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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 07/29/2062.
Claims 8 and 14-15 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, and 18-19 are currently amended.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 16-19 are currently pending and examined below.
Contingent Limitations
The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. Here, the claims recite the following contingent limitations that are not required to be performed:
Claim 1: “wherein the client plays the audio advertisement in response to playback of the audio program reaching the target advertisement slot.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is not required to be performed if the audio program is not played.
Claim 11: “sending, by a client, an advertisement request to a cloud apparatus during playback of an audio program, wherein the advertisement request comprises information about the audio program, an identifier of a target advertisement slot, and a user characteristic, and the target advertisement slot is one of at least one a plurality of advertisement slots mined from the audio program; receiving, by the client, an audio advertisement that is selected by the cloud apparatus based on the user characteristic and a vector representation of the target advertisement slot, wherein the audio advertisement matches the target advertisement slot and is sent by the cloud apparatus; and playing, by the client, the audio advertisement in response to playback of the audio program reaching the target advertisement slot, wherein the vector representation of the target advertisement slot is determined by the cloud apparatus based on the information about the audio program and the identifier of the target advertisement slot, wherein each advertisement slot is mined by the cloud apparatus by: determining, as a first basic advertisement slot, an interval during which an amplitude of the audio program in a voice state is continuously below an amplitude threshold for longer than a first threshold; determining, as a second basic advertisement slot, an interval between two adjacent terms in text content obtained by converting the audio program into text, wherein the interval exceeds a second threshold and is determined based on timestamps associated with the two adjacent terms; and determining the advertisement slot from a union of the first basic advertisement slot and the second basic advertisement slot, wherein the vector representation of each advertisement slot is generated by encoding a portion of the text content within a period of time preceding the advertisement slot.” However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, none of the above limitations are not required to be performed if the audio program is not played or the audio program does not reach the target advertisement slot.
Claim 12 further limits claim 11 which is not required to be performed. Therefore, claim 12 is also not required to be performed.
Claims 17-19 further limit claim 11 which is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, claims 17-19 are also not required to be performed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a nature phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, and 16-19 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
An audio advertisement delivery method, comprising:
determining, by a cloud apparatus, at least one advertisement slot in an audio program, wherein the determining comprises:
determining, as a first basic advertisement slot, an interval during which an amplitude of the audio program in a voice state is continuously below an amplitude threshold for longer than a first threshold;
determining, as a second basic advertisement slot, an interval between two adjacent terms in text content obtained by converting the audio program into text, wherein the interval exceeds a second threshold and is determined based on timestamps associated with the two adjacent terms; and
determining the at least one advertisement slot from a union of the first basic advertisement slot and the second basic advertisement slot;
receiving1, by the cloud apparatus, an advertisement request from a client, wherein the advertisement request comprises information about the audio program, an identifier of a target advertisement slot, and a user characteristic, the target advertisement slot is one of the at least one advertisement slot determined from the audio program, and the advertisement request is triggered in response to playback of the audio program by the client;
determining, by the cloud apparatus, a vector representation of the target advertisement slot based on the information about the audio program and the identifier of the target advertisement slot, wherein the vector representation of the target advertisement slot represents content related in the audio program within a period of time preceding the target advertisement slot;
obtaining, by the cloud apparatus based on the user characteristic and the vector representation of the target advertisement slot, an audio advertisement matching the target advertisement slot; and
sending2, by the cloud apparatus, the audio advertisement to the client, wherein the client plays the audio advertisement when in response to playback of the audio program reaches reaching the target advertisement slot.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. The Examiner notes that “[t]he courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth audio advertisement delivery and mining methods which are considered commercial interactions (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). Commercial interactions fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because commercial interactions are related to commerce and economy. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two:
In Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) outlined above are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. The Examiner notes that “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., in a computer environment). The courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2B, No).
Claim(s) 2-7 and 9-10 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 2-7 and 9 recite the additional element “by the cloud apparatus.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually.
Claim(s) 10 does not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim(s) 10 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually.
Claim 11 recites (additional elements underlined):
An audio advertisement delivery method, comprising:
sending3, by a client, an advertisement request to a cloud apparatus during playback of an audio program, wherein the advertisement request comprises information about the audio program, an identifier of a target advertisement slot, and a user characteristic, and the target advertisement slot is one of a plurality of advertisement slots mined from the audio program;
receiving4, by the client, an audio advertisement that is selected by the cloud apparatus based on the user characteristic and a vector representation of the target advertisement slot, wherein the audio advertisement matches the target advertisement slot and is sent5 by the cloud apparatus; and
playing, by the client, the audio advertisement in response to playback of the audio program reaching the target advertisement slot,
wherein the vector representation of the target advertisement slot is determined by the cloud apparatus based on the information about the audio program and the identifier of the target advertisement slot,
wherein each advertisement slot is mined by the cloud apparatus by:
determining, as a first basic advertisement slot, an interval during which an amplitude of the audio program in a voice state is continuously below an amplitude threshold for longer than a first threshold;
determining, as a second basic advertisement slot, an interval between two adjacent terms in text content obtained by converting the audio program into text, wherein the interval exceeds a second threshold and is determined based on timestamps associated with the two adjacent terms; and
determining the advertisement slot from a union of the first basic advertisement slot and the second basic advertisement slot,
wherein the vector representation of each advertisement slot is generated by encoding a portion of the text content within a period of time preceding the advertisement slot.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 also recite an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim(s) 12 and 17-19 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 11 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 12 does not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 12 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually.
Claim 17 recites the additional element “by the cloud apparatus.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually.
Claim 18 recites the additional elements “by the client,” “by the cloud apparatus,” and “from an audio advertisement.” Claim 19 recites the additional element “by the cloud apparatus.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The Examine notes that “receiving, by the client … by the cloud apparatus” as recited in claims 18-19 can also be considered as adding insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, and amount to simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in Step 2B as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually.
Claim 13 recites (additional elements underlined):
An advertisement slot mining method, comprising:
obtaining, by a cloud apparatus, an audio program from which at least one advertisement slot is to be determined;
determining, by the cloud apparatus, the at least one advertisement slot based on time domain information of the audio program in a voice state and text content obtained by converting the audio program into text, wherein determining the at least one advertisement slot comprises:
determining, as a first basic advertisement slot, an interval during which an amplitude of the audio program in a voice state is continuously below an amplitude threshold for longer than a first threshold;
determining, as a second basic advertisement slot, an interval between two adjacent terms in text content obtained by converting the audio program into text, wherein the interval exceeds a second threshold and is determined based on timestamps associated with the two adjacent terms; and
determining the at least one advertisement slot from a union of the first basic advertisement slot and the second basic advertisement slot; and
encoding, by the cloud apparatus, a portion of the text content within a period of time preceding each advertisement slot in the at least one advertisement slot, to obtain a vector representation of each advertisement slot.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 13 also recite an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 13 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim(s) 16 recites further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 13 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 16 recites the additional element “by the cloud apparatus.” However, this additional element also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because it amounts to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner notes that after a thorough search on claims, they are found to recite novel and non-obvious subject matter. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
a. Bharath et al. (US 2016/0092932 A1) discloses a content server that provides a client device with audio content including audio advertisements, which is provided in response to receiving a request for digital audio content from a client device associated with a user. Bharath also receives an advertisement request from a client device; modifies a personalized text ad score based on audio content played before the advertisement; selects advertisements whose targeting criteria match one or more pieces of user information; and sends an audio advertisement to the client device for playback.
b. Wang et al. (US 2016/0086215 A1) discloses the concept of creating a vector of identifiers representing an ad opportunity which includes a user identifier, a media identifier, a location identifier, and an ad spot identifier.
c. Rajaram (US 2007/00778709 A1) discloses the concept of providing audio advertisements during playback of an audio program by a client device. Rajaram also discloses the concept of mining for ad slots.
d. Liao et al. (US 2010/0125871 A1) discloses an ad selection engine that scores video ads and selects the highest ranked ads in response to an ad request.
While the prior art teach some of the elements of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at Applicant’s claimed invention unless one was using Applicant’s claims and specification as a roadmap, thus using impermissible hindsight. Additionally, the prior art do not disclose at least the following limitations when viewed in context of the claimed invention as a whole: “determining, as a first basic advertisement slot, an interval during which an amplitude of the audio program in a voice state is continuously below an amplitude threshold for longer than a first threshold; determining, as a second basic advertisement slot, an interval between two adjacent terms in text content obtained by converting the audio program into text, wherein the interval exceeds a second threshold and is determined based on timestamps associated with the two adjacent terms; and determining the at least one advertisement slot from a union of the first basic advertisement slot and the second basic advertisement slot; receiving, by the cloud apparatus, an advertisement request from a client, wherein the advertisement request comprises information about the audio program, an identifier of a target advertisement slot, and a user characteristic, the target advertisement slot is one of the at least one advertisement slot determined from the audio program, and the advertisement request is triggered in response to playback of the audio program by the client; determining, by the cloud apparatus, a vector representation of the target advertisement slot based on the information about the audio program and the identifier of the target advertisement slot, wherein the vector representation of the target advertisement slot represents content related in the audio program within a period of time preceding the target advertisement slot” as recited in claim 1, “determining, as a first basic advertisement slot, an interval during which an amplitude of the audio program in a voice state is continuously below an amplitude threshold for longer than a first threshold; determining, as a second basic advertisement slot, an interval between two adjacent terms in text content obtained by converting the audio program into text, wherein the interval exceeds a second threshold and is determined based on timestamps associated with the two adjacent terms; and determining the advertisement slot from a union of the first basic advertisement slot and the second basic advertisement slot, wherein the vector representation of each advertisement slot is generated by encoding a portion of the text content within a period of time preceding the advertisement slot” as recited in claim 11 “determining, as a first basic advertisement slot, an interval during which an amplitude of the audio program in a voice state is continuously below an amplitude threshold for longer than a first threshold; determining, as a second basic advertisement slot, an interval between two adjacent terms in text content obtained by converting the audio program into text, wherein the interval exceeds a second threshold and is determined based on timestamps associated with the two adjacent terms; and determining the advertisement slot from a union of the first basic advertisement slot and the second basic advertisement slot, wherein the vector representation of each advertisement slot is generated by encoding a portion of the text content within a period of time preceding the advertisement slot” as recited in claim 13.
Additionally, while each of the individual features may have been known per se, there is no teaching or suggestions absent Applicant’s own disclosure to combine these features in the specific manner claimed other than with impermissible hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Argument: “However, the amended independent claims, considered as a whole, are not merely directed to the business result of selecting or delivering an advertisement. Rather, the claims recite a particular computerized technique for analyzing an audio program and determining locations at which audio advertisements may be inserted.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to the claimed invention in SAP America Inc. v. InvestPic (Fed. Cir. 2018), the alleged improvements here are entirely in the realm of the abstract idea, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.
Argument: “These limitations do not merely recite the result of identifying an advertisement slot. They recite how the cloud apparatus identifies the slot through specific processing of audio- signal amplitude information, converted text, and timestamp information. The claims therefore require operations that are rooted in computerized processing of an audio program and that cannot reasonably be characterized as merely organizing human activity, performing a sales transaction, or applying a conventional advertising practice on a generic computer.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike in DDR in which the claimed invention solved the business challenge of retaining website visitors that is particular to the Internet, here the claimed invention amounts to merely reciting the performance of a business practice along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. The claimed invention here is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. “We caution, however, that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent” (see p. 22 of DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Argument: “The threshold-based audio-processing limitations also impose meaningful constraints on the manner in which the advertisement slots are determined.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The threshold-based audio-processing limitations are considered mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a human can view the waveform of an audio program and determine an interval during which an amplitude of an audio program in a voice state is continuously below a threshold. A human can also listen and convert an audio program into text in the human mind or using pen and paper. A human can also determine an ad slot from a union of the first basic advertisement and the second basic advertisement. Therefore, the amended limitations can be practically performed in the human mind.
Argument: “Thus, the amended claims do not merely use a computer as a tool to implement an
otherwise abstract advertising concept. The cloud apparatus performs particular audio-signal analysis, text-conversion analysis, timestamp processing, threshold comparison, and combination of resulting candidate intervals. These operations define a specific implementation for determining advertisement insertion locations in an audio program.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely used as tools, in the ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other task (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation
Argument: “These operations provide a concrete computerized mechanism for identifying insertion locations from characteristics of the audio program itself.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Likewise, eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claim recites a "useful, concrete, and tangible result” (MPEP 2106(I)).
Argument: “The claimed advertisement-slot mining technique improves the computerized process for identifying insertion locations in an audio program… Rather, they recite a specific improvement in computerized audio- program processing.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike in McRO in which the claimed invention allowed computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expression in animated characters that previously could only be performed by human animators which provided an improvement to an existing technological process, here looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. “It is the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that ‘improved [the] existing technological process’ by allowing the automation of further tasks” (see p. 24 of McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The specification fails to provide a teaching about how the claimed invention improves a computer or other technology, nor do the claims recite a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome defined by the claimed invention. The claims merely use the computer as a tool instead of an improved computer capability.
Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Han et al. (US 2019/0355024 A1) discloses a system, method, and computer readable medium for creating audio advertisements that are inserted into audio programs.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
1 The Examiner notes that “receiving, by the cloud apparatus … from a client” can also be considered as adding insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, and amount to simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in Step 2B as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network).
2 The Examiner notes that “sending, by the cloud apparatus … to the client” can also be considered as adding insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, and amount to simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in Step 2B as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network).
3 The Examiner notes that “sending, by the client … to a cloud apparatus” can also be considered as adding insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, and amount to simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in Step 2B as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network).
4 The Examiner notes that “receiving, by the client … by the cloud apparatus” can also be considered as adding insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, and amount to simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in Step 2B as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network).
5 The Examine notes that “sent by the cloud apparatus” can also be considered as adding insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, and amount to simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in Step 2B as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network).
Prosecution Insights