DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phase Disclosed...
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims 10, and 13 -14 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a conversion unit.., an key generation unit .. and encryption unit., as claimed in the claims 10 and 13-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As claimed in the claims 10 -14, those units show in the fig .6, and but specification fails to link those units with the fig.7. Par 0069 discloses that a central processing unit, but the above units are not part of the central processing unit based on the disclosure of the specification. Thus, those units are not combination of the software and hardware based on the specification., which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 -14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 10, and 13-14, those claims disclose a conversion unit. An key generation unit .. and encryption unit. As claimed in the claim 10 and 13-14, those units show in the fig .6, and but specification fails to disclose the specific hardware structure in the specification and also in the claim as well. Par 0069 discloses that a central processing unit, but the above units are not part of the central processing unit based on the disclosure of the specification and the claimed. Thus, those units are not combination of the software and hardware based on the specification., thus, those claims are indefinite.
As per claims 11-12, those claims are rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claims 10.
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 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to mathematical idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Statutory Category) Claim 1/6 and 10 a directed to a “method/system,” which is a statutory category of invention under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Step 2A, Prong One (Judicial Exception)
The claims 1/6/10 recite operations that fall within the abstract idea groupings of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity (classification/labeling based on observed information), and/or mathematical concepts (comparison to baseline/thresholds), as identified in the 2019 PEG and MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Specific claim language evidencing an abstract idea includes:
“converting data into a preset data format (Title “Mat”: ASCII codes M=67, a=97, t=116. Sum = 67 + 97 + 116 = 280.Encode value = 280 mod 97 = 280 - 2*97 = 280 - 194 = 86.ID_value = 12 (given));
generating a key by hashing a keyword of the data (Keyword = “Mat” (lowercase): ASCII c=99, a=97, t=116. Sum = 99 + 97 + 116 = 312. hash: key = h(“Mat”) = 312 mod 97 = 312 - 3*97 = 312 - 291 = 21. So generated key = 21);
generating a polynomial corresponding to the data based on an identifier (ID) of the data (Use a simple rule to produce polynomial coefficients from ID and value: Assume a0 = value = 86 Let a1 = (ID_value + key) mod 97 = (12 + 21) mod 97 = 33 Polynomial: P(x) = a0 + a1 x , P(x) = 86 + 33 x); and
encrypting an coefficient of the polynomial using homomorphic encryption (Pick coefficient to encrypt: encrypt a0 (the constant term). Using encryption E(m) = (m + K) mod N with K = 7, N = 97: E(a0) = (86 + 7) mod 97 = 93 Store encrypted coefficient c0 = 93 ).”
These limitations collectively recite the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation which are activities that can be performed as mental processes or using mathematical operations and are characteristic of abstract ideas because those steps can be done with pen and Paper . See, e.g., ii. calculating a number representing an alarm limit value using the mathematical formula ‘‘B1=B0 (1.0–F) + PVL(F)’’, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978); and calculating the difference between local and average data values, In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902, 903, 214 USPQ 682, 683-84 (CCPA 1982).
Conclusion (Prong One): The claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integration into a Practical Application)
The claim’s additional elements are generic computing components/unit performing their ordinary functions, as evidenced by:
“a conversion unit and a key generation unit and encryption unit ”(implicitly) execution using “one or more processors, a computer system, computer, memory” and generic “medium” operations.
The claims do not recite:
Any specific improvement to the functioning of the computer, network protocols, or network devices (e.g., no specialized data structures, algorithmic improvements tied to computer performance, or protocol-level changes).
Any meaningful limitation tying the abstract processing to mathematical of the data converting and hashing and encrypting. Merely applying the abstract analysis using a generic “processing device” and “storing” the result does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); MPEP §2106.05(f); Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354 (collecting/analyzing information and displaying/storing results insufficient).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B (Inventive Concept)
The only additional elements beyond the abstract idea are generic computing components performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions: mathematical shuffling in the data structures.
These elements do not add any unconventional technical implementation, specialized hardware, or specific improvement in computer network operation. As an ordered combination, the claim recites a conventional sequence of data collection and analysis steps followed by storing a result. This fails to provide an inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–226; MPEP §2106.05(d), (e).
Conclusion (Step 2B): The claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea and is therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
As per claim 2-4, those claims can be done mathematically without significantly more. The claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea and is therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
As per claims 6-13, those claims can be done mathematically without significantly more. The claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea and is therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US 2024/0171372 in view of Abdelraheem et al US 2024/0056427.
As per claim 1. Kim US 2024/0171372 discloses a method for generating searchable encrypted data, comprising:
converting data into a preset data format (0046, fig.3, values a.sub.1 and a.sub.2 (data) is multiplied, i.e. converting, with an input dataset, i.e. a present data format);
generating a key by hashing a keyword of the data;
generating a polynomial corresponding to the data based on an identifier (ID) of the data (0047 the input dataset into a plaintext polynomial, i.e. generating a polynomial, expressed in terms of the variable X as I(X)=m.sub.1+m.sub.2X.sup.2+m.sub.3X.sup.4+m.sub.4X.sup.6. and 0056 [0056] The input datasets are packed into the plaintext polynomial I(X) represented in FIG. 4 with the coefficients of the input polynomial formed by the values from each of the input datasets); and
encrypting an coefficient of the polynomial using homomorphic encryption (0047 polynomial is encrypted into the input polynomial or input ciphertext Î(X) with the values m.sub.1, m.sub.2, m.sub.3, and m.sub.4 having been encoded as coefficients of the terms in the input polynomial. And par 0051converting the coefficients from the output ciphertext into a plurality of slots of an input vector according to the Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) scheme and performing a modular reduction approximated by a scaled sine function on each slot of the plurality of slots to generate reduced slot and 0056 The plaintext polynomial I(X) is then encrypted according to the FHE scheme to determine the input polynomial or input ciphertext Î(X)).
Kim US 2024/0171372 does not disclose generating a key by hashing a keyword of the data;
However Abdelraheem et al US 2024/0056427 discloses generating a key by hashing a keyword of the data ( par 0004 the client generates the token H(c|w|K) where H is a cryptographic hash function, K is a secret key and c is a counter that is incremented whenever the keyword w is involved in an update operation. [0047] The client update module can then compute the unique secret value by: [0048] Searching for the local database for a record that corresponds to the keyword. [0049] If there is no record that corresponds to the keyword, the client update module will initialize the first hash chain for the keyword by:setting h.sub.c=−1 setting h.sub.c=h.sub.c+1, i.e., h.sub.c=0 setting c=−1 and [0061] The client update module then computes a unique secret value, u, from st.sub.c by generating a search token, t.sub.w , i.e. keyword and data ID, and setting u=H.sub.1(t.sub.w|st.sub.c) and par 0024 a key for a document with identifier ).
Kim and Abdelraheem are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of encrypting data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Abdelraheem and generating key.
Doing so would provide a key for a document with identifier thereby increasing a search capacity with a key (par 0025).
As per claim 2. Kim and Abdelraheem discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data format corresponds to a format of {keyword | data ID} (Abdelraheem discloses [0049] If there is no record that corresponds to the keyword, the client update module will initialize the first hash chain for the keyword by:setting h.sub.c=−1 setting h.sub.c=h.sub.c+1, i.e., h.sub.c=0 setting c=−1 and [0061] The client update module then computes a unique secret value, u, from st.sub.c by generating a search token, t.sub.w , i.e. keyword and data ID, and setting u=H.sub.1(t.sub.w|st.sub.c) and par 0024 a key for a document with identifier).
As per claim 3. Kim and Abdelraheem discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a highest degree of the polynomial is preset ( Kim 0033 he coefficients of the input polynomial and an indication of a degree of each term).
As per claim 4. Kim and Abdelraheem discloses the method of claim 1, wherein encrypting the coefficient comprises: encrypting the coefficient of the polynomial for each degree ( Kim 0033 FIG. 2, the encoded plaintext polynomial I(X) is then encrypted using FHE module 12 to generate an input polynomial Î(X), which can be referred to as an input ciphertext or can at least be represented by an input ciphertext, such as by including the coefficients of the input polynomial and an indication of a degree of each term, for example. In encrypting the plaintext polynomial, FHE module 12 uses a public key of keys 14 to encrypt the plaintext polynomial according to an FHE scheme. The hat accents in FIG. 2 (e.g., as in Î(X)) indicate encrypted data. Client device 102 then sends the input ciphertext Î(X) to server 112 via interface 108 for server 112 to perform at least one convolution on the input ciphertext. In some implementations, the input ciphertext may include an input polynomial or indicate the coefficients of terms in such an input polynomial).
As per claim 5. Kim and Abdelraheem discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: transmitting the encrypted coefficient( Kim 0033 FIG. 2, the encoded plaintext polynomial I(X) and key(s) 20 can include one or more evaluation keys used as part of a FHE scheme that enables convolutions to be performed on encrypted data and to return an encrypted result that can be decrypted using a secret key stored in memory 106 of client device 102. ) and the key to a database ( Addelraheem, 0046] The local database is stored at the client device. The local database is a key-value store, wherein the key represents a keyword and the value represents a record in the form of a tuple, s=(st.sub.c, c, h.sub.c), where c is a counter representing the number of updates of the keyword within the current hash chain, h.sub.c is a hash chain counter incremented by one every time n updates of the key represented by the key are completed, and st.sub.c represents a current hash chain value).
As per claim 6, this claim is rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claim 1.
As per claim 9. Kim and Abdelraheem discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising: performing a requested operation using the encrypted coefficient (Kim Kim 0033 FIG. 2, the encoded plaintext polynomial I(X) and key(s) 20 can include one or more evaluation keys used as part of a FHE scheme that enables convolutions to be performed on encrypted data).
As per claims 10-14, those claims are rejected based on the same rational set forth in the claims 1-5 respectively.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Abdelraheem and Cheung et al US 2022/0382904.
As per claim 7. Kim and Abdelraheem discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising: decrypting the polynomial (Kim, [0053] The client device 102 then decrypts the result polynomial using FHE module 12 and secret key K.sub.s according to the FHE scheme. The decrypted result polynomial R(X) is then decoded by coding module 10 to determine one or more results R for a CNN using coefficients from the decrypted polynomial, such as by following the Cf-Dcd.sub.Δ portion of Relations 6 above. In some cases, the results may be for a single input dataset); and calculating a root of the decrypted polynomial (par 0067 one multiplicative depth to calculate {r.sub.b(X)}.sub.0≤b<B (i.e., one multiplication for each r.sub.b(X)). Packing the B ciphertexts into one convolved polynomial then costs 2(B−1) multiplications and B−1 rotations without consuming multiplicative depth and 0110 The one or more input datasets are used to calculate integral coefficients of the plaintext polynomial, that unlike with conventional CKKS encoding, do not include an imaginary component ).
The combination fails to disclose calculating a root of the decrypted polynomial.
However, Cheung discloses calculating a root of the decrypted polynomial (0005 calculating the roots of the polynomial based upon the decrypted coefficients and discarding any superfluous roots; obtaining the encrypted records associated with the calculated roots; and decrypting the encrypted records in a second protocol with the server).
Kim and Abdelraheem and Cheung are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of encrypting data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Abdelraheem, including the teaching of Cheung and generating key.
Doing so would provide a key for a document with identifier thereby increasing a search capacity with a key (par 0025).
As per claim 8. Kim and Abdelraheem and Cheung discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the root of the polynomial is an integer root (Cheung discloses receive from the proxy the encrypted coefficients of a polynomial whose roots are indices, the indices can be positive integers, negative integers to the records satisfying the query terms; decrypt the encrypted coefficients in a first protocol with the server).
Kim and Abdelraheem and Cheung are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of encrypting data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Abdelraheem, including the teaching of Cheung and generating key.
Doing so would provide a key for a document with identifier thereby increasing a search capacity with a key (par 0025).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takuma et al US 2008/0319987 discloses generating a key by hashing a keyword of the data( fig.6, 0017 calculate hash of individual keyword of the document, then divide hash by G, and Leave keyword having reminder equal to H and an index keyword to ID (KW2ID) for finding a keyword id on the basis of a keyword character string, 0048] When finding a keyword id on the basis of a keyword character string w, keyword_i indicated by the value of pointer_i with respect to hash value i of the keyword character string w is searched for. In a case where keyword_i matches with the keyword character string w, keyword_i is the keyword id to be found by id_i. In a case where they do not match with each other, a different keyword indicated by next_pointer_i is searched for, and whether or not the different keyword matches with the keyword character string w is determined.);
Cornacchia US 7725479 discloses generating a unique user account identifier. The method includes: building a string of alphanumeric characters based on a set of data input by a user; randomly encrypting each alphanumeric character in the string according to its position in relation to a random key; searching a database for an exact match to the encrypted string; and if no exact match is found, generating a unique user account identifier based on the encrypted string. thee search for close matches may use the data fields in the search by person information section 630 of the search person page 600 shown in FIG. 6. In an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, the search for close matches may use last name, first name, middle name, mother's maiden name, sex at birth, maiden name, result of multiple birth, identical sibling, birth order, date of birth, city of birth, state/region of birth, country of birth, eye color, blood type, race, left hand span, head circumference, father's first name, nearest aged sibling's first name, and/or dominant writing hand.
Koning et al US 2009/0313115 0035] To process a search query with multiple keywords, using the described associative data structure 106, the match component and/or search engine component 202 generates hash values from all subsets (e.g. different combinations of words) of the keywords of the search query. For each hash, the combinations of keywords may be combined (e.g. concatenated) in a predetermined sorted order (e.g. alphanumerically) prior to generating hashes from the combination of keywords in the search queries. The match component uses the hash table 304 to locate unique keys 330 that are identical to the hash values generated from the search query. The match component 104 uses the located unique keys to lookup their respective data nodes and retrieve all advertisements from the data nodes with bid phrases that have all of their words included in the search query. These retrieved advertisements correspond to the candidate advertisements which may then be further filtered as described previously using the secondary criteria data associated with the candidate advertisements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU S SHOLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7314. The examiner can normally be reached EST: 9am-5pm.
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, JORGE ORTIZ CRIADO can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/ABU S SHOLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496