`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`14/627,664
`
`02/20/2015
`
`Mark Unak
`
`CU- 100222
`
`8179
`
`0120/20”
`
`7590
`”4057
`FLENER 1P LAW, LLC
`77 West Washington Street
`Suite 800
`
`Chicago, IL 60602
`
`W
`
`SYED’ FARHAN M
`
`2165
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/20/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`info @ fleneriplaw.c0m
`fleneriplaw_d0cketing @ cardinal-ip.c0m
`zflener @ fleneriplaw.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 14/627,664 UNAK ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`2165FARHAN SYED $233
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`-
`-
`
`Status
`
`
`1)IXI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 2/20/15.
`[I A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)lX| This action is non-final.
`2a)I:| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under EX parte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`3) I] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`2) E Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/Osb)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date 20150624.
`4) D Other: —'
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170412
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)|XI Claim(s) M is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6 III Claim s) _ is/are allowed.
`s M is/are rejected.
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`) )
`
`_
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)|:l Claim(s
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`htt
`://www.usoto. ov/ atentS/init events"
`h/index.‘s
`
`
`
`
`
`, or send an inquiry to PF"I-Ifeedback{<‘buspto.qov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)IXI The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|Z| The drawing(s) filed on 2/20/15 is/are: a)lZl accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`b)I:I Some” c)I:I None of the:
`a)I:I All
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.I:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attach ment(s)
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,664
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`In response to communications filed on 06 January 2014, claims 1-20 are
`
`presently pending in the application, of which, claims 1, 8 and 15 are presented in
`
`independent form. The Examiner acknowledges that no claims were amended,
`
`cancelled, or newly.
`
`Priority
`
`3.
`
`The Examiner acknowledges the pending application claims the benefit of U.S.
`
`Provisional 61/942,295, filed 20 February 2014 and U.S. Provisional 61/990,893, filed
`
`09 May 2014, and has been accorded the earliest effective file date.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`4.
`
`The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 June 2015 is in
`
`compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure
`
`statement is being considered by the examiner.
`
`Specification
`
`5.
`
`The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly
`
`indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,664
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`6.
`
`The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to
`
`determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is
`
`requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the
`
`specification.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`7.
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
`
`directed to a judicial exception (Le, a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
`
`abstract idea) without significantly more.
`
`Claims 1-7 are directed to a computer-implemented method, executed on a
`
`computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
`
`significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims as a whole,
`
`considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to
`
`significantly more than an abstract idea. The claims are subject to a §101 rejection in
`
`accordance with the 2016 Interim Eligibility Guidance for use by USPTO personnel in
`
`determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of the Supreme Court
`
`decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). The guidance
`
`may be found in the Federal Register (79 FR 74618 (Dec. 15, 2016)) (hereinafter
`
`Guidance).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,664
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`As an initial matter, the independent claims fall under the four categories of
`
`subject matter eligible for patent protection: process, machines, manufactures, and
`
`compositions of matter. Claims falling under the subject matter categories may be
`
`ineligible for patent protection if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena,
`
`or abstract ideas (judicially recognized exceptions). ln Alice, the Supreme Court applied
`
`the two-part framework earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
`
`Labs, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) to examine the issue of the exceptions. The first step
`
`is determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon,
`
`or an abstract idea. Abstract ideas have been identified by the courts as including
`
`fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an
`
`idea of itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas (see Guidance at 74622, col. 2,
`
`bottom citing Alice at 2355-56).
`
`Claim 1 recites limitations directed to the abstract idea of collecting information,
`
`analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis as well as
`
`collecting, displaying and manipulating data - which would fall under the abstract idea
`
`type of an idea of itself (see also non-limiting examples of abstract ideas determined by
`
`various courts (Q. at col. 3)).
`
`The second part of the Mayo test asks whether or not the claim recites additional
`
`elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract
`
`idea). Claim 1 contains no particular limitations regarding the abstract idea other than
`
`defining a database record for each of a plurality of products available, associating an
`
`attribute set with each of the plurality of records, receiving a search string that defines
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,664
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`one or more search term, and comparing the one or more search terms. While the
`
`preamble (non-limiting) describes a computer-implemented environment, adding
`
`instructions to merely implement an abstract idea on a computer is not sufficient to
`
`qualify as significantly more (see Guidance at p. 74624, col. 3, bullet 1, citing Alice at
`
`2358). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful
`
`limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract
`
`idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
`
`Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory
`
`subject matter.
`
`With respect to claims 2-7, the claims do not provide significantly more to the
`
`abstract idea of itself and the additional elements do not add significantly more to the
`
`judicial exception. There is nothing in the claim that adds more than what is well-
`
`understood, routine and conventional in the field or that amounts to more than linking
`
`the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see Guidance
`
`at 74624, col. 2, §1).
`
`Claims 15-21 are directed to a computer-implemented method, executed on a
`
`computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
`
`significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims as a whole,
`
`considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to
`
`significantly more than an abstract idea. The claims are subject to a §101 rejection in
`
`accordance with the 2016 Interim Eligibility Guidance for use by USPTO personnel in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,664
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of the Supreme Court
`
`decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). The guidance
`
`may be found in the Federal Register (79 FR 74618 (Dec. 15, 2016)) (hereinafter
`
`Guidance).
`
`As an initial matter, the independent claims fall under the four categories of
`
`subject matter eligible for patent protection: process, machines, manufactures, and
`
`compositions of matter. Claims falling under the subject matter categories may be
`
`ineligible for patent protection if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena,
`
`or abstract ideas (judicially recognized exceptions). ln Alice, the Supreme Court applied
`
`the two-part framework earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
`
`Labs, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) to examine the issue of the exceptions. The first step
`
`is determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon,
`
`or an abstract idea. Abstract ideas have been identified by the courts as including
`
`fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an
`
`idea of itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas (see Guidance at 74622, col. 2,
`
`bottom citing Alice at 2355-56).
`
`Claim 15 recites limitations directed to the abstract idea of collecting information,
`
`analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis as well as
`
`collecting, displaying and manipulating data - which would fall under the abstract idea
`
`type of an idea of itself (see also non-limiting examples of abstract ideas determined by
`
`various courts (Q. at col. 3)).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,664
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`The second part of the Mayo test asks whether or not the claim recites additional
`
`elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract
`
`idea). Claim 15 contains no particular limitations regarding the abstract idea other than
`
`defining a database record for each of a plurality of products available, associating an
`
`attribute set with each of the plurality of records, receiving a search string that defines
`
`one or more search term, and comparing the one or more search terms. While the
`
`preamble (non-limiting) describes a computer-implemented environment, adding
`
`instructions to merely implement an abstract idea on a computer is not sufficient to
`
`qualify as significantly more (see Guidance at p. 74624, col. 3, bullet 1, citing Alice at
`
`2358). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful
`
`limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract
`
`idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
`
`Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory
`
`subject matter.
`
`With respect to claims 16-21, the claims do not provide significantly more to the
`
`abstract idea of itself and the additional elements do not add significantly more to the
`
`judicial exception. There is nothing in the claim that adds more than what is well-
`
`understood, routine and conventional in the field or that amounts to more than linking
`
`the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see Guidance
`
`at 74624, col. 2, §1)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,664
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`9.
`
`Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
`
`directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 8, the claim limitation recites
`
`‘computer readable medium.’ However, the usage of the phrase “computer readable
`
`medium” is broad enough to include both “non-transitory” and “transitory” media. The
`
`specification further explicitly does not limit the utilization of a non-transitory computer
`
`usable storage medium (See specification, paragraph [0068], where non-limiting
`
`transitory and non-transitory examples are given such that any apparatus that can
`
`contain, store, communicate, propagate, or transport the program. electronic, magnetic,
`
`optical, electromagnetic, etc.). Also, extrinsic evidence suggests that computer-readable
`
`storage or tangible medium covers a signal per 59. Therefore, when the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500
`
`F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to
`
`statutory subject matter).
`
`Claims 9-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependency and for failing to cure the
`
`deficiencies of the independent claim 8.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/3
`
`10.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,664
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`11.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
`
`form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,
`on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed
`invention.
`
`(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
`application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the
`patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
`
`12.
`
`Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by
`
`TalibI lgbalI et al (U.S. 2001/0049674 and known hereinafter as Talib).
`
`As per claim 1, Talib discloses computer-implemented method, executed on a
`
`computer, the computer-implemented method comprising:
`
`defining a database record for each of a plurality of products available for
`
`sale within an online catalog, thus defining a plurality of database records (e.g.
`
`Talib, see paragraphs [0026-0029], which discloses records from a database are categorized, within the
`
`database (e.g. online catalog), where the database is made up of a plurality of records, as further
`
`described in paragraph [0021]. The Examiner notes that is well-understood that categories may be
`
`defined in a database, see further paragraph [0092]).;
`
`associating an attribute set with each of the plurality of database records,
`
`thus defining a plurality of attribute sets (e.g. Talib, see paragraphs [0030-0031, 0033], which
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,664
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`discloses typically taxonomies and categories are selected from among those characteristics and
`
`attributes, where the attributes are associated to a particular record in the database);
`
`receiving, from a user, a search string that defines one of more search
`
`
`terms (e.g. Talib, see paragraph [0093], which discloses computer receives search requests in the form
`
`of data, where search-related data comprise a search term entered by a user to initiate a keyword
`
`search.); and
`
`comparing the one of more search terms defined within the search string to
`
`the plurality of attribute sets to identify one or more matching database records
`
`(e.g. Talib, see paragraph [0101], which discloses computer compares the search term against only those
`
`records having matching taxonomies/categories. See further paragraphs [0104-105], which discloses
`
`computer compares the search-related data (e.g. one or more search terms) to the category or sub-
`
`category (e.g. attributes) of the data.), wherein the one or more matching database
`
`records are chosen from the plurality of database records (e.g. Talib, see paragraph
`
`[0101], which discloses computer compares the search term against only those records having matching
`
`taxonomies/categories).
`
`As per claim 8, Talib discloses computer program product residing on a computer
`
`readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which, when executed
`
`by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
`
`defining a database record for each of a plurality of products available for
`
`sale within an online catalog, thus defining a plurality of database records (e.g.
`
`Talib, see paragraphs [0026-0029], which discloses records from a database are categorized, within the
`
`database (e.g. online catalog), where the database is made up of a plurality of records, as further
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,664
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`described in paragraph [0021]. The Examiner notes that is well-understood that categories may be
`
`defined in a database, see further paragraph [0092]);
`
`associating an attribute set with each of the plurality of database records,
`
`thus defining a plurality of attribute sets (e.g. Talib, see paragraphs [0030-0031, 0033], which
`
`discloses typically taxonomies and categories are selected from among those characteristics and
`
`attributes, where the attributes are associated to a particular record in the database);
`
`receiving, from a user, a search string that defines one of more search
`
`
`terms (e.g. Talib, see paragraph [0093], which discloses computer receives search requests in the form
`
`of data, where search-related data comprise a search term entered by a user to initiate a keyword
`
`search.); and
`
`comparing the one of more search terms defined within the search string to
`
`the plurality of attribute sets to identify one or more matching database records
`
`(e.g. Talib, see paragraph [0101], which discloses computer compares the search term against only those
`
`records having matching taxonomies/categories. See further paragraphs [0104-105], which discloses
`
`computer compares the search-related data (e.g. one or more search terms) to the category or sub-
`
`category (e.g. attributes) of the data.), wherein the one or more matching database
`
`records are chosen from the plurality of database records (e.g. Talib, see paragraph
`
`[0101], which discloses computer compares the search term against only those records having matching
`
`taxonomies/categories).
`
`As per claim 15, Talib discloses a computing system including a processor and
`
`memory configured to perform operations comprising:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,664
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`defining a database record for each of a plurality of products available for
`
`sale within an online catalog, thus defining a plurality of database records (e.g.
`
`Talib, see paragraphs [0026-0029], which discloses records from a database are categorized, within the
`
`database (e.g. online catalog), where the database is made up of a plurality of records, as further
`
`described in paragraph [0021]. The Examiner notes that is well-understood that categories may be
`
`defined in a database, see further paragraph [0092]);
`
`associating an attribute set with each of the plurality of database records,
`
`thus defining a plurality of attribute sets (e.g. Talib, see paragraphs [0030-0031, 0033], which
`
`discloses typically taxonomies and categories are selected from among those characteristics and
`
`attributes, where the attributes are associated to a particular record in the database);
`
`receiving, from a user, a search string that defines one of more search
`
`
`terms (e.g. Talib, see paragraph [0093], which discloses computer receives search requests in the form
`
`of data, where search-related data comprise a search term entered by a user to initiate a keyword
`
`search); and
`
`comparing the one of more search terms defined within the search string to
`
`the plurality of attribute sets to identify one or more matching database records
`
`(e.g. Talib, see paragraph [0101], which discloses computer compares the search term against only those
`
`records having matching taxonomies/categories. See further paragraphs [0104-105], which discloses
`
`computer compares the search-related data (e.g. one or more search terms) to the category or sub-
`
`category (e.g. attributes) of the data.), wherein the one or more matching database
`
`records are chosen from the plurality of database records (e.g. Talib, see paragraph
`
`[0101], which discloses computer compares the search term against only those records having matching
`
`taxonomies/categories).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,664
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`As per claims 2, 9, and 16, Talib teaches the computer-implemented method of
`
`claim 1, the computer program product of claim 8, and the computer system of claim 15,
`
`respectively, further comprising: generating a result set based, at least in part, upon the
`
`one or more matching database records (e.g. Talib, see paragraph [0033], which discloses
`
`viewing results based on attributes in the product catalog database).
`
`As per claims 3, 10, and 17, Talib teaches the computer-implemented method of
`
`claim 2, the computer program product of claim 9, and the computer system of claim 16,
`
`respectively, wherein the result set defines one or more products associated with the
`
`one or more matching database records (e.g. Talib, see paragraph [0033], which discloses
`
`viewing results based on attributes in the product catalog database).
`
`As per claims 4, 11, and 18, Talib teaches the computer-implemented method of
`
`claim 2, the computer program product of claim 9, and the computer system of claim 16,
`
`respectively, further comprising: providing the result set to the user (e.g. Talib, see Figure 8,
`
`which illustrates providing result set to the user).
`
`As per claims 5, 12, and 19, Talib teaches the computer-implemented method of
`
`claim 1, the computer program product of claim 8, and the computer system of claim 15,
`
`respectively, wherein each attribute set defines one or more features of the product
`
`associated with the related database record (e.g. Talib, see paragraphs [0030-0031, 0033],
`
`which discloses typically taxonomies and categories are selected from among those characteristics and
`
`attributes, where the attributes are associated to a particular record in the database).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,664
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`As per claims 6, 13, and 20, Talib teaches the computer-implemented method of
`
`claim 5, the computer program product of claim 12, and the computer system of claim
`
`19, respectively, wherein the one or more features include one or more physical
`
`attributes of the product associated with the related database record (e.g. Talib, see
`
`paragraphs [0030-0031, 0033], which discloses typically taxonomies and categories are selected from
`
`among those characteristics and attributes, where the attributes are associated to a particular record in
`
`the database).
`
`As per claims 7, 14, and 21, Talib teaches the computer-implemented method of
`
`claim 5, the computer program product of claim 12, and the computer system of claim
`
`19, respectively, wherein the one or more features include one or more capabilities of
`
`the product associated with the related database record (e.g. Talib, see paragraph [0101],
`
`which discloses computer compares the search term against only those records having matching
`
`taxonomies/categories. See further paragraphs [0104-105], which discloses computer compares the
`
`search-related data (e.g. one or more search terms) to the category or sub-category (e.g. attributes) of
`
`the data.).
`
`Conclusion
`
`13.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892 that includes additional prior art of record
`
`describing the general state of the art in which the invention is directed to.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,664
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Contact Information
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Farhan M. Syed whose telephone number is 571 -272-
`
`7191. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30AM-5:OO PM.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on 571-270-1760. 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).
`
`/Farhan M Syed/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
`April 16, 2017
`
`