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 .
Status of Claims
In response to communications filed on 29 August 2025, claims 19-38 are presently pending in the application, of which, claims 19, 27, and 35 are presented in independent form. The Examiner acknowledges canceled claims 1-18 and newly added claims 19-38.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 September 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, filed 03 September 2025, have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Regarding claims 19-38, under Step 2A claims 19-26 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 19 as representative, claim 1 recites:
obtaining first data, by a first device, based on a request for a data query, wherein the request indicates a first data attribute to be classified and aggregated and at least a second data attribute and a third data attribute for the classification, and the first data at least comprises data associated with the second data attribute.
These limitations recite mental processes, such as concepts performed in the human mind (see: 2019 PEG, p. 52). This is because the each of the limitations above recite a series of steps that may be mentally performed by which an evaluation is made for an abstract data. For example, the limitations of ‘obtaining first data, by a first device, based on a request for a data query, wherein the request indicates a first data attribute to be classified and aggregated and at least a second data attribute and a third data attribute for the classification, and the first data at least comprises data associated with the second data attribute,’ illustrate a judgement being performed to find matching results and does not perform any technical operation. This represents a judgement or decision which are concepts performed in the human mind and falls under certain methods of mental processes. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (see again: 2019 PEG, p. 52).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 19 does recite additional elements, including hardware processing circuitry, such as edge device.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 19 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) 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.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 19 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. That is, the limitations of ‘generating, based on a first data fragment of the first data and a second data fragment of second data received from a second device, a third data fragment of a result of the data query, wherein the second data at least comprises data associated with the third data attribute, and the third data fragment comprises an element corresponding to the first data attribute that is classified and aggregated based on at least the second data attribute and the third data attribute,’ are additional elements that are insignificant extra solution activities that that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 19, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 19 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 19 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(lI)), including at least:
• receiving or transmitting data over a network, and/or
• storing and retrieving information in memory
• performing repetitive calculations
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 19 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 20 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 20 recites ‘ transmitting a fourth data fragment of the first data to the second device,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 20 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 20 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 20 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 20 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 21 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 21 recites ‘receiving a fifth data fragment of the result of the data query from the second device, wherein the fifth data fragment comprises an element corresponding to the first data attribute that is classified and aggregated based on the fourth data fragment of the first data and a sixth data fragment of the second data; and generating the result of the data query based on the third data segment and the fifth data segment’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 21 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 21 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 21 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 21 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 22 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 22 recites ‘wherein obtaining the first data comprises: based on the request for the data query, obtaining stored data associated with the second data attribute; and generating the first data by performing a one-bit valid encoding on the data based on a value of the second data attribute,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 22 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 22 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 22 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 22 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 23 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 23 recites ‘wherein the first data further comprises data associated with the first data attribute to be classified and aggregated,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 23 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 23 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 23 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 23 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 24 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 24 recites ‘wherein generating the third data fragment comprises: generating a seventh data fragment based on the first data fragment of the first data and the second data fragment of the second data, wherein the seventh data fragment comprises an element corresponding to a plurality of value combinations of the second data attribute and the third data attribute; and classifying and aggregating the first data attribute by using one of the value combinations as a classification, to generate the third data fragment,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 24 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 6 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 24 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 24 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 25 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 25 recites ‘wherein the third data fragment further comprises an element indicating whether a value of the aggregated first data attribute is empty for each classification,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 7 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 25 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 25 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 25 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 26 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 26 recites ‘transmitting the third data fragment to the second device, for generating the result of the data query by the second device,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 26 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 8 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 26 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 26 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claims 27-34 appear to include similar subject matter as in claims 27-34 as discussed above. More specifically, independent claim 27 additionally recites ‘a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein…’ which is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing mere generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system in addition to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. All the comments made with respect to the rejection of claims 27-34 equally apply and therefore stand rejected.
Claims 35-38 appear to include similar subject matter as in claims 19-26 as discussed above. More specifically, independent claim 35 additionally recites ‘a system comprising …’ and is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing mere generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system in addition to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. All the comments made with respect to the rejection of claims 19-26 equally apply and therefore stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Galitsky, Boris (U.S. 2023/0043849 and known hereinafter as Galitsky).
As per claim 19, Galitsky teaches a method for data query, comprising:
obtaining first data, by a first device, based on a request for a data query (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0123-0126], which discloses when a query is received, where answers are generated from the query.), wherein the request indicates a first data attribute to be classified (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0060-0062], which discloses decision trees are trees that classify instances by sorting them based on featured values. Each node in the decision tree represents a feature in an instance to be classified.) and aggregated and at least a second data attribute and a third data attribute for the classification, and the first data at least comprises data associated with the second data attribute (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0106-0115], which discloses one or more fragments that include attributes of the decision tree, where each node indicates a first, second, third, etc., data in which lattice can be formed from the supported decision trees, which may be iteratively generated.); and
generating, based on a first data fragment of the first data and a second data fragment of second data received from a second device (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0098-0101], which discloses generating multiple fragments, where each fragment may correspond to a particular text.), a third data fragment of a result of the data query, wherein the second data at least comprises data associated with the third data attribute (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0098-0100], which discloses each fragment may be generated from the elements of the decision navigation map that corresponds to the text.), and the third data fragment comprises an element corresponding to the first data attribute that is classified and aggregated based on at least the second data attribute and the third data attribute (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0098-0104], which discloses each fragment may be converted/merged to form a complete decision tree, where a decision pre-tree may be populated with an attribute-value dataset, updating the threshold values, where the common nodes can be aggregated/merged.).
As per claim 27, Galitsky teaches an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0176-0179], which discloses one or more processors coupled to one or more memory.); and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processor, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0176-0179], which discloses one or more processors coupled to one or more memory.), cause the device to perform acts comprising:
obtaining first data, by a first device, based on a request for a data query (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0123-0126], which discloses when a query is received, where answers are generated from the query.), wherein the request indicates a first data attribute to be classified (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0060-0062], which discloses decision trees are trees that classify instances by sorting them based on featured values. Each node in the decision tree represents a feature in an instance to be classified.) and aggregated and at least a second data attribute and a third data attribute for the classification, and the first data at least comprises data associated with the second data attribute (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0106-0115], which discloses one or more fragments that include attributes of the decision tree, where each node indicates a first, second, third, etc., data in which lattice can be formed from the supported decision trees, which may be iteratively generated.); and
generating, based on a first data fragment of the first data and a second data fragment of second data received from a second device (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0098-0101], which discloses generating multiple fragments, where each fragment may correspond to a particular text.), a third data fragment of a result of the data query, wherein the second data at least comprises data associated with the third data attribute (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0098-0100], which discloses each fragment may be generated from the elements of the decision navigation map that corresponds to the text.), and the third data fragment comprises an element corresponding to the first data attribute that is classified and aggregated based on at least the second data attribute and the third data attribute (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0098-0104], which discloses each fragment may be converted/merged to form a complete decision tree, where a decision pre-tree may be populated with an attribute-value dataset, updating the threshold values, where the common nodes can be aggregated/merged.).
As per claim 35, Galitsky teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored a computer program thereon which, when executed by a processor, implements a method comprising:
obtaining first data, by a first device, based on a request for a data query (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0123-0126], which discloses when a query is received, where answers are generated from the query.), wherein the request indicates a first data attribute to be classified (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0060-0062], which discloses decision trees are trees that classify instances by sorting them based on featured values. Each node in the decision tree represents a feature in an instance to be classified.) and aggregated and at least a second data attribute and a third data attribute for the classification, and the first data at least comprises data associated with the second data attribute (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0106-0115], which discloses one or more fragments that include attributes of the decision tree, where each node indicates a first, second, third, etc., data in which lattice can be formed from the supported decision trees, which may be iteratively generated.); and
generating, based on a first data fragment of the first data and a second data fragment of second data received from a second device (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0098-0101], which discloses generating multiple fragments, where each fragment may correspond to a particular text.), a third data fragment of a result of the data query, wherein the second data at least comprises data associated with the third data attribute (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0098-0100], which discloses each fragment may be generated from the elements of the decision navigation map that corresponds to the text.), and the third data fragment comprises an element corresponding to the first data attribute that is classified and aggregated based on at least the second data attribute and the third data attribute (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0098-0104], which discloses each fragment may be converted/merged to form a complete decision tree, where a decision pre-tree may be populated with an attribute-value dataset, updating the threshold values, where the common nodes can be aggregated/merged.).
As per claims 20, 28, and 36, Galitsky teaches the method of claim 19, the electronic device of claim 27, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 35, respectively, further comprising:
transmitting a fourth data fragment of the first data to the second device (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0098-0100], which discloses each fragment may be generated from the elements of the decision navigation map that corresponds to the text.).
As per claims 21, 29, and 37, Galitsky teaches the method of claim 20, the electronic device of claim 28, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of 38, respectively, further comprising:
receiving a fifth data fragment of the result of the data query from the second device (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0060-0062], which discloses decision trees are trees that classify instances by sorting them based on featured values. Each node in the decision tree represents a feature in an instance to be classified.), wherein the fifth data fragment comprises an element corresponding to the first data attribute that is classified and aggregated based on the fourth data fragment of the first data and a sixth data fragment of the second data (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0106-0115], which discloses one or more fragments that include attributes of the decision tree, where each node indicates a first, second, third, etc., data in which lattice can be formed from the supported decision trees, which may be iteratively generated.); and
generating the result of the data query based on the third data segment and the fifth data segment (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0098-0101], which discloses generating multiple fragments, where each fragment may correspond to a particular text.).
As per claims 22, 30, and 38, Galitsky teaches the method of claim 19, the electronic device of claim 28, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of 38, respectively, wherein obtaining the first data comprises:
based on the request for the data query, obtaining stored data associated with the second data attribute (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0123-0126], which discloses when a query is received, where answers are generated from the query.); and
generating the first data by performing a one-bit valid encoding on the data based on a value of the second data attribute (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0098-0101], which discloses generating multiple fragments, where each fragment may correspond to a particular text.).
As per claims 23 and 31, Galitsky teaches the method of claim 19 and the electronic device of claim 27, respectively, wherein the first data further comprises data associated with the first data attribute to be classified and aggregated (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0098-0104], which discloses each fragment may be converted/merged to form a complete decision tree, where a decision pre-tree may be populated with an attribute-value dataset, updating the threshold values, where the common nodes can be aggregated/merged.).
As per claims 24 and 32, Galitsky teaches the method of claim 19 and the electronic device of claim 27, respectively, wherein generating the third data fragment comprises:
generating a seventh data fragment based on the first data fragment of the first data and the second data fragment of the second data (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0123-0126], which discloses when a query is received, where answers are generated from the query.), wherein the seventh data fragment comprises an element corresponding to a plurality of value combinations of the second data attribute and the third data attribute; and
classifying and aggregating the first data attribute by using one of the value combinations as a classification, to generate the third data fragment (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0098-0104], which discloses each fragment may be converted/merged to form a complete decision tree, where a decision pre-tree may be populated with an attribute-value dataset, updating the threshold values, where the common nodes can be aggregated/merged.).
As per claims 25 and 33, Galitsky teaches the method of claim 19 and the electronic device of claim 27, respectively, wherein the third data fragment further comprises an element indicating whether a value of the aggregated first data attribute is empty for each classification (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0098-0104], which discloses each fragment may be converted/merged to form a complete decision tree, where a decision pre-tree may be populated with an attribute-value dataset, updating the threshold values, where the common nodes can be aggregated/merged.).
As per claims 26 and 34, Galitsky teaches the method of claim 19 and the electronic device of claim 27, respectively, further comprising: transmitting the third data fragment to the second device, for generating the result of the data query by the second device (e.g. Galitsky, see paragraphs [0123-0126], which discloses when a query is received, where answers are generated from the query.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892 that includes additional prior art of record describing the general state of the art in which the invention is directed to.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN M SYED whose telephone number is (571)272-7191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/FARHAN M SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161 July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights