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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to papers filed on 8/27/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 14, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 3, 12, and 20 have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-19 are pending.
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, 2, 4-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claims 1, 8, and 16), thus Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-19 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below.
Claims 1, 8, and 16 recite (as represented by the language of Claim 11):
receiving a portal page request from a user, the portal page request referring to a portal page configured to display2 a set of recommended content-creation templates to the user;
assigning a user identifier associated with the user to a user class, the user class selected from a set of user classes including:
a first user class indicating that the portal page request includes semantic content from a referring source registered with the content collaboration service;
a second user class indicating that the user is associated with a user account of any software platform of the set of software platforms of the content collaboration service and that the portal page request does not include semantic content from a referring source registered with the content collaboration service; and
a third user class indicating that the user is not associated with a user account of any software platform of the set of software platforms of the content collaboration service and that the portal page request does not include semantic content from a referring source registered with the content collaboration service;
determining a platform intent indicating preference for a software platform of the set of software platforms based at least in part on the assigned user class;
selecting a software platform of the set of software platforms based at least in part on the determined platform intent;
identifying a set of candidate content-creation templates associated with the selected software platform;
ranking candidate content-creation templates using a template ranking [method] engine selected based on the assigned user class;
causing identifiers of at least a portion of the set of candidate content-creation templates to be displayed2 on the portal page according to the ranking; and
in response to a user selection of a displayed identifier of a candidate content-creation template of a collaborative document platform:
in accordance with a determination that the user identifier is assigned to the second user class, automatically provisioning and displaying an authenticated content-creation template interface pre-populated with the selected template; and
in accordance with a determination that the user identifier is assigned to the third user class, displaying [providing] an account registration interface, and upon registration, generating and saving a database-backed content item for the user that is pre-populated with the selected template.
1 Claims 8 and 16 recite the claim elements using different language and element arrangements, however, Claim 1 includes all of the elements and features of Claims 8 and 16. Although written slightly differently, the analysis applied to Claim 1 is the same for, and relevant to, Claims 8 and 16.
2 Displaying the template recommendation to a user could consist of merely providing the results, such as a list of ranked templates.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of providing recommended resources for collaborative activities. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people which represents the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for suggesting platforms and templates based on the intent of the collaboration tasks and user classes. For example, a user of a group of users working collaboratively on a project could request recommendations for templates for their portion of the project, such as templates for reports, etc. These recommendations could be based on the intent of the user/task (such as development, testing or issue tracking, etc., representing different “platforms” which may require different types of documents and templates). The user intent can be used to select potential templates (for reports, notetaking, tracking, etc.) relevant to the users’ tasks (platform) and present those templates to the user.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as:
a content collaboration service (CCS) including a portal page and software platform3;
a template ranking engine;
an authenticated content-creation template interface;
an account registration interface; and
database (for saving database-backed content).
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at [0035], the content collaboration service (CCS, which includes the portal page, software platform, and databases, see at least Fig. 1) is described using generic computer components, see also [0036]; [0045]; etc., describes interfaces in generic terms, the particular data displayed through the interfaces does not significantly affect the functioning of an interface itself). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
3 Reciting elements such as portal page and software platform merely intend to tie the CSS to a technological environment, however, specifying that the platform is software does not inherently tie the CSS or the claimed activities to that technical environment, as it still represents generic computer components and functions used to apply (see the specification citation provided above).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 16-19 recite further elements related to the analysis and recommendation steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below.
Claim 2 recites “wherein a content collaboration service usage data associated with the user account of the user includes a content-creation template usage history for the selected software platform”, which specifies further steps related to determining the recommendations, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 4 recites “generating a content item for the collaborative document platform, the content item including the candidate content-creation template; displaying the content item in the content-creation template interface; receiving a user modification of the content item; and storing the user modified content item in association with the collaborative document platform”, which specifies further steps related to determining the recommendations, but does not make the claims any less abstract. The recited interface is recited at a high level of generality and merely used as a tool for displaying data to the user and receiving input from the user. Merely specifying that the interface is used for displaying and receiving modification does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Additionally, specifying that the software platform in the content collaboration service (CCS) is a “collaborative document platform” (CDP) merely labels the platform and does not make the claims any less abstract. The CDP would relate to the same recitations in the specification of generic components (see at least [0035]; Fig. 1, the CCS, which includes the portal page and software platform, is described using generic computer components, including generic databases for storing data).
Claim 5 recites “after assigning the user identifier to the third user class, authenticating the user with respect to the content collaboration service; and in response to authenticating the user with respect to the content collaboration service: reassigning the user identifier to the second user class; reranking the set of candidate content-creation templates based at least in part on a content collaboration service usage data associated with the user account of the user; and causing identifiers of at least a portion of the reranked set of candidate content-creation templates to be displayed on the portal page according to the reranking”, which specifies further steps related to determining the recommendations, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the semantic content from the referring source includes at least one of: one or more search query terms provided by the user to the referring source; or text content that was displayed to the user by the referring source”, which specifies further steps related to determining the recommendations, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 7 recites “wherein portal activity data of the user during the user interaction session with the portal of the content collaboration service includes text content from a site visited during the user interaction session”, which specifies further steps related to determining the recommendations, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 9 recites “wherein ranking the set of candidate content-creation templates based at least in part on a content collaboration service usage data associated with the user account comprises ranking the set of candidate content-creation templates based at least in part on a dataset that includes an identifier of at least one content-creation template that was previously used by the user and at least one content item created by the user”, which specifies further steps related to determining the recommendations, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 10 recites “wherein ranking the set of candidate content-creation templates based at least in part on the search query terms from the referring source includes: identifying respective semantic content associated with respective content-creation templates; determining respective semantic similarity scores between the search query terms and the respective semantic content associated with the respective candidate content-creation templates; and ranking the set of candidate content-creation templates based on the semantic similarity scores”, which specifies further steps related to determining the recommendations, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 11 recites “wherein portal activity data of the user during the user interaction session with the portal of the content collaboration service includes textual content from a set of sites visited by the user during the user interaction session”, which specifies further steps related to determining the recommendations, but does not make the claims any less abstract. It is noted that the “set of sites visited” are not a positively claimed element of the instant invention. The sites merely represent a source from which the text data is collected, however, the sites themselves are not a part of the content collaboration service and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 13 recites “wherein ranking the set of candidate content-creation templates further includes, in accordance with a determination that the user identifier is assigned to the second user class, ranking the set of candidate content-creation templates further based at least in part on at least one of a team affiliation or a job title associated with the user account”, which specifies further steps related to determining the recommendations, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 14 recites “ranking the set of candidate content-creation templates based at least in part on the search query terms from the referring source comprises ranking the set of candidate content-creation templates with a first template ranking engine configured to rank the set of candidate content-creation templates using a first recommendation model; ranking the set of candidate content-creation templates based at least in part on content collaboration service usage data associated with the user account comprises ranking the set of candidate content-creation templates with a second template ranking engine configured to rank the set of candidate content-creation templates using a second recommendation model different from the first recommendation model; and ranking the set of candidate content-creation templates based at least in part on portal activity data of the user during the user interaction session with the portal of the content collaboration service comprises ranking the set of candidate content-creation templates with a third template ranking engine configured to rank the set of candidate content-creation templates using a third recommendation model different from the first recommendation model and from the second recommendation model”, which further specifies additional types of data to be used for training the model(s), but does not lead toward eligibility. The specified engine and model types (first, second, and third template ranking engine/recommendation model) are all recited at high levels of generality and merely provide tools for ranking the templates. These engine and model types do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 15 recites “the first recommendation model comprises a semantic similarity model; the second recommendation model comprises a hybrid matrix factorization model; and the third recommendation model comprises a sequential recommendation model”. The specified model types are all recited at high levels of generality and merely provide tools for ranking the templates. These specific model types do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 17 recites material that is also recited in Claim 1 and therefore subject to the same analysis and rejection provided for Claims 1, 8, and 16 (provided above).
Claim 18 recites “wherein ranking the set of candidate content-creation templates based at least in part on the content collaboration service usage data associated with the user account comprises ranking the set of candidate content-creation templates based at least in part on a dataset that includes an identifier of at least one content-creation template that was previously used by the user and at least one content item created by the user”, which specifies further steps related to determining the recommendations, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the semantic content from the referring source includes at least one of a search query provided by the user to the referring source or text content that was displayed to the user by the referring source”, which specifies further steps related to determining the recommendations, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 16-19 are ineligible.
Relevant Prior Art
No prior art references were identified, alone or in combination, that teach(es) the claimed invention using the particular method/system as recited in the independent claims. The closest prior art identified includes:
Sreenivasan, et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0414323 A1). Discloses a method for identifying a plurality of templates for content creation in a collaborative system. A request is made, and a workspace (comparable to a platform) is selected from a plurality of workspaces. Based on the request and selected workspace, a plurality of templates are identified and analyzed to determine a ranked list of relevant templates to recommend to a user through a template selection interface. Additionally, user interaction histories can be used to select templates (see at least Abstract; [0003]; [0009]; [0031]; [0037]; [0056]; [0065]). The reference fails to teach the use of the three different user classes (user access/request techniques) to determine what data to use to determine intent of the user. The reference also fails to teach the use of the determined intent to select the platform/workspace or selecting a ranking engine based on the user class data.
Reyna, et al. (CN 121488245 A). Discloses a method in a collaboration system for requesting template recommendations for content creation. This can include requests from native applications or web applications and requests can include text content (semantic). The reference fails to explicitly disclose that the semantic data is taken from the web application (portal page, etc.) or that the use of the web application or native application provides user class data to identify intent for a platform. AI models are used to provide template recommendations based on the request and the templates can be related to a specific application (platform, portal, etc.), however, the reference fails to teach that the application is identified based on intent prior to determining the related templates. The AI can be trained on historical user data, however, in the reference, historical user data is not used to determine platform intent based on user account data. Additionally, the reference fails to teach the other features so the claims, including, but not limited to, the specific user classes and data to determine a platform intent, selecting a ranking engine based on the user class data, or ranking the recommendations based on the user class data (see at least Abstract; page 2, lines 21-43; page 3, lines 13-30; page 5, lines 29-30; page 7, line 34-page 8, line 16; page 9, lines 30-34; 13, lines 18-23; page 16, lines 15-31).
Bodin, et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0159498 A1). Discloses a method in a collaboration system for identifying the intent of a user based on a user interaction with a portal and using that intent to provide recommendations to the user, such as software to use and/or instructions for performing tasks (see at least Fig. 4A; Fig. 4B; [0035]; [0123]; 0299]-[0301]). However, the intent determination in the reference is not used to identify and recommend a ranked list of templates specific to an identified platform The reference fails to teach this feature or any of the other features of the instant claims (including other user classifications). It is also noted that the account information used in the reference (see [0403]) is related to the “subscribing user” to which the “user associated with the enterprise that owns or operates the platform” (sales persona) is to suggest upgrading, not to determining recommendations for to provide the sales persona (i.e. the account information if for the subscriber not the sales persona/system user).
Chism, et al. (WO 2023/075895 A1). Discloses a method in a collaboration system for ranking and recommending templates based on user activity and authenticating users (see at least page 3, line 35-page 4, line 5; page 4, lines 23-28; page 7, lines 23-28; page 10, lines 4-13; feedback unit 230). However, the ranking and recommending in the reference is not performed using the claimed criteria for ranking and template selection or the offer to register of not in a registered user class. The reference fails to teach this feature or any of the other features of the instant claims (including other user classifications).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/27/2026, in regard to the 35 U.S.C. §101 claim rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
B. Argument Under Step 2A, Prong One: Not Directed to Organizing Human
Activity
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is a specific technological improvement to a computer system that improves its own functionality by adapting internal operations based on user context.
Applicant’s arguments include:
(1) A Technical Method for Optimizing Machine Performance: The newly added limitation "ranking candidate content-creation templates using a template ranking engine selected based on the assigned user class" recites a specific technological method for improving the computer's own recommendation function. As described in the Specification, this step involves the computer selecting and executing one of several distinct computational models (e.g., a semantic similarity model, a hybrid matrix factorization model, or a sequential recommendation model) based on the type of data available for a given user. This is a technical solution to the technical problem of providing accurate recommendations from heterogeneous data sources. It is a method for optimizing the performance of the machine, not a method of organizing human activity.
This is not sufficient to demonstrate that the computers functionality is improved. The claim merely selects and executes models from available models based on the data. This does not demonstrate any improvement, as it merely selects a model to implement. The functioning of the computer has not changed. Even if different modelling activities (functions) are performed by the computer, this does not indicate that the functioning of the computer itself is altered or improved. In other words, each of the models would be performed using the computer’s basic generic functions. Additionally, it is noted that the claims do not include the execution of the model or any technical description of the models and how they are performed that would indicate any effect on the computer.
Applicant appears to be referencing depending on claims 14 and 15 (the only claims in which this material appears). These claims merely “select and use” each model to rank the template recommendations. There is no technical detail regarding the models and how they are used (only what they are used for), therefore any changes/improvements to the computer’s functioning cannot be identified by the claim language. The material in the specification does not remedy this because it also lacks any technical detail regarding the models and how they would affect the functioning of the computer.
In regard to the model types (Claim 15), this fails for the same reasons, because they merely name the models without any technical detail and therefore it is not clear how use of each model would change/improve the computer’s functionality.
Additionally, Applicant provides no evidence to demonstrate that the alleged problem exists in the art and/or how the performance of the machine is optimized.
(2) "A Specific Machine Process for Secure Content Provisioning: For an authenticated user, amended independent claim 1 recites "automatically provisioning and displaying an authenticated content-creation template interface pre-populated with the selected template .. ." This is a specific machine process involving server-side authentication checks, session management, and the programmatic generation and rendering of a secure user interface. This is not an abstract concept of "giving a person a document," but a concrete technological implementation for controlling system access and managing the state of a user session within a computer network.
The claims do not include a specific machine process involving server-side authentication checks, session management, and the programmatic generation and rendering of a secure user interface. The independent claims merely recite an “authenticated content-creation template”, which is much broader than what is described above (and not necessarily related to authenticating a user). Even if including depending Claim 5, the claims merely recite that a user is authenticated. Neither situation includes any technical detail on what the authentication is and/or how it is performed/achieved (i.e. does not demonstrate a technological implementation for controlling system access and managing the state of a user session).
(3) " A Physical Transformation of the Computer System's Data Structure: For an unauthenticated user, amended independent claim 1 recites "displaying an account registration interface, and upon registration, generating and saving a database-backed content item for the user that is pre-populated with the selected template . .." This step describes a physical transformation within the computer system. The act of "generating and saving a database-backed content item" is a technological process that creates a new, persistent data structure within the computer's memory and storage. This alters the state of the database and is a computer-centric operation, far removed from an abstract method of organizing human activity. Because these operations are directed to improving the internal functioning of the computer system-by selecting optimal computational models, managing secure sessions, and creating persistent data objects-amended independent claim 1 is not directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity. Instead, it is directed to a specific technological implementation of a content recommendation and provisioning machine.
Creating a new data structure within the computer's memory and storage does not alter the state of the database and is a computer-centric operation in meaningful manner that would provide an improvement to the machine or field of art. Merely changing data in a database does not alter the operation of the database or the computer. Saving data and creating data structures is the operation of a database. This does not demonstrate a “physical transformation” within the computer, as it merely adds data to the database (in its expected function).
For the above reasons, Applicant’s remarks fail to demonstrate the claimed invention improves the internal functioning of the computer system, manages secure sessions in any meaningful technical manner, creates physical changes in the computer, or that it is directed to a specific technological implementation of a content recommendation and provisioning machine.
C. Distinction from Ineligible High-Level Generality
Applicant’s arguments in this section fail for similar reasons to section B, above. The claims do not demonstrate a specific, practical technological tool that fundamentally alters how a recommendation system operates by dynamically changing its underlying computational model or a non-generic system actions that manipulate the state of the computer system. Applicant has not provided evidence against a high level of generality. Applicant has not explained how/why McFadden would be relevant to the instant claims and has not provided any analysis to demonstrate how the finding of McFadden would relate to or be comparable to the characteristics of Applicant’s claimed invention.
D. Structural Specificity vs. Result-Oriented Pitfalls
Applicant has not demonstrated that the alleged specific structural constraints and algorithmic parameters (as an ordered combination) are not recited at a high level of generality. For example, Applicant argues that the following steps are not results oriented, but demonstrate the alleged structural constraints and algorithmic parameters:
Selecting a specific "template ranking engine" from a number of engines based on the user's assigned class;
Executing that selected engine to generate a ranking; and
Upon user selection, executing a specific, conditional workflow that either “"automatically provision[s]... an authenticated... interface" for one user class or "display[s] an account registration interface" and subsequently "generat[es] and sav[es] a database-backed content item" for another user class.
However, Examiner disagrees. The above steps represent activities performed in order to obtain the desired output and not specific structural or algorithmic parameters that provides significantly more than the abstract ideas. The steps are recited at a high level of generality and even in an ordered combination do not provide any meaningful limits beyond the abstract ideas. Using the particular alleged structural and algorithmic parameters/structure does not provide any practical application, improvement, etc.
The claims recite a series of steps for processing the data to generate the outcome without anything significantly more.
Applicant cites Constellation Designs, however, Applicant fails to provide any explanation or analysis to demonstrate why the fact patterns of Constellation Designs would be applicable to the instant claims. Applicant merely summarizes claim language and then asserts that it is similar to Constellation Designs.
E. Argument Under Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a practical application because it optimizes internal machine functionality (see above for discussions of machine functionality).
Applicant cites Desjardins, however, Applicant fails to provide any explanation or analysis to demonstrate why the fact patterns of Desjardins would be applicable to the instant claims. As a non-limiting example, Applicant fails to demonstrate that Applicant’s claims result in reduced system complexity, reduced storage, and computational resource optimization [that] represent eligible technological improvements.
As discussed above, Applicant has not demonstrated that the claims optimize the process, improves the functioning of the computer, that the specific recommendation engines/models have any particular affect on the computers functioning, or that the alleged problem existed in the art (see above for further detail).
F. Evaluation of the Claim "As a Whole"
As discussed above, Applicant has not demonstrated that the claims optimize the underlying technology, improves the functioning of the computer, or that the alleged problem of inefficiency and inaccuracy existed in the art (see above for further detail).
Additionally, Applicant fails to demonstrate how/why the particular ordered combination would address the alleged problem in the art in a meaningful manner beyond the identified abstract ideas. The claim elements have been considered both individually and as a whole and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or improve the machine.
Applicant cites Carmody, however, Applicant fails to provide any explanation or analysis to demonstrate why the fact patterns of Carmody would be applicable to the instant claims. Applicant merely recites claim language and then asserts that it is similar to Carmody.
G. Argument Under Step 2B: Inventive Concept
Applicant asserts that the specification details how this sequence of operations overcomes the technical problem of providing tailored recommendations when different types of user data are available and that the claimed invention is a specific, non-conventional architecture, which amounts to "something more" than an abstract idea of making a recommendation.
However, Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence or background to support these assertions. The specification does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that the alleged problem exists in the art, that the specific sequence of operations addresses that alleged problem, or that the claimed invention uses an unconventional architecture. For example, the specification makes a broad assertion regarding an alleged problem in the art, “Due to the vast numbers and types of content items that may be created and stored in such systems, as well as the vast number of people who may access and use such systems, it may be cumbersome to create new documents and to maintain consistency in document styles and appearance across an organization.”, however this is not supported by any background or evidence. Similar lack of support exists for Applicant’s assertions regarding optimization of the machine, increase efficiency, increase in accuracy, etc.
See MPEP 2106.05(a), Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field (“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6872. 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.
/S.D.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 September 19, 2026
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights