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
Claims 1-29 have been cancelled. Claims 30-49 have been added. Claims 30-49 are pending and rejected in the application.
Object Subject Matter
Claims 31-45 and 47-48 are objected to as not being dependent upon any added claims 30-49. The claims require correction.
Next, claims 33-37 and 39-45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if all the objected claims were rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and all intervening claims. The amendment will not overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 49 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17 of U.S. Patent 12,393,587. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims describes scheduling retrieval of candidate information to determining a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period and the patented claims have some of the instant limitations in the patented claims such that they are patentably indistinct. The patented claims further include more about determining the period of successful retrieval of information but are otherwise of nearly identical scope despite any minor language differences. The instant claims scope as interpreted is the same for those limitations, or otherwise patentably indistinct. A comparison between the claims is shown below. The bolded language in the table below is identical to the language from U.S. Patent 12,517,298. As such, the instant claims would not be patentably distinct from the claims in U.S. Patent 12,517,928.
Current Application: 19/285952
U.S. Patent 12,517,928
30. A method comprising: determining a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date; determining one of: (i) a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; or (ii) a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; determining a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period; scheduling retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time; and retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.
1. A method comprising: determining a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date; determining one of: (i) a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset, wherein determining the period of successful retrieval of information comprises: determining a successful retrieval date for at least some of the plurality of the entries of the dataset; and determining a representative time for performing fetching runs as a median of the determined successful retrieval dates; or (ii) a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset, wherein determining the period of issuance of information by the first entity comprises: determining one of: (i) a cadence of issuance of the information by the first entity for the user, (ii) periodicity of issuance of the information by the first entity for the user; or (iii) cadence and periodicity of issuance of the information by the first entity for the user; determining a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period; scheduling retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time; retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time; and wherein the historical information of the dataset is historical information issued by the first entity in connection with a user's account with the first entity.
31. The method of claim 1, wherein the information date is one of: (i) a retrieval date indicative of the date on which the particular information was retrieved; or (ii) an issuance date indicative of the date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity; (iii) an estimated issuance date indicative of an estimated date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the information date is one of: (i) a retrieval date indicative of the date on which the particular information was retrieved; or (ii) an issuance date indicative of the date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity; (iii) an estimated issuance date indicative of an estimated date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity.
35. The method of claim 5, wherein determining the cadence of issuance of information by the first entity comprises one or more of: (i) receiving input from a user via a user interface, the input indicative of the cadence of issuance of information by the first entity; (ii) receiving cadence information indicative of the cadence of issuance of information from the first entity; and (iii) determining one or more intervals, each interval indicative of a difference between a first date of first information of the plurality of entries in the dataset and a next closest second date of second information of the plurality of entries and determining the cadence of issuance as a function of the one or more intervals.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the cadence of issuance of information by the first entity comprises one or more of: (i) receiving input from a user via a user interface, the input indicative of the cadence of issuance of information by the first entity; (ii) receiving cadence information indicative of the cadence of issuance of information from the first entity; and (iii) determining one or more intervals, each interval indicative of a difference between a first date of first information of the plurality of entries in the dataset and a next closest second date of second information of the plurality of entries and (iv) determining the cadence of issuance as a function of the one or more intervals.
36. The method of claim 6, wherein determining the cadence of issuance as a function of the one or more intervals comprises determining the cadence of issuance as a median of the one or more intervals.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein determining the cadence of issuance as a function of the one or more intervals comprises determining the cadence of issuance as a median of the one or more intervals.
37. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining an information date of the candidate information; determining that the information date of the candidate information corresponds with an information date of a previously retrieved candidate information issued by the first entity and associated with the user's account; determining a later predicted time; and scheduling retrieval of a subsequent candidate information associated with the user's account with the first entity from the system associated with the first entity at the later predicted time.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining an information date of the candidate information; determining that the information date of the candidate information corresponds with an information date of a previously retrieved candidate information issued by the first entity and associated with the user's account; determining a later predicted time; and scheduling retrieval of a subsequent candidate information associated with the user's account with the first entity from the system associated with the first entity at the later predicted time.
38. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining metadata of the candidate information; determining that the metadata of the candidate information corresponds with metadata of a previously retrieved candidate information issued by the first entity and associated with the user's account; determining a later predicted time; and scheduling retrieval of a subsequent candidate information associated with the user's account with the first entity from the system associated with the first entity at the later predicted time.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining metadata of the candidate information; determining that the metadata of the candidate information corresponds with metadata of a previously retrieved candidate information issued by the first entity and associated with the user's account; determining a later predicted time; and scheduling retrieval of a subsequent candidate information associated with the user's account with the first entity from the system associated with the first entity at the later predicted time.
39. The method of claim 8, further comprising: determining that subsequent candidate information is available at the updated predicted time; adding the subsequent candidate information to the dataset to generate an updated dataset; determining an updated period of successful retrieval of information based on the updated dataset; determining an updated predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined updated period; and scheduling retrieval of subsequent candidate information from a system associated with the first entity at the updated predicted time.
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising: determining that subsequent candidate information is available at the updated predicted time; adding the subsequent candidate information to the dataset to generate an updated dataset; determining an updated period of successful retrieval of information based on the updated dataset; determining an updated predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined updated period; and scheduling retrieval of subsequent candidate information from a system associated with the first entity at the updated predicted time.
40. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a confidence score for the determined period and/or the predicted future times.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a confidence score for: (i) the determined period; (ii) the predicted future times; or (iii) the determined period and the predicted future times.
41. The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining that the confidence score is below a confidence threshold; and changing the determined predicted future time to a later time.
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising: determining that the confidence score is below a confidence threshold; and changing the determined predicted future time to a later time.
42. The method of claim 1, wherein the historical information of the dataset is historical information issued by the first entity in connection with a user's account with the first entity.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the historical information of the dataset is historical information issued by the first entity in connection with a user's account with the first entity.
43. The method of claim 13, wherein the dataset is one of a plurality of sub-datasets of a super-dataset of historical information issued by the first entity and associated with the user's account, each of the plurality of sub-datasets being associated with a respective subaccount of the user's account with the first entity and wherein the plurality of entries of the dataset are associated with a first subaccount of the user's account with the first entity.
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the dataset is one of a plurality of sub-datasets of a super-dataset of historical information issued by the first entity and associated with the user's account, each of the plurality of sub-datasets being associated with a respective subaccount of the user's account with the first entity and wherein the plurality of entries of the dataset are associated with a first subaccount of the user's account with the first entity.
44. The method of 14, further comprising: determining user credentials associated with the user's account with the first entity system; and using the user credentials to access the user's account and retrieve the candidate information.
12. The method of claim 10, further comprising: determining user credentials associated with the user's account with the first entity system; and using the user credentials to access the user's account and retrieve the candidate information.
45. The method of claim 15, wherein retrieving the candidate information comprises: importing the candidate information into a user's account of a document management system.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein retrieving the candidate information comprises: importing the candidate information into a user's account of a document management system.
46. A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory comprising computer executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: determine a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date; determine one of: (i) a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; or (ii) a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; determine a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period; schedule retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time; and retrieve the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.
14. A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory comprising computer executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: determine a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date; determine one of: (i) a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset, wherein determining the period of successful retrieval of information comprises: determining a successful retrieval date for at least some of the plurality of the entries of the dataset; and determining a representative time for performing fetching runs as a median of the determined successful retrieval dates; or (ii) a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset, wherein determining the period of issuance of information by the first entity comprises: determining one of: (i) a cadence of issuance of the information by the first entity for the user, (ii) periodicity of issuance of the information by the first entity for the user; or (iii) cadence and periodicity of issuance of the information by the first entity for the user; determine a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period; schedule retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time; retrieve the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time; and wherein the historical information of the dataset is historical information issued by the first entity in connection with a user's account with the first entity.
47. The system of claim 17, wherein the information date is one of: (i) a retrieval date indicative of the date on which the particular information was retrieved; or (ii) an issuance date indicative of the date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity; (iii) an estimated issuance date indicative of an estimated date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity.
15. The computing device of claim 14, wherein the information date is one of: (i) a retrieval date indicative of the date on which the particular information was retrieved; or (ii) an issuance date indicative of the date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity; (iii) an estimated issuance date indicative of an estimated date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity.
49. A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations including: determining a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date; determining one of: (i) a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; or (ii) a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; determining a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period; scheduling retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time; and retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.
17. A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations including: determining a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date; determining one of: (i) a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset, wherein determining the period of successful retrieval of information comprises: determining a successful retrieval date for at least some of the plurality of the entries of the dataset; and determining a representative time for performing fetching runs as a median of the determined successful retrieval dates; or (ii) a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset, wherein determining the period of issuance of information by the first entity comprises: determining one of: (i) a cadence of issuance of the information by the first entity for the user, (ii) periodicity of issuance of the information by the first entity for the user; or (iii) cadence and periodicity of issuance of the information by the first entity for the user; determining a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period; scheduling retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time; retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time; and wherein the historical information of the dataset is historical information issued by the first entity in connection with a user's account with the first entity.
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 30-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 30-45 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 30 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 30 recites a method comprising:
determining a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date;
determining one of:
a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; or
a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset;
determining a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period;
scheduling retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “first entity system” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “first entity system” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 30 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “determining a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date;” encompasses mentally a person determining a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date.
Next, “determining one of:
(i) a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; or
(ii) a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset;” encompasses mentally a person determining one of:
(i) a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; or
(ii) a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset.
Next, “determining a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period;” encompasses mentally a person determining a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period.
Next, “scheduling retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time;” encompasses mentally a person scheduling retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time. The mere nominal recitation of a system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 30 recites retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.
Next, “retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 30 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere scheduling data at a predicted time cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 30 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.” step is considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.” step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein the information date is one of: (i) a retrieval date indicative of the date on which the particular information was retrieved; or (ii) an issuance date indicative of the date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity; (iii) an estimated issuance date indicative of an estimated date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity.” of dependent claim 31 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the information date is one of: (i) a retrieval date indicative of the date on which the particular information was retrieved; or (ii) an issuance date indicative of the date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity; (iii) an estimated issuance date indicative of an estimated date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 31 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the period of successful retrieval of information comprises: determining a successful retrieval date for at least some of the plurality of the entries of the dataset; and determining a representative time for performing fetching runs as a function of the determined successful retrieval dates.” of dependent claim 32 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the period of successful retrieval of information comprises: determining a successful retrieval date for at least some of the plurality of the entries of the dataset.
Next, the limitation “determining a representative time for performing fetching runs as a function of the determined successful retrieval dates.” of dependent claim 1 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a representative time for performing fetching runs as a function of the determined successful retrieval dates. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 32 is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation “The method of claim 3, wherein determining a representative time for performing fetching runs as a function of the determined successful retrieval dates comprises determining the median of the determined successful retrieval dates as the representative time.” of dependent claim 33 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 33 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period comprises: determining a cadence of issuance of the information by the first entity for the user.” of dependent claim 34 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period comprises: determining a cadence of issuance of the information by the first entity for the user. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 34 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “The method of claim 5, wherein determining the cadence of issuance of information by the first entity comprises one or more of: (i) receiving input from a user via a user interface, the input indicative of the cadence of issuance of information by the first entity;” of dependent claim 35 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the cadence of issuance of information by the first entity comprises one or more of: (i) receiving input from a user via a user interface, the input indicative of the cadence of issuance of information by the first entity.
Next, the limitation “(ii) receiving cadence information indicative of the cadence of issuance of information from the first entity;” of dependent claim 35 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, the limitation “(iii) determining one or more intervals, each interval indicative of a difference between a first date of first information of the plurality of entries in the dataset and a next closest second date of second information of the plurality of entries and determining the cadence of issuance as a function of the one or more intervals.” of dependent claim 35 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining one or more intervals, each interval indicative of a difference between a first date of first information of the plurality of entries in the dataset and a next closest second date of second information of the plurality of entries and determining the cadence of issuance as a function of the one or more intervals. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 35 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, the limitation “The method of claim 6, wherein determining the cadence of issuance as a function of the one or more intervals comprises determining the cadence of issuance as a median of the one or more intervals.” of dependent claim 36 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the cadence of issuance as a function of the one or more intervals comprises determining the cadence of issuance as a median of the one or more intervals. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 36 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining an information date of the candidate information;” of dependent claim 37 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining an information date of the candidate information.
Next, the limitation “determining that the information date of the candidate information corresponds with an information date of a previously retrieved candidate information issued by the first entity and associated with the user's account;” of dependent claim 37 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining that the information date of the candidate information corresponds with an information date of a previously retrieved candidate information issued by the first entity and associated with the user's account.
Next, the limitation “determining a later predicted time;” of dependent claim 37 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a later predicted time.
Next, the limitation “scheduling retrieval of a subsequent candidate information associated with the user's account with the first entity from the system associated with the first entity at the later predicted time.” of dependent claim 37 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person scheduling retrieval of a subsequent candidate information associated with the user's account with the first entity from the system associated with the first entity at the later predicted time. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 37 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining metadata of the candidate information;” of dependent claim 38 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining metadata of the candidate information.
Next, the limitation “determining that the metadata of the candidate information corresponds with metadata of a previously retrieved candidate information issued by the first entity and associated with the user's account;” of dependent claim 38 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining that the metadata of the candidate information corresponds with metadata of a previously retrieved candidate information issued by the first entity and associated with the user's account.
Next, the limitation “determining a later predicted time;” of dependent claim 38 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a determining a later predicted time.
Next, the limitation “scheduling retrieval of a subsequent candidate information associated with the user's account with the first entity from the system associated with the first entity at the later predicted time.” of dependent claim 38 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person scheduling retrieval of a subsequent candidate information associated with the user's account with the first entity from the system associated with the first entity at the later predicted time. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 38 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “The method of claim 8, further comprising: determining that subsequent candidate information is available at the updated predicted time;” of dependent claim 39 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining that subsequent candidate information is available at the updated predicted time.
Next, the limitation “adding the subsequent candidate information to the dataset to generate an updated dataset;” of dependent claim 39 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person adding the subsequent candidate information to the dataset to generate an updated dataset.
Next, the limitation “determining an updated period of successful retrieval of information based on the updated dataset;” of dependent claim 39 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining an updated period of successful retrieval of information based on the updated dataset.
Next, the limitation “determining an updated predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined updated period;” of dependent claim 39 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining an updated predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined updated period.
Next, the limitation “and scheduling retrieval of subsequent candidate information from a system associated with the first entity at the updated predicted time.” of dependent claim 39 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person scheduling retrieval of subsequent candidate information from a system associated with the first entity at the updated predicted time. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 39 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “determining an updated predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined updated period;” of dependent claim 39 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining an updated predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined updated period.
Next, the limitation “The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a confidence score for the determined period and/or the predicted future times.” of dependent claim 40 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a confidence score for the determined period and/or the predicted future times. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 40 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining that the confidence score is below a confidence threshold; and changing the determined predicted future time to a later time.” of dependent claim 42 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining that the confidence score is below a confidence threshold. Next, the limitation “and changing the determined predicted future time to a later time.” of dependent claim 41 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person changing the determined predicted future time to a later time. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 41 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein the historical information of the dataset is historical information issued by the first entity in connection with a user's account with the first entity.” of dependent claim 42 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the historical information of the dataset is historical information issued by the first entity in connection with a user's account with the first entity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 42 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “The method of claim 13, wherein the dataset is one of a plurality of sub-datasets of a super-dataset of historical information issued by the first entity and associated with the user's account, each of the plurality of sub-datasets being associated with a respective subaccount of the user's account with the first entity and wherein the plurality of entries of the dataset are associated with a first subaccount of the user's account with the first entity.” of dependent claim 43 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the dataset is one of a plurality of sub-datasets of a super-dataset of historical information issued by the first entity and associated with the user's account, each of the plurality of sub-datasets being associated with a respective subaccount of the user's account with the first entity and wherein the plurality of entries of the dataset are associated with a first subaccount of the user's account with the first entity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 43 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “The method of 14, further comprising: determining user credentials associated with the user's account with the first entity system;” of dependent claim 44 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining user credentials associated with the user's account with the first entity system. Next, the limitation “using the user credentials to access the user's account and retrieve the candidate information.” of dependent claim 44 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person using the user credentials to access the user's account and retrieve the candidate information. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 44 is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation “The method of claim 15, wherein retrieving the candidate information comprises: importing the candidate information into a user's account of a document management system.” of dependent claim 45 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 45 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 46-48 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 46 recites a device and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 46 recites a computing device comprising:
determine a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date; determine one of:
a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; or
a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset;
determine a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period;
schedule retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “one or more processors” and “a memory” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting the “one or more processors” and “a memory” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 46 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “determining a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date;” encompasses mentally a person determining a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date.
Next, “determining one of:
(i) a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; or
(ii) a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset;” encompasses mentally a person determining one of:
(i) a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; or
(ii) a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset.
Next, “determining a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period;” encompasses mentally a person determining a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period.
Next, “scheduling retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time;” encompasses mentally a person scheduling retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time. The mere nominal recitation of a system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 46 recites one or more processors; and
memory comprising computer executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.
Here, “one or more processors; and
memory comprising computer executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:” amounts to mere generic computer components implementing an abstract idea.
Next, “retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 46 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere scheduling data at a predicted time cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 46 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.” step is considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.” step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, the limitation “The system of claim 17, wherein the information date is one of: (i) a retrieval date indicative of the date on which the particular information was retrieved;” of dependent claim 47 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a retrieval date indicative of the date on which the particular information was retrieved. Next, the limitation “or (ii) an issuance date indicative of the date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity;” of dependent claim 47 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining an issuance date indicative of the date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity. Next, the limitation “(iii) an estimated issuance date indicative of an estimated date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity.” of dependent claim 47 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining an estimated issuance date indicative of an estimated date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 47 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “The system of claim 17, wherein the system determines the period of successful retrieval of information by: determining a successful retrieval date for at least some of the plurality of the entries of the dataset;” of dependent claim 48 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a successful retrieval date for at least some of the plurality of the entries of the dataset. Next, the limitation “and determining a representative time for performing fetching runs as a function of the determined successful retrieval dates” of dependent claim 48 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a representative time for performing fetching runs as a function of the determined successful retrieval dates. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 48 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 49 is ineligible:
As to step one, claim 49 recites a computer-readable storage medium and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 46 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations including:
determining a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date;
determining one of:
(i) a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; or
(ii) a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset;
determining a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period;
scheduling retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a computer-readable storage medium” and “a computer” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting the “a computer-readable storage medium” and “a computer” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 49 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “determining a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date;” encompasses mentally a person determining a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date.
Next, “determining one of:
(i) a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; or
(ii) a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset;” encompasses mentally a person determining one of:
(i) a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; or
(ii) a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset.
Next, “determining a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period;” encompasses mentally a person determining a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period.
Next, “scheduling retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time;” encompasses mentally a person scheduling retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time. The mere nominal recitation of a system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 49 recites one or more processors; and
memory comprising computer executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.
Here, “one or more processors; and
memory comprising computer executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:” amounts to mere generic computer components implementing an abstract idea.
Next, “retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 49 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere scheduling data at a predicted time cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 49 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.” step is considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “retrieving the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time.” step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 30, 31, 32, 38, 46, 47, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0342877; hereinafter: Clark, in IDS dated 8/28/2025) in view of Song et al. U.S. Patent Publication (11,314,881; hereinafter: Song, in IDS dated 8/28/2025)
Claims 30, 46, and 49
As to claims 30, 46, and 49, Clark discloses a computing device comprising:
one or more processors(paragraph[0039], the reference describes using a computer. The Examiner interprets the computer having one or more processors.); and
memory comprising computer executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to(paragraph[0039], the reference describes using a computer to execute software.):
determine a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date(paragraph[00113], the reference describes pulling dates (i.e., information date, as claimed) from historical data.);
schedule retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time(paragraph[0056]-paragraph[0059], the reference describes retrieving information based on the machine learning predicted time to access a system.); and
retrieve the candidate information from the first entity system at the predicted time(paragraph[0056]-paragraph[0059], the reference describes retrieving information based on the machine learning predicted time to access a system.).
Clark doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose determine one of:
a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; or
a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; determine a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period;
However, Song discloses determine one of:
(i) a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; or
(ii) a period of issuance of information by the first entity of information by the first entity based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; determine a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period (column 4, lines 41-63, the reference describes the using dates (i.e., information dates, as claimed) to determine when data is accessed and retrieved (i.e., a period of issuance of information, as claimed) from an account). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Clark with the teachings of Song to determine account access and retrieval patterns which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Clark with the teachings of Song to efficiently provide update account profiles stored in one database based on raw data in another larger database storage (Song: column 1, lines 29-30).
Claim 31
As to claim 31, the combination of Clark and Song discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Song further disclose wherein the information date is one of:
(i) a retrieval date indicative of the date on which the particular information was retrieved; or
(ii) an issuance date indicative of the date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity;
(iii) an estimated issuance date indicative of an estimated date of issuance of the particular information by the first entity (column 4, lines 52-55, the reference describes determining a request date (i.e., a r etrieval date, as claimed) based on the historical statistical data. The Examiner interprets the reference teaching all the elements the limitation (i).).
Claim 32
As to claims 32, the combination of Clark and Song discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Clark further disclose wherein determining the period of successful retrieval of information comprises:
determining a successful retrieval date for at least some of the plurality of the entries of the dataset (paragraph[0065], the reference describes determining the failure and success of retrieving data from a system.); and
determining a representative time for performing fetching runs as a function of the determined successful retrieval dates (paragraph[0065], the reference describes determining the time period to retrieve data from a system.).
Claim 38
As to claim 38, the combination of Clark and Song discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, and Clark further disclose determining that subsequent candidate information is available at the updated predicted time;
adding the subsequent candidate information to the dataset to generate an updated dataset (paragraph[0076], the reference describes updating the access strategy based on how the system behaves.);
determining an updated period of successful retrieval of information based on the updated dataset(paragraph[0103], the reference describes using the updated timing to determine a new access time to the system.);
determining an updated predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined updated period(paragraph[0103], the reference describes predicting a new time to access the data.); and
scheduling retrieval of subsequent candidate information from a system associated with the first entity at the updated predicted time (paragraph[0113], the reference describes retrieving the data from the system based on updated timing data.).
Claim 47
As to claim 47, the combination of Clark and Song discloses all the elements in claim 17, as noted above, and Song further disclose wherein the historical information of the dataset is historical information issued by the first entity in connection with a user's account with the first entity (column 12, lines 15-22, the reference describes using historical data of an user’s account access.).
Claim 48
As to claim 48, the combination of Clark and Song discloses all the elements in claim 17, as noted above, and Clark further disclose wherein the system determines the period of successful retrieval of information by:
determining a successful retrieval date for at least some of the plurality of the entries of the dataset (paragraph[0065], the reference describes determining the failure and success of retrieving data from a system.); and
determining a representative time for performing fetching runs as a function of the determined successful retrieval dates (paragraph[0065], the reference describes determining the time period to retrieve data from a system.).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gribelyuk et al. U.S. Patent(11,928,211) discloses implementing a machine learning approach to modeling entity behavior.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights