subsystem 410 may be configured to analyze the words contained within the selected section of text, communicate with rules management subsystem 420 to determine which rules within the rules database are relevant to the content of the selected section, and display a representation of one or more rules that are determined to be relevant to the selected section of the content policy. Also See [0093]- For example, the selected section 1100 may be parsed to locate one or more keywords. These keywords may then be communicated to rules management subsystem 420, which may be configured to search for the communicated keywords within the rules database.)
Tyree et al. does not teach wherein translating the natural language definition of the conditions into the document inference rule comprises.
Stollman teaches:
wherein translating the natural language definition of the conditions into the document inference rule comprises: See [0050] In some embodiments, the document analysis engine 110 can be configured to analyze documents that include text and/or images related to various languages and/or cultures. In some embodiments, for example, the document parsing function 152 can be configured to translate one or more portions of the document 164 for comparison with a section of the template 162. Also See [0038]- the document parsing functions and/or the templates can be selected based on threshold conditions defined by, for example, the requesting entity 140. Also See [0025]- The ontological structure(s) and/or the semantic rule(s) included within the language processing portion(s) of the document parsing function 152 can be used by the parsing function to interpret a portion of a document 164. In some embodiments, the interpretation can be based on probabilistic rules (e.g., probabilistic matching with an interpretation) encoded within the document parsing function 152. In some embodiments, the document parsing function 152 can be configured to interpret the document 164 based on natural language processing techniques)
Tyree et al., Stollman, and Anagnoson are all considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating documents associated with compliance policies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Tyree-Stollman-Anagnoson combination to further include wherein translating the natural language definition of the conditions into the document inference rule comprises as taught by Stollman. This is desirable such that it allows for the document analysis engine 110 can use the identifier to fetch the customized document parsing functions and/or templates so that the document 164 can be processed based on the customized document parsing functions and/or templates. (See Stollman, [0041]).
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Tyree et al. (US 20090241165) in view of Stollman (US20120179961), further in view of Isaacson (US20150046791).
With regards to Claim 6, the Tyree-Stollman combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Tyree et al. teaches:
providing, by the document inference system, the document inference to the management system, wherein the document inference causes the management system to: (See [0008] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary compliance policy management system according to an exemplary embodiment. Also See [0044]-] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary compliance policy management system 400. As shown in FIG. 4, compliance policy management system 400 (or simply "system 400") may include a compliance policy processing subsystem 410 selectively and communicatively coupled to a rules management subsystem 420.)
However, the Tyree-Stollman combination does not teach generation of the instance of the document type by the document generation system.
Anagnoson teaches:
generation of the instance of the document type by the document generation system (See Col. 6, lines 26-67 – Col. 7, lines 1-8 “In the event that there is a match between the at least portion of the policy instance with the inference logic stored for a particular insurance policy form, then that insurance policy form is determined to be inferred for the policy instance and is marked to be printed for that policy instance In some embodiments, policy server 206 is configured to send identifiers corresponding to the one or more inferred insurance policy forms to document management system 208 (where they are stored), which in turn sends copies of such forms to printer 210 to be printed. In some embodiments, printer 210 is configured to generate physical prints [documents] (e.g., onto paper) of the inferred forms and in some embodiments.”)
Tyree et al., Stollman, and Anagnoson are all considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating documents associated with compliance policies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Tyree-Stollman-Anagnoson combination to further include generation of the instance of the document type by the document generation system as taught by Anagnoson. This is desirable such that it allows for the inference logic of each of the existing set of insurance policy forms is compared to the policy instance corresponding to that policyholder to determine whether the inference logic matches at least a portion of the policy instance. (See Anagnoson, Col.3 lines 61-67).
However, the Tyree-Stollman-Anagnoson combination the does not teach display, in a user interface, a placeholder indicating that an instance of the document type will be generated by a document generation system in response to the operation, and replace the placeholder in the user interface, by presenting the instance of the document type in the user interface, in response to generation of the instance of the document type by the document generation system
Isaacson teaches:
display, in a user interface, a placeholder indicating that an instance of the document type will be generated by a document generation system in response to the operation, and replace the placeholder in the user interface, by presenting the instance of the document type in the user interface, in response to generation of the instance of the document type by the document generation system (See [0009]- a non-transitory computer storage comprises instructions for causing a computer system to generate custom template-based documents. When executed, the instructions may receive a template that was modified by replacing placeholders with sets of executable instructions. Also See [0032]- Returning to FIG. 1, at action two, the template generator 104 generates a template by replacing the placeholders in the placeholder template 110 (or placeholder template 300 of FIG. 3A) with code segments that are executable in order to obtain replacement data for those placeholders. Also See [0044]- When a user has the appropriate objects selected for use in the generated document, the user may then select one or more of several available templates to be used in generating a document including properties of the selected objects. For example, FIG. 4B illustrates the user interface 400 of FIG. 4A, with a particular template selected for use in generating a document based on the selected objects (all of the objects displayed in this embodiment)).
Tyree et al., Stollman, Anagnoson, and Isaacson are all considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating documents associated with compliance policies. Isaacson is directed to flexibly generating custom documents from data objects (See Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Tyree-Stollman-Anagnoson combination to further include display, in a user interface, a placeholder indicating that an instance of the document type will be generated by a document generation system in response to the operation, and replace the placeholder in the user interface, by presenting the instance of the document type in the user interface, in response to generation of the instance of the document type by the document generation system as taught by Isaacson. This is desirable such that it allows for dynamically generating custom documents that include information related to one or more data objects and/or properties of those data objects. (See Isaacson, [0023] ).
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the
features found within dependent claims 4, 5, 8, 13, 18, and 20. However, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to the limitations of:
“providing, by the document inference system at a first time, the document inference to the management system; accessing, by the document inference system at a second time, asynchronous operation data from the management system that comprises additional information associated with the operation performed within the management system; generating, by the document inference system, a document payload indicating at least one content element for an instance of the document type based on at least one of the synchronous operation data or the asynchronous operation data; and providing, by the document inference system, the document payload to a document generation system as part of, or in addition to, the document inference, wherein the document inference causes the document generation system to generate the instance of the document type based at least in part on the document payload.”
“the asynchronous operation data is published to a message table by the management system, and the document inference system accesses the asynchronous operation data from the message table.”
“determining, by the document inference rule, that a suppression rule associated with the document type is satisfied; adding, by the document inference rule, a suppression indicator associated with the document type to the document inference; and providing by the document inference system, the document inference to the management system, wherein the document inference and the suppression indicator causes the management system to display, in a user interface, a notification that the document type corresponds to the operation but that generation of an instance of the document type is being suppressed.”
when the claim is considered as a whole, which is present dependent claims 4, 5, 8, 13, 18, and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayashi et al. (US -20210173844) discloses an information processing apparatus includes an acquisition unit that acquires input information including (i) feature information indicating a feature of similarity of a content between a first document element and a second document element, (ii) an attribute of the first document element, and (iii) an attribute of the second document element, and a generation unit that generates relation information corresponding to the input information acquired by the acquisition unit.
Yelovitch et al. (US 20200302542) discloses a technique for integrating documents and data into a policy management system issues an event trigger from a memory system upon receipt of documents and data related to an insurance policy. An SFTP system runs software for identifying documents and data required for the insurance policy and designating access rights to the same by users and vendors and for specifying actions to be performed upon receipt of the identified documents and data.
Clark et al. (US 20120144295) discloses a selection of a service domain policy definition is received in a service repository. A service policy document is created from the service domain policy definition. At least one user change to the service policy document is received in accordance with the selected service domain policy definition.
Bauer et al. (US 20070038488) discloses an Internet on-line insurance policy service system that facilitates real-time automated communication of policy information, adjustment of policy parameters, calculation and communication of resulting policy quotes, and implementation of policy changes, while obviating insurer personnel involvement and supervision of the communication.
All sources listed above are relevant to the disclosed and claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626