DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the instant application filed on 11/14/2024.
Claims 1, and 10-11 are independent claims.
Claims 1-19 are pending in this application and are presented for examining on merits.
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 .
Continuity
This instant application is claimed provisional (PRO.) application 63/600,145 filed on 11/17/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2025, 05/21/2025, 05/01/2025, 03/31/2025, 12/04/2024, and 11/14/2024 have been considered and recorded. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR §1.97. See form PTO-1449 singed and attached hereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the conditional term “if…”, and optional term “can…" in lines 6-7, which render the claim indefinite because it's unclear what Applicant's intended metes and bounds of the claim is, since the claim appears to cover anything and everything that does not prohibit actions from occurring, e.g., “if not…” and “cannot”. As a result, the claim suggests an optional language that may or may not occur. Appropriate correction is required.
*** Similar above rejection is applied to claims 3, 10-11, and 13, respectively.
Claims 2, 4-9, 12, and 14-19 are also rejected because of dependency to claims 1 and 11.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites steps of:
“during an index-validation process on index write operations of a transaction, identifying index-conflicts between a transaction and at least one reading-transaction;
for each identified index-conflict, initiating a foreign instantiation to determine if the transaction can commit before the at least one reading-transaction; and
upon completing the foreign instantiations on all identified index-conflicts and when validation conditions are met, placing a commit pause on the index-entries modified by the transaction.”
a/ Analysis under Step 2A, Prong I:
The step of “…, identifying index-conflicts…”, “…, initiating a foreign instantiation to determine…”, and “…, placing a commit pause…”, as drafted, are mental processes because, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps are covered performance in human mind (e.g., an observation, evaluation, judgment, option, etc.) but for the recitation of generic computer’s component(s). In fact, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Part III.
(*** Similar above analysis is applied to independent claims 10-11, respectively)
b/ Analysis under Step 2A, Prong II:
The remaining limitations in claims 1, and 10-11 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These claims recite additional elements, e.g., “a distributed database system” having at least “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”/or memory, “one or more processors” are known as generic computing component(s)/unit(s) using as tools for performing the computing functions of the above indicated steps of “identifying…”, “initiate…”, and “placing…” which amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computing component/unit, see Mayo, 566 U.S. AT 84.
Also, the additional limitations of “an index-validation process on index write operations”, and “the transaction can commit” represent insignificant extra solution activities because these additional steps/limitations including in the claims do not specify in details of how to process/execute data/transaction(s) in operations and how index is validation; such that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing purpose. See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(h).
c/ Analysis under Step 2B:
Furthermore, independent claims 1, and 10-11 do not include additional elements/limitations beyond the judicial exception that, alone or in combination, are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a distributed database system” having at least “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”/or memory, “one or more processors” are known by a skill artisan as generic computing component(s)/unit(s) using as tools for performing the steps of “identifying index-conflict…”, “initiating a foreign instantiation to determine…”, and “placing a commit pause…” that amount no more than mere instructions/functions to apply the exception using the highly generic computing component/unit. Also, the additional limitations of “an index-validation process on index write operations”, and “the transaction can commit” represent insignificant extra solution activities because these additional steps including in the claims as the computing functions to apply the exception using a generic computer components that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity to a skill artisan in the relevant technical field of gathering data via network, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362, and storing/retrieving data (e.g., “write operations” in memory, see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). These collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the at least above reasons, the limitations in claims 1, and 10-11, that are considered both as individually and an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-9 and 12-19 depend on independent claims 1 and 11 and include all the limitations of claims 1 and 11; and hence, claims 2-9 and 12-19 recite the same as being the above indicated abstract idea as analysis under the Step 2A (Prong I, Prong II), and Step 2B, respectively.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, the claims recite additional limitations of “initiating the foreign instantiation of a read-vector entry (RV-entry) in a table-node, wherein the RV-entry corresponds to a predicate of a reading-transaction performing an index search on an index node”, “wherein initiating the foreign instantiation further comprises: for each foreign instantiation, checking if a transaction agent is instantiated for the reading-transaction on the respective table-node; and causing instantiation of a transaction agent for the at least one reading-transaction in the respective table-node, when there is no transaction agent for the reading-transaction instantiated on the respective node”, “wherein the foreign instantiation further comprises: instantiating, by a transaction agent for the at least one reading-transaction, a conditional read vector entry (RV-entry) corresponding to a predicate of the at least one reading-transaction in the respective table-node that maintains data-rows”, and “wherein identifying the index-conflicts further comprises: identifying conflicts between an index read vector entry (IRV-entry) and an index write vector entry (IWV-entry), wherein the IWV-entry corresponds to a next version of index-entries modified by the transaction that is covered by a search-value, and wherein the IRV-entry corresponds to a search-value of an index search performed by the at least one reading-transaction as part of a predicate evaluation”, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional steps of “initiating”, “checking”, “instantiating”, and “identifying”, in the context of the claims, encompass in using the form of mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mental human mind but for the recitation of generic computer component(s), then it falls in the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Part III). Furthermore, additional step of “causing instantiation…” in claim 3 is mere “apply it” (or an equivalent), see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965; and Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983, (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) that does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For at least above reasons, dependent claims 2-5 do not include any additional limitations/elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than.
Regarding dependent claim 6, the claim recites further additional limitation of “adding a conditional index read vector entry (IRV-entry) to the index read vector (IRV) of each of the at least one reading-transactions; identifying index-conflicts between the at least one reading-transaction and conflicting writing-transactions in the index-node ; for each identified index-conflict, notifying a transaction agent for the index-validating transaction about the addition of the conditional IRV-entry, wherein the transaction agent is instantiated on the index-node that is to be searched; and performing index read operations on the index-node”, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as following reasons:
a/ First, the additional step of “identifying index-conflicts…”, as drafted, is mental process that falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea;
b/ Secondly, the additional steps of “adding a conditional index…”, and “notifying a transaction agent…” represent insignificant extra solution activities because these additional steps including in the claim as the computing functions to apply the exception using a generic computer components that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity to a skill artisan in the relevant technical field of gathering data via network, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362, and presenting data vis graphical user interface, see OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
c/ Lastly, the additional step of “performing index read operations…” is mere “apply it” (or an equivalent), see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965; and Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983, (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) that does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Thus, the claim does not include any additional limitation(s)/element(s) that is/are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations/elements, when consider both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than.
Regarding dependent claim 7, the claim recites further additional limitation of “wherein validation conditions include: all index-conflicts are handled, including those that were detected through a notification-for-validation; and all foreign instantiations are complete” which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim language is provided the definition of “validation conditions” which does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, the claim does not include any additional limitation/element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations/elements, when consider both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 8, the claim recites further additional limitation of “committing the transaction immediately after placing the commit pause on data cells and index entries modified by the transaction”, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional step of “committing” represents insignificant extra solution activity because this additional step including in the claim as the computing functions that do not amount to significantly more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components that is well-understood, routine, conventional activity to a skill artisan in the relevant technical field of use.
Thus, the claim does not include any additional limitation/element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitation/element, when considers both individually and as an ordered combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 9, the claim recites further additional limitation of “resolving pseudo-deadlocks by applying a forced challenging procedure” which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional steps of “resolving” and “applying” represent insignificant extra solution activities because these additional steps are mere “apply it” (or an equivalent), see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965; and Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983, (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, the claim does not include additional limitation(s)/element(s) that is/are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations/steps in the claim, when consider both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than.
Dependent claims 12-19 recite similar additional limitations/steps as above indicated limitations/steps in dependent claims 2-9; and therefore, are also rejected on the same basis.
For at least above reasons, claims 1-19 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 10-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loring et al., US Pub. No. 2025/0103572 A1 (hereinafter as “Loring”) in view of Katsipoulakis et al., US Patent No. 12,007,990 B1 (hereinafter as “Katsipoulakis”).
Regarding claim 1, Loring teaches a method for managing execution of database transactions in a distributed database system, wherein the distributed database system includes at least one index-node and at least one table-node, comprising:
during an index-validation process on index write operations of a transaction (par. [0028] teaches the nested transaction can perform read and write operations corresponding to a SQL transactions in the database system; and par. [0056] teaches that the compute service manager validates all communication from an execution platform to validate that the content and context of that communication are consistent with the task(s) in the database system as shown in fig. 1 and fig. 5; and further in par. [0315] for the validation process), identifying index-conflicts between a transaction and at least one reading-transaction (see pars. [0081] the technique of “write-write conflicts” is a typical identified conflict of the transaction, [0086], [0210-211 and 247], and [0255 and 257] via check any conflicts technique which inherits to the identifying conflict(s));
for each identified index-conflict, initiating a foreign instantiation to determine if the transaction can commit before the at least one reading-transaction (par. [0192] e.g., ““FK” refers to foreign key, “DDL” refers to data definition language, and “SI” refers to secondary index of a hybrid table”; pars. [0205] see in Table Schemas in the CREATE function having the initiating FOREIGN KEY, which is interpreted as the foreign instantiation, and [0401]).
Loring teaches the algorithm of completing the foreign instantiations on all identified index-conflicts and when validation conditions are met (par. [0192] e.g., ““FK” refers to foreign key, “DDL” refers to data definition language, and “SI” refers to secondary index of a hybrid table”; pars. [0205] see in Table Schemas in the CREATE function having the initiating FOREIGN KEY, which is interpreted as the foreign instantiation, and [0401]).
However, Loring does not explicitly teach the feature of: “placing a commit pause on the index-entries modified by the transaction.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Katsipoulakis further teaches:
upon completing the foreign instantiations on all identified index-conflicts and when validation conditions are met (col. 25, lines 39-67 to col. 26, lines 1-6 via fk1 FOREIGN KEY of the SET CONSTRAINT statement is defined initially), placing a commit pause on the index-entries modified by the transaction (see col. 16, lines 39-40 via “T has to wait until T1 completes before it can restart the current statement” which teaches the pause of commit; col. 17, lines 7-21 via “a lock protocol”, “lock()” or “hold the lock” is implemented the pause algorithm, and line 64-65).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Katsipoulakis would have provided Loring with a commit pause for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to perform the read/write updated index with using the temporary lock from the complete concurrent transactions in order utilized by the transaction manager (Katsipoulakis: see col. 16 and col. 17).
Regarding claim 2, Loring and Katsipoulakis, in combination, teach:
initiating the foreign instantiation of a read-vector entry (RV-entry) in a table-node (Loring: par. [0192] e.g., ““FK” refers to foreign key; pars. [0205] see in Table Schemas in the CREATE function having the initiating FOREIGN KEY, which is interpreted as the foreign instantiation, and [0401], and pars. [073-74] via “read operation”; Katsipoulakis: col. 13, lines 8-9, e.g., “first reads object X”, lines 25-27, and col. 18, line at the “statement class” including “vector” function in the “read(Key, key)” function; and col. 26, line 1-15 via “fk1 FOREIGN KEY” function initially set as commit/complete), wherein the RV-entry corresponds to a predicate of a reading-transaction performing an index search on an index node (Katsipoulakis: col. 19, lines 1-5: “Bool”…as Boolean predicate(s), and col. 27, lines 14-21 via “vector” and “Boolean” function of the constraint conflict detection in the hybrid “Table” in col. 26, lines 50-67).
Regarding claim 3, Katsipoulakis teaches: wherein initiating the foreign instantiation further comprises:
for each foreign instantiation, checking if a transaction agent is instantiated for the reading-transaction on the respective table-node (col. 26, lines 28-46, col. 27, lines 14-15, wherein the “transaction manager 440” is interpreted as the transaction agent”); and
causing instantiation of a transaction agent for the at least one reading-transaction in the respective table-node, when there is no transaction agent for the reading-transaction instantiated on the respective node (col. 10, lines 38-64 teach the “causing instantiation” of a transaction manager=agent; and col. 21, lines 19-35 via reading-transaction instantiated at first).
Regarding claim 4, Katsipoulakis teaches: wherein the foreign instantiation further comprises:
instantiating, by a transaction agent for the at least one reading-transaction, a conditional read vector entry (RV-entry) corresponding to a predicate of the at least one reading-transaction in the respective table-node that maintains data-rows (col. 10, lines 38-64 teach the “causing instantiation” of a transaction manager=agent; and col. 21, lines 19-35 via reading-transaction instantiated at first; col. 19, lines 1-5: “Bool”…as Boolean predicate(s), and col. 27, lines 14-21 via “vector” and “Boolean” function of the constraint conflict detection in the hybrid “Table” in col. 26, lines 50-67).
Regarding claim 7, Loring and Katsipoulakis, in combination, teach: wherein validation conditions include: all index-conflicts are handled, including those that were detected through a notification-for-validation (Katsipoulakis: col. 26, lines 1-15 via “ALTER” table for checking key constrains validation); and
all foreign instantiations are complete (Loring: pars. [0205], and [0214-217, and 221]; and Katsipoulakis: col. 26, line 1-15 via “fk1 FOREIGN KEY” function initially set as commit/complete).
Regarding claim 8, Katsipoulakis teaches: “committing the transaction immediately after placing the commit pause on data cells and index entries modified by the transaction” (col. 25 via “INITIALLY IMMEDIATE/DEFERRED keywords are added in the constraint property” technique).
Regarding claim 9, Loring teaches: “resolving pseudo-deadlocks by applying a forced challenging procedure” (par. [0162] via “deadlocks can be handled by deadlock detection”, pars. [0163], [0170-177], and [0179] via a deadlock detection and resolution protocol).
Claims 10-14 and 17-19 are rejected in the analysis of above claims 1-4, and 7-9; and therefore, the claims are rejected on that basis.
Claims 5-6, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loring and Katsipoulakis, and further in view of Eluri et al., US Pub. No. 2016/0147811 A1 (hereinafter as “Eluri”).
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claim 1. Furthermore, Katsipoulakis teach the limitation: “identifying conflicts between an index read vector entry (IRV-entry)” (Katsipoulakis: col. 10, lines 38-64 disclosed a transaction manager=agent; and col. 21, lines 19-35 via reading-transaction instantiated at first; and col. 27, lines 14-21 via reading “vector” function of the constraint conflict detection in the hybrid “Table” in col. 26, lines 50-67) and “wherein the IRV-entry corresponds to a search-value of an index search performed by the at least one reading-transaction as part of a predicate evaluation” (col. 10, lines 38-64 teach the “causing instantiation” of a transaction manager=agent; and col. 21, lines 19-35 via reading-transaction instantiated at first; col. 19, lines 1-5: “Bool”…as Boolean predicate(s), and col. 27, lines 14-21 via “vector” and “Boolean” function of the constraint conflict detection in the hybrid “Table” in col. 26, lines 50-67).
However, Loring and Katsipoulakis do not explicitly teach the claim limitations: “an index write vector entry (IWV-entry),” and “wherein the IWV-entry corresponds to a next version of index-entries modified by the transaction that is covered by a search-value.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Eluri teaches: “an index write vector entry (IWV-entry)” (par. [0061] e.g., “a process for a client that attempts (e.g., for rowPOS X) to read an MVCC timestamp or row state. Initially, at 1210, the block index for the given rowPos X (idx) can be computed. Next, at 1220, the size of the versioned vector associated with the MVCC blocks can be checked against idx. If it is not covered by the versioned vector then return invalid value”; and pars. [0063-64] teaches vector: write index data=entry into the index structure, and figs. 6 and 8), and “wherein the IWV-entry corresponds to a next version of index-entries modified by the transaction that is covered by a search-value” (pars. [0042] e.g., “the increasing the versioned data object can create a new version…”, [0043] “A versioned vector can also provide an append API to store the data in the vector and to ensure that any new data will be written to all the versions of the data object. For example, task T1 is appending its value to the vector having size 10 and another task T2 is also trying to append at the same slot (last element), then one of the task creates a new version of the data object. In order to make both writes as visible, versioned vectors can check the latest version of the data object after completing the write. If there is any change in the version of data object then it will copy the data to new versions”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Eluri would have provided Loring and Katsipoulakis with the above indicated limitations for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to perform the invalid value of data/entry via read/write vectors corresponding to versions of updated index utilized by the transaction manager (Eluri: see pars. [0060-65])
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claims 1 and 5. Furthermore, Loring, Katsipoulakis, and Eluri, in combination, teach the claim limitations include:
adding a conditional index read vector entry (IRV-entry) to the index read vector (IRV) of each of the at least one reading-transactions (Katsipoulakis: col. 27, lines 14-21 via read “vector” function of the constraint conflict detection in the hybrid “Table” in col. 26, lines 50-67; Eluri: fig. 6, and par. [0061] via “to read an MVCC timestamp or row state. Initially, at 1210, the block index for the given rowPos X (idx) can be computed… the value of the computed offset can be read using the pointer in the block handle as offset 0”);
identifying index-conflicts between the at least one reading-transaction (Loring: fig. 8A is shown the conflict is identified between the reading transaction; pars. [0086], [0210-211 and 247], and [0255 and 257] via check any conflicts technique which inherits to the identifying conflict(s); and Katsipoulakis: see figs. 5-6 via first read version algorithm) and conflicting writing-transactions in the index-node (Loring: pars. [0081] the technique of “write-write conflicts” is a typical identified conflict of the transaction, [0086], [0210-211 and 247], and [0255 and 257] via check any conflicts technique which inherits to the identifying conflict(s); Katsipoulakis, see technique at fig. 7; and Eluri: figs. 6, 8 indicating index node);
for each identified index-conflict, notifying a transaction agent for the index-validating transaction about the addition of the conditional IRV-entry (Katsipoulakis: col. 26, lines 1-15 via “ALTER” table for checking key constrains validation), wherein the transaction agent is instantiated on the index-node that is to be searched (Katsipoulakis: col. 10, lines 38-64 teach the “causing instantiation” of a transaction manager=agent; and col. 21, lines 19-35 via reading-transaction instantiated at firs; and Eluri: fig. 2, element 230 – Transaction Manager is interpreted as the transaction agent, and par. [0033] “Index pages can store index rows for one or more levels of an index.”); and
performing index read operations on the index-node (Loring: fig. 8A; and Katsipoulakis: fig. 5, element 506; Eluri: figs. 6, 8 and 12, element 1260).
Claims 15-16 are rejected in the analysis of above claims 5-6; and therefore, the claims are rejected on that basis.
Prior Arts
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica N. Le whose telephone number is (571)270-1009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 5:30 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHERIEF BADAWI can be reached at (571) 272-9782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jessica N Le/Examiner, Art Unit 2169
/SHERIEF BADAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights