Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 19/604,868, filed on 11/18/2024 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 1/13/2025 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority application
U.S. Provisional Patent application serial number # 63/620,435 filed on 1/12/2024
under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 1,7,13, 19 directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
“selecting, by a search system, a first graph and a second graph to merge;
adding a subset of vectors from the second graph to the first graph;
for a first vector in the second graph not added to the first graph, identifying first neighbor vectors in at least one of the first graph or the second graph using second neighbor vectors of the first vector included in the subset of vectors; and
generating a merged graph by adding the first neighbor vectors to the first graph”
The limitations of claim 1 above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example selecting, searching, first graph, second graph merge, add a subset, generating a merged graph
and like, in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking mere merged graph(s) and generating a merged graph
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular selecting, first graph, second graph, generating a merged graph data structure, to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (para 0021-0022, 0074-0077,00105,00135, of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition para:0021-0022,0074-0077,00105,00135 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
As to claim 2,8,14,
further elaborates “in response to a user query received from a user device, searching the merged graph for data that is responsive to the user query”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 3.,9,15, further elaborates “wherein the second graph is a size that is smaller than the first graph”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 4,10,16, further elaborates “wherein the first graph represents first indexing information, and the second graph represents second indexing information”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 5,11,17, further elaborates “wherein the first neighbor vectors are identified without using dot product calculations”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component(s) such as by the processor. That is, other than reciting “by a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor”, neighbor vectors are identified without using dot product calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 5,11,17 recites an abstract idea, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 6,12,18, , further elaborates
“computing a gain value of a vector from the subset of vectors that was added to the first graph; and
determining whether to add a subsequent vector to the first graph based on the gain value”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
claim 19
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 19, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
“receiving, from a user device, a user query for a vector search on indexing information, the indexing information including a first graph and a second graph;
executing a first search on the first graph and a second search on the second graph;
at an interval, broadcasting a first message about the first search to the second graph and broadcasting a second message about the second search to the first graph; and
updating the first search and the second search based on the second message and the first message, respectively”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this claim, this limitation encompasses the user thinking of searching first, second graph at an interval.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of gallery images collect(ion) that identify particular match, to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (para 0021-0022,0074-0077,00105,00135, of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition para: 0021-0022,0074-0077,00105,00135 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
As to claim 20, further elaborates
“ wherein the first search is executed at least partially in parallel with the second search”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al., (hereafter Zheng), US Pub. No. 2024/0095241 filed Nov, 2023 in view of Saini et al., (hewreafter Saini), US Pub. No. 2025/0061136 filed Aug, 2023
As to claim 1,7,13, Zheng teaches a system which including search method:
“selecting, by a search system (Zheng: fig 1A-1B), a first graph (Zheng: fig 3A,102 – query graph),and a second graph to merge” (Zheng: fig 1B, fig 2, fig 3A, 3D-3E, 0009, 0013, 0090, 0096 – Zheng teaches search process that including plurality of query graph i.e., partitioning of query graph into multiple query subgraph and merged data subgraph as search result as detailed in 0013, Zheng’s fig 3A directed to distributed computation search system that including query subgraphs for example element 320-1,320-2 corresponds to first graph and second graph and merge the data subgraphs as detailed in 0090
PNG
media_image1.png
207
122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
198
190
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
88
311
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
352
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
342
142
media_image5.png
Greyscale
“adding a subset from the second graph to the first graph” (Zheng: fig 3A, 0053-0055 – Zheng teaches distributed computations that obtains query graph including adding nodes through edges to the graph tree structure thereby plurality of subgraphs may form same or partial path)
“second graph not added to the first graph” (Zheng: fig 3, 0082-0085 – Zheng teaches searching neighboring nodes of the subgraphs with respect to labels thereby whether matching subgraph include other query subgraph as non-tree edge between the subgraphs, thus may not added to the selected subgraph)
It is however, noted that Zheng does not disclose “a first vector in the second identifying first neighbor vectors in at least one of the first graph or the second graph using second neighbor vectors of the first vector included in the subset of vectors”
“generating a merged graph by adding the first neighbor vectors to the first graph”, although Zheng teaches first, second graphs, generating merged graph (Zheng: fig 2-3A). On the other hand, Saini disclosed “a first vector in the second identifying first neighbor vectors in at least one of the first graph or the second graph using second neighbor vectors of the first vector included in the subset of vectors” (Saini: fig 2, 0028.0030 – Saini teaches performing task using graph convolution operation that including defining metadata model that transforms the graph query into metadata vector spaces, first vector identifying first neighbor vector and second neighbor vector corresponds to respective metadata vector because metadata vector space used in similarity search or neighbor vector as lookup vectors, while each vector space have relationship to each other detailed in fig 2
PNG
media_image6.png
334
219
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“generating a merged graph by adding the first neighbor vectors to the first graph” (Saini:fig 10-11, 0079-0080 – Saini teaches metadata associated with the vector space as augmented embedded vectors identifying one or more target query graphs and merges the query embedding with the metadata embedding to produce a merged graph
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention vector spaces associated with the query embedding using augmented query produced by graph convolution of Saini et al., into obtaining the search request including plurality of query subgraphs of Zheng et al., because both Zheng, Saini teaches search system particularly query graph (Zheng: Abstract, fig 1A; Saini: Abstract, fig 1) and they both are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Zheng, Saini teaches query graph structure in search environment, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly defining metadata vector spaces with respect to input query, i.e., combines query embedding with metadata vector space thereby improves and/or produces high quality search results in real time (Saini: 0005-0006), thus improves quality and reliability of the system
As to claim 2,8,14, the combination of Zheng, Saini disclosed
“in response to a user query received from a user device, searching the merged graph for data that is responsive to the user query” (Zheng: fig 2, 0090-0091)
PNG
media_image7.png
395
313
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3.,9,15, the combination of Zheng, Saini disclosed “wherein the second graph is a size that is smaller than the first graph” (Zheng: 0091)
As to claim 4,10,16, the combination of Zheng, Saini disclosed “wherein the first graph represents first indexing information, and the second graph represents second indexing information” (Saini: 0031,0033,0035)
As to claim 5,11,17, the combination of Zheng, Saini disclosed “wherein the first neighbor vectors are identified without using dot product calculations” (Saini: 0042,0047)
As to claim 6,12,18, the combination of Zheng, Saini disclosed
Zheng teaches first graph (Zheng: fig 3A,102 – query graph), On the other hand, Saini teaches “computing a gain value of a vector from the subset of vectors that was added” (Saini: 00063-0064); and
“determining whether to add a subsequent vector to the first graph based on the gain value” (Saini:0081-0082)
Claims 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva et al., (hereafter Silva), US Pub. No. 2021/0124780 published Apr, 2021 in view of Zheng et al., (hereafter Zheng), US Pub. No. 2024/0095241 filed Nov, 2023
As to claim 19, Silva teaches a system which including graph search method comprising:
“receiving, from a user device, a user query for a vector search on indexing information, the indexing information including a graph” (Silva: 0089-0092, 0098, fig 1, fig 6-7 – Silva teaches processing query graph via user interface and supports required and/or process one or more vector for the query graph that including calculating one or more vectors for different cluster set of graph(s), and user input to the search engine selects representative graph for each cluster for each query) . The prior art of Silva teaches search engine, user interface engine and graph search and visualization, and graph representation engine is configured to perform 100-104, fig 1
PNG
media_image8.png
348
423
media_image8.png
Greyscale
“executing a first search on the first graph and a second search on the second graph” (Silva: 0097-0098,0102 – Silva teaches search engine configured to execute and/or performing multiple searches for example graphs of multiple patterns because query engine configured to process number of similar graphs such as first graph, second graph)
“at an interval, broadcasting a first message about the first search to the second graph and broadcasting a second message about the second search to the first graph” (Silva: fig 11, 0127 – Silva teaches graphical user interface for displaying graphs corresponds to respective transaction and specified time periods i.e., user able to select time period from menu and supporting messages in the form of “Alerts”; and
PNG
media_image9.png
236
317
media_image9.png
Greyscale
“updating the first search and the second search based on the second message and the first message, respectively” (Silva: fig 8-11 – 0124-0127 – Silva teaches graphical user interface displaying updated query graph visualization along with message such as “Alerts”(fig 11)
PNG
media_image10.png
224
338
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
223
341
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
225
343
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It is however, noted that Silva does not disclose “first graph and a second graph”, although Silva not only teaches query graph for each group of vectors (Silva: Abstract), but also teaches graph representation engine (fig 6, element 612) and search engine (fig 6, element 620). On the other hand, Zheng disclosed “first graph and a second graph” (Zheng’s fig 3A directed to distributed computation search system that including query subgraphs for example element 320-1,320-2 corresponds to first graph and second graph)
PNG
media_image4.png
352
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
342
142
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention graph search and visualization transaction analysis of Silva et al., into obtaining the search request including plurality of query subgraphs of Zheng et al., because both Zheng, Saini teaches search system particularly query graph (Zheng: Abstract, fig 1A; Silva: Abstract, fig 6, fig 9-10) and they both are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Silva, Zheng teaches search query graphs, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly user interface of Silva allows not only query graph visualization of specific time intervals, but also displaying “Alerts” on the display to the user, thereby allows to perform multiple tasks of graph similarity queries, also allows compare search results and visualization technique used for any graph analysis. (Silva: 0030-0031), hence improves overall quality and reliability of the system.
As to claim 20, the combination of Silva, Zheng disclosed “wherein the first search is executed at least partially in parallel with the second search” (Zheng: 0100,0105-0108)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2024/0095241
b. US Pub. No. 2025/0061136
c. US Pub. No. 2021/0124780
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154