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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 1 recites at least one data forecast metric in the second to last line. However, this element was previously introduced in the claim. It is unclear if this is the same element, a different element, or related elements. For this reason, the above listed claims are rejected for containing this language or being dependent on a claim that contains this language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is a system claim. Therefore, claims 1 is directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
With respect to Claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1:
parsing, by a data integrator, each incomplete data set of the plurality of incomplete electronic data sets to identify a respective data format of the plurality of data formats (mental process – user can manually parse, by a data integrator, each incomplete data set of the plurality of incomplete electronic data sets to identify a respective data format of the plurality of data formats)
converting, by the data integrator, the plurality of incomplete electronic data sets into sparse data having a single data format based on the parsing, the sparse data comprising one or more of futures price data, risk free rate data, and index swap price data (mental process – user can manually convert, by the data integrator, the plurality of incomplete electronic data sets into sparse data having a single data format based on the parsing, the sparse data comprising one or more of futures price data, risk free rate data, and index swap price data)
capture, at one or more randomized times, one or more snapshots of the sparse data from the one or more data sources that meet one or more predetermined criteria (mental process – user can manually capture, at one or more randomized times, one or more snapshots of data from the one or more data sources that meet a predetermined criteria)
exclude one or more of the one or more snapshots via integrity testing (mental process – user can manually exclude one or more of the one or more snapshots via integrity testing)
combine remaining ones of the one or more snapshots into a sparse data set (mental process – user can manually combine remaining ones of the one or more snapshots into a data set)
select a portion of the sparse data set associated with one or more sub-periods within the selected time period (mental process – user can manually select a portion of the sparse data set associated with one or more sub-periods within the selected time period)
derive, according to a forward-looking term methodology, one or more data values associated with the sparse data set over the selected time period, the forward-looking term methodology comprising (mental process – user can manually derive, according to a forward-looking term methodology, one or more data values associated with the data set over the selected time period, the forward-looking term methodology)
identifying risk free rate data and futures price data associated with the selected time period from among the sparse data set, based on predetermined eligibility criteria (mental process – user can manually identify risk free rate data and futures price data associated with the selected time period from among the sparse data set, based on predetermined eligibility criteria)
determining, for the futures price data, the one or more sub-periods within the selected time period associated with at least one predicted change in the risk free rate data (mental process – user can manually determine, for the futures price data, the one or more sub-periods within the selected time period associated with at least one predicted change in the risk free rate data)
implying, for each of the one or more sub-periods, one or more implied rates based on the risk free rate data and the futures price data (mental process – user can manually imply, for each of the one or more sub-periods, one or more implied rates based on the risk free rate data and the futures price data)
compounding the one or more implied rates to derive a forward-looking term setting for the selected time period, the one or more derived data values comprising the one or more implied rates and at least one data forecast metric comprising the forward-looking term setting (mental process – user can manually compound the one or more implied rates to derive a forward-looking term setting for the selected time period, the one or more derived data values comprising the one or more implied rates and at least one data forecast metric comprising the forward-looking term setting)
derive at least one data forecast metric associated with the sparse data set based on the sparse data set and the one or more derived data values over the selected time period (mental process – user can manually derive at least one data forecast metric associated with the data set based on the data set and the one or more derived data values over the selected time period)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements:
a dedicated website portal configured to generate at least one webpage (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for generic computer functions)
a data forecasting system in electronic communication with one or more data sources and the dedicated website portal via at least one network (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for generic computer functions)
receive, via a data source interface, a plurality of incomplete electronic data sets from the one or more data sources over the at least one network, the plurality of incomplete electronic data sets having a plurality of data formats (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
receive, via an input selection portion of the at least one webpage, user input comprising a selected time period (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
disseminate the at least one data forecast metric to the dedicated website portal, such that a projected data portion of the at least one webpage is updated to display the at least one data forecast metric reflecting the selected time period (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements:
a dedicated website portal configured to generate at least one webpage (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for generic computer functions)
a data forecasting system in electronic communication with one or more data sources and the dedicated website portal via at least one network (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for generic computer functions)
receive, via a data source interface, a plurality of incomplete electronic data sets from the one or more data sources over the at least one network, the plurality of incomplete electronic data sets having a plurality of data formats (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” or “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
receive, via an input selection portion of the at least one webpage, user input comprising a selected time period (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” or “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
disseminate the at least one data forecast metric to the dedicated website portal, such that a projected data portion of the at least one webpage is updated to display the at least one data forecast metric reflecting the selected time period (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” or “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
Conclusion: The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually wherein the sparse data set includes a combination of futures price data, overnight index swap price data and rate data.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually wherein the rate data comprises at least one of fixed rate data and floating rate data.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually wherein the forward-looking term methodology is customized according to a type of data included in the sparse data set.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually wherein the risk free rate data includes overnight rate data.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8: The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than the additional elements, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) includes the additional elements of wherein the data forecasting system is configured to store the combined snapshots of the sparse data set in a global synthetic order book.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) of wherein the data forecasting system is configured to store the combined snapshots of the data set in a global synthetic order book recite adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of wherein the data forecasting system is configured to store the combined snapshots of the data set in a global synthetic order book recite merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” or “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim) (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed storing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually further comprising performing a series of calculations to determine one or more weighted statistical values for the combined snapshots, the series of calculations comprising:
calculating, for the combined snapshots, one or more statistical values; and
applying a predetermined weighting to the one or more statistical values to form the one or more weighted statistical values.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually wherein the one or more data sources include multiple central limit order books, the data forecasting system, as part of the forward-looking term methodology, is further configured to:
capture the one or more snapshots of overnight index swap price data from among the multiple central limit order books at the one or more randomized times; and
calculate, for the combined snapshots, one or more volume-weighted average mid-price (VWAMP) values, the one or more statistical values comprising the one or more VWAMP values,
wherein the predetermined weighting comprises quality weighting the one or more VWAMP values by spread to derive the forward-looking term setting for the selected time period.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually wherein the series of calculations comprise at least one of executed transaction data, firm quote data, indicative quote data, and settlement price data.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually wherein the series of calculations comprise at least one of executed transaction data, firm quote data, indicative quote data, and settlement price data, specific to each of the index swap price data and the futures price data.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually wherein the futures price data is obtained during predetermined time intervals based on one or more predetermined conditions specific to said futures price data.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually wherein the index swap price data is obtained during predetermined time intervals based on one or more predetermined conditions, specific to said index swap price data.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually wherein the forward-looking term methodology further comprises: execution of a series of extrapolations involving the sparse data set, results of which produce projected data that is predictive of future data value changes over the selected time period, the projected data comprising the one or more derived data values.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16: The limitation(s), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim limitation(s) precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation(s) encompasses the user manually wherein the series of calculations comprises determining one or more weighted statistical values for the combined snapshots in the sparse data set to derive the forward-looking term setting for the selected time period.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are cited. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
No Prior Art Rejections
The current claims do not have a prior art rejection.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123). The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claim(s) above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim(s), typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Additionally, any claim amendments for any reason should include remarks indicating clear support in the originally filed specification.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the §101 rejections, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but have been found unpersuasive. Applicant argues that 1) the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, and 2) the claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner disagrees for at least the following reasons.
First, the claims are directed to a judicial exception. The technical explanations from Remarks page 10 citing the specification are narrower than the claim language. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In reVan Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, Applicant cites the specification for data formats such as CSV and XML, or that the data may be in a compressed format. However, none of this is in the claims.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that manipulation of electronic data formats cannot be performed mentally. However, the manipulation of data can be performed mentally or with pencil and paper. For example, both CSV and XML are both human readable formats. Additionally, a human can capture snapshots through observation of data. The application of the data to a computing environment is an additional element. However, the claims as a whole are directed to a judicial exception. The judicial exception as well as the additional elements were evaluated together as found in the rejection.
In addition, any alleged improvement is to the abstract idea. Reviewing and manipulating information such as parsing, converting, observing, combining, selecting, deriving, identifying, determining, implying, and compounding can all be performed manually by an individual. Any alleged improvement to this process is an improvement to the judicial exception. Applicant attempts to reframe the improvement to be “interoperability and resource efficiency of the data forecasting system” (Remarks pg. 14). However, the computing system functions the same. Rather, it is the manipulation of the data being given to the system that has an alleged improvement. The additional elements merely provide execution in a computing environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Second, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The use of computers and a website are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components for generic computer functions. The receiving and dissemination of information are well-understood, routine and convention as stated in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which indicates that merely “storing and retrieving information in memory” or “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. These elements alone or in combination are well‐understood, routine, and conventional. In combination with the judicial exception elements of the claims, they do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any alleged inventive concept is solely recited in the abstract idea.
Applicant asserts that several of the abstract limitations were not found well-understood, routine, and conventional, however that analysis only applies to the additional elements which were addressed under Berkheimer. Furthermore, the assertion that the elements of the claim are unconventional because there is no prior art rejection is unpersuasive. Examiner refers Applicant to MPEP 2106 which states, "The question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is "fully apart" from the question of whether it is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 190, 209 USPQ 1,9 (1981)." This can be further supported by SAP America v Investpic, a precedential case by the Federal Circuit. In this case the court states:
We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89-90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[ A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 ,1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter.
Therefore, the lack of a prior art rejection does not itself grant eligibility.
Lastly, Applicant’s argument regarding an improvement from the specification that is reflected in the claim is not persuasive because the alleged improvement is to the abstract idea. Any improvement is to the mathematical algorithm for manipulating data.
For at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR §1.111(c). Additionally when amending, in their remarks Applicant should particularly cite to the supporting paragraphs in the original disclosure for the amendments.
The following references were found during the examination of this patent application and were found to be relevant to patentability. Applicant is advised to review these references prior to responding to this Office action.
Chan et al. (A STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY TO SIMPLIFY SOFTWARE METRIC MODELS CONSTRUCTED USING INCOMPLETE DATA SAMPLES) discloses a methodology consisting of the k-nearest neighbors (k NN) imputation method, statistical hypothesis testing, and a “goodness-of-fit” criterion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT H BEJCEK II whose telephone number is (571)270-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michelle T. Bechtold can be reached at (571) 431-0762. 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.
/R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2148
/MICHELLE T BECHTOLD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2148
