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 .
This office action is in response to the claimed invention, in which claims 1-20 were cancelled and claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on September 8, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Claims 21-27 are directed to a system.
Claims 28-34 are directed to a method.
Claims 35-40 are directed to a computer-readable non-transitory storage media.
Therefore, claims 21-40 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One (Judicial exception recited)
The limitation “generating, for each training point, an independent grid comprising grid points, wherein the independent grids are stored in a second memory location distinct from the first memory location” in claims 21, 28 and 35, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement and /or mathematical calculation, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper generate an independent grid comprising grid points.
The limitation “calculating a probability value for each of the grid points” in claims 21, 28 and 35, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement and /or mathematical calculation, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper calculate a probability value for each of the grid points.
The limitation “combining two or more of the independent grids into a geo-grid” in claims 21, 28 and 35, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement and /or mathematical calculation, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper combine two or more of the independent grids into a geo-grid.
The limitation “determining a normalized value for one or more of the grid points based at least on one or more of the probability values” in claims 21, 28 and 35, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper determine a normalized value for one or more of the grid points based at least on one or more of the probability values.
The limitation “updating the geo-grid based at least on one or more of the normalized values” in claims 21, 28 and 35, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper update the geo-grid based at least on one or more of the normalized values.
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integrated into a practical application):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
That the method is "implemented by a computing system” is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “accessing data stored in a first memory location, wherein the data comprises training points and each training point comprises a latitude value and a longitude value” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “storing the updated geo-grid” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The limitation “one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Note, the mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B (claim provides an inventive concept):
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “accessing ….” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “storing ….” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional in storing information as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and "i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
With respect to the “one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible.
Accordingly, claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claims 28 and 35 fall short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale.
The dependent claims 22-27, 29-34 and 36-40 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 22 recites “wherein, the grid points comprise a first grid point and a second grid point; and combining two or more of the independent grids into the geo-grid comprises adding the probability value of the first grid point to the probability value of the second grid point”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for adding the probability value of the first grid point to the probability value of the second grid point, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same analysis applies to claims 39 and 36.
Claim 23 recites “wherein, the latitude value of the first grid point is equal to the latitude value of the second grid point; and the longitude value of the first grid point is equal to the longitude value of the second grid point”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. The same analysis applies to claims 30 and 37.
Claim 24 recites “filtering the grid points in the geo-grid that have a probability value of zero”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for adding filtering the grid points in the geo-grid that have a probability value of zero, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same analysis applies to claims 31 and 38.
Claim 25 recites “wherein, the normalized value for each of the grid points is a value between 0 and 1”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for normalizing value for each of the grid points, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same analysis applies to claims 32 and 39.
Claim 26 recites “wherein the probability value for each of the grid points is calculated using a probability density function”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. The same analysis applies to claim 33.
Claim 27 recites “wherein, the probability density function is based on: a von Mises-Fisher distribution; or a Gaussian distribution”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for using probability density function is based on: a von Mises-Fisher distribution; or a Gaussian distribution, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The same analysis applies to claims 34 and 40.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12,429,358. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21-40 under examination are obvious, respectively, by claims 1-20 of the reference Patent. Every limitations in the instant application under examination claims are recited in the conflicting reference patent claims, and the differences or additional limitations between the claims are highlighted below by underlining and bolding all limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the independent claim 21 of the instant application to generate a graphical representation based at least on the updated geo-grid, in order to ensure that geographical map reflects the most current geographic boundaries, coordinates, and spatial relationships, thereby maintaining correct distances, areas, and projections, which is critical for reliable analysis and helping making better-informed decisions and communicate insights more effectively. Note, such deviation would not interfere with the functionality of the claims that are already patented, and would achieve the same end result.
Please, see the comparison table below:
Application
Patent
21. A system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause one or more components of the system to perform operations comprising:
accessing data stored in a first memory location, wherein the data comprises training points and each training point comprises a latitude value and a longitude value;
generating, for each training point, an independent grid comprising grid points, wherein the independent grids are stored in a second memory location distinct from the first memory location;
calculating a probability value for each of the grid points;
combining two or more of the independent grids into a geo-grid;
determining a normalized value for one or more of the grid points based at least on one or more of the probability values;
updating the geo-grid based at least on one or more of the normalized values; and
storing the updated geo-grid.
1. A system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause one or more components of the system to perform operations comprising:
accessing data stored in a first memory location, wherein the data comprises training points and each training point comprises a latitude value and a longitude value;
in response to accessing the data, generating, with a processor, a plurality of grid points for each training point and an independent grid for each training point, wherein: the independent grids are stored in a second memory location distinct from the first memory location; and
each independent grid comprises one or more of the plurality of grid points;
calculating a probability value for each grid point in the plurality of grid points using a probability density function;
combining each independent grid into a geo-grid based at least on the calculated probability values for each grid point in the plurality of grid points;
determining a normalized value for each grid point, wherein the normalized value is based at least on the calculated probability values;
updating the geo-grid based at least on the normalized values;
storing the updated geo-grid; and
generating a graphical representation based at least on the updated geo-grid.
Claims 22-27 are rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims by dependency.
Application
Patent
22. The system of Claim 21, wherein: the grid points comprise a first grid point and a second grid point; and combining two or more of the independent grids into the geo-grid comprises adding the probability value of the first grid point to the probability value of the second grid point.
23. The system of Claim 22, wherein, the latitude value of the first grid point is equal to the latitude value of the second grid point; and the longitude value of the first grid point is equal to the longitude value of the second grid point.
24. The system of Claim 21, the operations further comprising: filtering the grid points in the geo-grid that have a probability value of zero.
25. The system of Claim 21, wherein, the normalized value for each of the grid points is a value between 0 and 1.
26. The system of Claim 21, wherein the probability value for each of the grid points is calculated using a probability density function.
27. The system of Claim 26, wherein, the probability density function is based on: a von Mises-Fisher distribution; or a Gaussian distribution.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein: combining each independent grid into the geo-grid comprises adding the probability value of a first grid point to the probability value of a second grid point.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein: the latitude value of the first grid point is equal to the latitude value of the second grid point and the longitude value of the first grid point is equal to the longitude value of the second grid point.
4. The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: filtering the plurality of grid points in the geo-grid that have a probability value of zero.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein: the probability density function is based on a von Mises-Fisher distribution.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein: the normalized value for each grid point is a value between 0 and 1.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein: the probability density function is based on a Gaussian distribution.
As to claim 28, one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the independent claim 28 of the instant application to generate a graphical representation based at least on the updated geo-grid, in order to ensure that geographical map reflects the most current geographic boundaries, coordinates, and spatial relationships, thereby maintaining correct distances, areas, and projections, which is critical for reliable analysis and helping making better-informed decisions and communicate insights more effectively. Note, such deviation would not interfere with the functionality of the claims that are already patented, and would achieve the same end result.
Please, see the comparison table below:
Application
Patent
28. A method, comprising:
accessing data stored in a first memory location, wherein the data comprises training points and each training point comprises a latitude value and a longitude value;
generating, for each training point, an independent grid comprising grid points, wherein the independent grids are stored in a second memory location distinct from the first memory location;
calculating a probability value for each of the grid points;
combining two or more of the independent grids into a geo-grid;
determining a normalized value for one or more the grid points based at least on one or more of the probability values;
updating the geo-grid based at least on one or more of the normalized values; and
storing the updated geo-grid.
8. A method, comprising:
accessing data stored in a first memory location, wherein the data comprises training points and each training point comprises a latitude value and a longitude value;
in response to accessing the data, generating, with a processor, a plurality of grid points for each training point and an independent grid for each training point, wherein: the independent grids are stored in a second memory location distinct from the first memory location; and
each independent grid comprises one or more of the plurality of grid points;
calculating a probability value for each grid point in the plurality of grid points using a probability density function;
combining each independent grid into a geo-grid based at least on the calculated probability values for each grid point in the plurality of grid points;
determining a normalized value for each grid point, wherein the normalized value is based at least on the calculated probability values;
updating the geo-grid based at least on the normalized values;
storing the updated geo-grid; and
generating a graphical representation based at least on the updated geo-grid.
Claims 29-34 are rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims by dependency.
Application
Patent
29. The method of Claim 28, wherein: the grid points comprise a first grid point and a second grid point; and combining two or more of the independent grids into the geo-grid comprises adding the probability value of the first grid point to the probability value of the second grid point.
30. The method of Claim 29, wherein: the latitude value of the first grid point is equal to the latitude value of the second grid point; and the longitude value of the first grid point is equal to the longitude value of the second grid point.
31. The method of Claim 28, further comprising: filtering the grid points in the geo-grid that have a probability value of zero.
32. The method of Claim 28, wherein: the normalized value for each of the grid points is a value between 0 and 1.
33. The method of Claim 28, wherein the probability value for each of the grid points is calculated using a probability density function.
34. The method of Claim 33, wherein: the probability density function is based on: a von Mises-Fisher distribution; or a Gaussian distribution.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein: combining each independent grid into the geo-grid comprises adding the probability value of a first grid point to the probability value of a second grid point.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein: the latitude value of the first grid point is equal to the latitude value of the second grid point and the longitude value of the first grid point is equal to the longitude value of the second grid point.
11. The method of claim 8, further comprising: filtering the plurality of grid points in the geo-grid that have a probability value of zero.
12. The method of claim 8, wherein: the probability density function is based on a von Mises-Fisher distribution.
13. The method of claim 8, wherein: the normalized value for each grid point in the geo-grid is a value between 0 and 1.
14. The method of claim 8, wherein: the probability density function is based on a Gaussian distribution.
As to claim 35, one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the independent claim 35 of the instant application to generate a graphical representation based at least on the updated geo-grid, in order to ensure that geographical map reflects the most current geographic boundaries, coordinates, and spatial relationships, thereby maintaining correct distances, areas, and projections, which is critical for reliable analysis and helping making better-informed decisions and communicate insights more effectively. Note, such deviation would not interfere with the functionality of the claims that are already patented, and would achieve the same end result.
Please, see the comparison table below:
Application
Patent
35. One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
accessing data stored in a first memory location, wherein the data comprises training points and each training point comprises a latitude value and a longitude value;
generating, for each training point, an independent grid comprising grid points, wherein the independent grids are stored in a second memory location distinct from the first memory location;
calculating a probability value for each of the grid points;
combining two or more of the independent grids into a geo-grid;
determining a normalized value for one or more the grid points based at least on one or more of the probability values;
updating the geo-grid based at least on one or more of the normalized values; and
storing the updated geo-grid.
15. One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
accessing data stored in a first memory location, wherein the data comprises training points and each training point comprises a latitude value and a longitude value;
in response to accessing the data, generating, with a process, a plurality of grid points for each training point and an independent grid for each training point, wherein: the independent grids are stored in a second memory location distinct from the first memory location; and
each independent grid comprises one or more of the plurality of grid points;
calculating a probability value for each grid point in the plurality of grid points using a probability density function;
combining each independent grid into a geo-grid based at least on the calculated probability values for each grid point in the plurality of grid points;
determining a normalized value for each grid point, wherein the normalized value is based at least on the calculated probability values;
updating the geo-grid based at least on the normalized values;
storing the updated geo-grid; and
generating a graphical representation based at least on the updated geo-grid.
Claims 36-40 are rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims by dependency.
Application
Patent
36. The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of Claim 35, wherein: the grid points comprise a first grid point and a second grid point; and combining two or more of the independent grids into the geo-grid comprises adding the probability value of the first grid point to the probability value of the second grid point.
37. The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of Claim 36, wherein: the latitude value of the first grid point is equal to the latitude value of the second grid point; and the longitude value of the first grid point is equal to the longitude value of the second grid point.
38. The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of Claim 35, the operations further comprising: filtering the grid points in the geo-grid that have a probability value of zero.
39. The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of Claim 35, wherein: the normalized value for each of the grid points is a value between 0 and 1.
40. The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of Claim 35, wherein: the probability value for each of the grid points is calculated using a probability density function that is based on: a von Mises-Fisher distribution; or a Gaussian distribution.
16. The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of claim 15, wherein: combining each independent grid into the geo-grid comprises adding the probability value of a first grid point to the probability value of a second grid point.
17. The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of claim 16, wherein: the latitude value of the first grid point is equal to the latitude value of the second grid point and the longitude value of the first grid point is equal to the longitude value of the second grid point.
18. The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of claim 15, the operations further comprising: filtering the plurality of grid points in the geo-grid that have a probability value of zero.
19. The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of claim 15, wherein: the probability density function is based on a von Mises-Fisher distribution.
20. The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of claim 15, wherein: the normalized value for each grid point in the geo-grid is a value between 0 and 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN-109918469 (involved in obtaining to-be-processed data, where the to-be-processed data comprises latitude and longitude of sampling points and sampling point data. A home grid of the sampling point data corresponding to the latitude and longitude of the sampling points is determined according to the latitude and longitude of the sampling points and a preset grid span, where the sampling point data corresponds to the latitude and longitude of the sampling points and the preset grid span comprises a longitude span and a latitude span of a grid. A home geographic region of the sampling point data is determined according to the home grid of the sampling point data.)
CN-108197347 (involved in generating primary -level grids and covered a sampling area with the first-level grids, where the first-level grids comprise multiple level primary unit grids. Multiple primary unit grids are formed as a square-shaped grid area, where the square-shaped grid area is equal to an average sampling area i.e. continuous irregular region. Multiple primary level unit grids are divided into four equal areas of multiple secondary level unit grids if a number of sampling points in multiple primary level unit grids is greater than 1. A sampling point in the average sampling area is encoded to obtain an encoding value of the sampling point if a number of the sampling point in multiple secondary level unit grids is less than or equal to 1. Geospatial distribution uniformity of the sampling point in the average sampling area is calculated according to the encoding value of the sampling point in the average sampling area.)
CN-104021274 (involved in finding out area of maximum and minimum latitude and longitude in a grid. The area is divided into a maximum latitude and longitude area and a minimum latitude and longitude area. Polymerization center of gravity point along up, down, left and right directions of the grid is calculated. Length of the latitude and longitude areas is extended along down, left and right directions. A cluster point of the grid is determined to obtain a final clustering result. Polymerization data analysis is performed according to density degree of area range.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (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 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.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 July 21, 2026
