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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received February 19, 2026. Claim(s) 8-12 and 18-20 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-7 and 13-17 are pending and addressed below.
Priority
Application No. 16595189 filed 10/07/2019 and having 5 RCE-type filing therein Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62746965 , filed 10/17/2018
Applicant Name/Assignee Information: Comenity LLC
Inventor Name: Chilaka, Uchenna; Pontious, Timothy
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant recites the limitations arguing that the identified abstract idea (risk mitigation analogous to fraud mitigation) has no legal foundation as the MPEP 2106.04 only recites “settlement of risk” and not prevention of fraud as mitigation of risk. Applicant provides a definition of risk as minimizing the impact of any uncertain event-(financial downturns) using strategies like avoidance, transfer or reduction where economic concept refers to legal economic activity. The applicant provides a definition of fraud which refers to illegal acts (false statements, misrepresentation, dishonest conduct indented to mislead or deceive). According fraud cannot legally be found to be any fundamental economic activity/principle. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the premise of applicants argument. The claim limitations are not directed toward implementing fraud but rather to “prevent fraud”. The limitations and specification are directed toward a determination process of fraud risk and fraud mitigation (spec ¶ 0022). Furthermore, the specification explicitly recites that the fraud risk evaluation provides cost savings to solve a problem of fraud in electronic applications (¶ 0152). When fraud is present in financial account or loan applications for example, the entities including the customer, lender, provider, financial institution or merchant can face direct financial losses, as well as damage credit scores, increase cost by requiring additional regulatory or administrative scrutiny. This is a statement of fact. According to applicant’s presented argument a process which results in the prevention of financial downturn, by definition is mitigation of risk. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant points to the Alice guidance which requires evaluating additional element beyond the abstract idea individually and in combination. Applicant recites the limitations, emphasizing the limitations “providing …contact information …”, “transmitting…verification message…”… “providing access to an …application for a new account”,…”obtaining …customer identification information…”, “utilizing said customer identification information…to prefill …portion of the …application…” and “completing said …application…”. Applicant argues the additional elements are not part of the abstract idea. The examiner respectfully disagrees that the emphasized limitations provide additional elements beyond the abstract idea. The emphasized limitations do not recite any technology or technical process and when considered individually or in combination are not directed toward indications of patent eligibility under step 2A prong 2. The additional elements recited in the limitations beyond the abstract idea include “a customer’s mobile device” applied for “receiving …verification message”, “selecting…selectable link”; The additional elements include a “WiFi hotspot” applied for “broadcast range of an identified beacon”; The additional elements include “provider computer system” applied for “receiving….store’s physical location…physical location information for …customer’s mobile device and completed …application”, “evaluating …store’s physical location information…stores …device location information…physical location for …customer’s mobile device”, “determining a first distance…”, “determining a second distance…”, “determining a third distance…”, “rejecting …completed …application…” and “accepting…completed application…” The additional element “a customer’s mobile device” operation “selecting” is so high level as to include manual processes and only requires that the selecting occur at the mobile device. The “selecting” step is not directed toward any underlying technology but instead the selection of a link that is used to validate information and provide access to the application and not for improvement to technology or provide a solution to a problem rooted in technology. The limitation lacks technical details reciting a high level function with an expected outcome. The operation “receiving” is high level performing insignificant extra solution activity. The additional element WiFi hotspot” applied for “broadcast range of an identified beacon” lacks technical details and is merely applied for communication between devices. The additional element “provider computer system” lacks technical details and is merely applied to perform the application process and analysis for risk mitigation. When considered individually the operations performed by the computer system are directed toward insignificant extra solution activity “obtaining”, “transmitting”, “receiving” and mere data analysis of a human behavior “determining first distance”, “determining second distance”, “determining third distance” and applied to perform a transaction decision “rejecting …application” and “accepting application”. As a combination the operations performed by the computer system are directed toward receiving transaction related data, analyzing the received data and performing the transaction based on the analysis. Accordingly the combination is not directed toward technology, to improve technology or provide a solution to a problem rooted in technology. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant points to Cosmokey Solutions GmbH and Co. KG v Duo Security decision which found improvement in technology in verification methods. Applicant argues the claimed limitation provide a technical benefit of making electronic applications less prone to fraud by applying generated physical location data in the fraud verification procedures and rejecting applications that fail the location analysis and ensuring modified fraud criteria is met to acceptance of any completed application. Using location information derived from a plurality of devices without human interference or third party manipulation, cause the computing devices to provide data that is used by software of the new account provider system to perform the integrated fraud mitigation process. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s argument does not identify what technology is improved by applying location information of the mobile device, store’s electronic device or stores physical location and store’s electronic device for use in determining probability of fraud. Cosmokey Solutions GmbH and Co. KG v Duo Security found patent eligibility by reducing the complexity of authentication by mobile devices without requiring any specific hardware or inputting multiple authentication factors (as required by the current application) the user identity of CosmoKey is verified by transmitting user identification via a first channel and checking via a second channel that an authentication function has been activated on the mobile device, which replaces the manual entry of information for authentication where the authentication function only requires the user to activate the mobile device. The process of CosmoKey addresses a specific problem rooted in technology (e.g. vulnerability of license-authorization software to hacking) with a specific technical process that departs from previous approaches in solving the technical problem. The CosmoKey decision is not applicable to the current application. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant points to USPTO 2019 and published under USPTO 101 2025 memo) that the claimed limitations under 2B, the limitations recite significantly more than any identified abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations are more likely than not to be patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant has not identified or provided any explanation of significantly more as required by Alice. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that based on the arguments above and similarity of independent claim 13 to claim 1, the independent claims are patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, see response above, the rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that based on the arguments above and dependency of dependent claims 2-7 and 14-17 to claims claim 1 and 13, claims 1-7 and 13-17 are patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, see response above, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claims 1-7:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 1 recites a method steps (1) providing data (2) transmitting message and link (3) receiving data (verification message) (4) selecting transmitted received link (5) validating contact information (6) providing access to application for new account (7) causing device to obtain data (8) obtaining customer identification from device memory (9) utilizing obtained identification information to prefill an account application (10) completing application for new account, (11) transmitting location data with application for new account (12) receiving location data and application transmitted (13) evaluating distance between store location data and store device location data, device GPS location (14) determining first distance between store’s physical location information and store’s device location (15) determining second distance between store’s physical location and physical location information for mobile device (16) determining third distance between stores device location data and mobile device GPS physical location data (17) rejecting application if first, second and third distance greater than pre-defined threshold (18) accepting application if first, second and third distance less than pre-defined threshold. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial interaction and fundamental economic activity.
This is because when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a verification and account application process. It is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification is titled “Out-Of-Band Verification for an Electronic Application,” and discloses, in the Background section, that it there is a need to prevent fraud, when electronically applying for credit applications at a specific store since it is difficult to detect fraud when credit accounts for electronic applications can be available immediately (spec 0002). The Specification describes that in the customer opening, completing and submitting of an electronic application, that the conventional application approach using paper applications where a store associated can attach identifying information to the paperwork as part of the application as well as a store stamp is not compatible with electronic applications. It also is challenging in the use of electronic credit account applications without needed an associate providing verification a new different identification and fraud problem exist. (spec 0020). The specification discloses that the focus of the invention is to provide verification and the completion of an online account application (spec 0023).
These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a customer mobile device with GPS technology, a store’s electronic device, a broadcast range of an identified beacon, WiFi hotspot and provider computer system.
The claimed store’s electronic device to perform the steps “transmitting an electronic message...”,
The claimed mobile device to perform the steps “receiving …message” and “transmitting…location information….”
The claimed provider computer system to perform the steps “receiving location information” and “completed…application”
The operations performed by the mobile device, store’s device and provider computer system which include the steps “receiving” and “transmitting” which according to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) are directed toward extra solution activity. The courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The claim limitations (transmitting …verification from store’s device a message”, “receiving at mobile device …message”, “transmitting …store’s location information and GPS location and application by mobile device”, “receiving at provider computer system …information “) operations are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element WiFi hotspot” applied for “broadcast range of an identified beacon” lacks technical details and is merely applied for communication between devices. The additional element “provider computer system” lacks technical details and is merely applied to perform the application process and analysis for risk mitigation. When considered individually the operations performed by the computer system are directed toward insignificant extra solution activity “obtaining”, “transmitting”, “receiving” and mere data analysis of a human behavior “determining first distance”, “determining second distance”, “determining third distance” and applied to perform a transaction decision “rejecting …application” and “accepting application”. The evaluating operation performed by the provider computer system is recited at a high level of generality amounting to no more than mere instructions to perform an expected result based on analyzed data to prevent fraud. The claim limitations when considered individually fail to provide any indications of patent eligible subject matter, according to MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The claim limitations and specification lack technical disclosure on how the providers computer system, store’s device, customer mobile device and GPS perform the recited steps. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the mobile device and GPS at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. The wherein clause expands the technology applied to determine location to include “broadcast range of identified beacon” or “WiFI hotspot” or overlapped area covered by plurality of mobile telephone signal providers” in the event GPS not available. However similar to the GPS operations, the limitations applying alternative technology lacks technical description and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the alternative technology to determined location of the mobile device.
Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application) or directed toward any particular technology itself.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations 1 and 2-3 are directed toward insignificant extra solution activity of receiving and transmitting data. The combination of limitations 1-3 and 4-6 are directed toward applying link technology where the link is selected in order to validate and access application related data which is amounts to no more than applying technology to perform a verification and application process in a transaction. The combination of limitations 7-18 is directed toward generating location data of customer device, obtaining customer identification data and utilizing the information to pre-fill and complete an account application – which as a combination is directed toward a contractual and transaction process. The combination of limitations 11-15 is directed toward collecting location data from GPS of mobile device and location data related to store device that is evaluated to determine proximity where a distance threshold is applied for risk mitigation and based on the results exceeding the distance/risk threshold or less than distance/risk threshold, rejecting or accepting the completed application of limitations 1-17 which as a combination and as a whole is directed toward mitigating risk in an account application process. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. The claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of customer verification and the completion and submission of an account application which is a process directed toward a business practice and risk mitigation.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to verify customers and perform an account application and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. As discussed above, the specification discloses that the focus of the invention is to provide verification and the completion of an online account application (spec 0023). The claim provides no technical details regarding how the “selecting”, “prefilling application” or generation of location information operations are performed at the mobile device or by the mobile device GPS. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include mobile device, WiFi hotspot and computer system. The mobile device applied to receive messages, select links and complete applications and a GPS or broadcast range of identified beacon or WiFi hotspot or overlapped area by plurality of mobile telephone signal providers without technical disclosure used to generate the expected outcome of location data. The computer system to perform the operation receiving location Using a mobile device to receive messages, select links and complete electronic application forms ----are some of the most basic functions of a mobile device. The GPS , beacon, WiFi hotspot or overlapped area covered by telephone provers used for generating location data does not provide any particular technical process for the location generation step and is operating in its ordinary capacity. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the mobile device and GPS of the mobile device or other location technology as recited in the wherein clause at each step of the process is purely conventional.
As a result, none of the hardware recited by the method claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via mobile devices. .. . The claim limitations do not recite that any of the “devices” perform more than a high level generic function ... . None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means. .. . Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “generating”, “transmitting”, “intercepting”, identifying”, “determining”, “replacing” and “routing' ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
The specification discloses with respect to the location generation via GPS and alternative options:
[0027] In general, mobile device 110 is an example of a customer's mobile device, a store's mobile device, an associate's mobile device, or the like. Mobile device 110 could be a mobile phone, a smart phone, a tablet, a smart watch, a piece of smart jewelry, smart glasses, or other user portable devices having wireless connectivity. For example, mobile device 110 would be capable of broadcasting and receiving via at least
one network, such as, but not limited to, WiFi, Cellular, Bluetooth, NFC, and the like. In one embodiment, mobile device 110 includes a display 112, a processor 114, a memory 116, a GPS 118, a camera 119, and the like. In one embodiment, instead of providing GPS information, the location of mobile device 110 may be determined within a given radius, such as the broadcast range of an identified beacon, a WiFi hotspot, overlapped area covered by a plurality of mobile telephone signal providers, or the like.
[0029] In one embodiment, mobile device 110 optionally includes application location information 211. For example, the application location information 211 could be obtained from GPS 118 of mobile device 110.
[0031]… For example, if mobile device 110 is equipped with a GPS, the location information may be specific latitude and longitude….
[0046] Actual location information may be obtained by the user's mobile device location services, such as but not limited to, GPS, WiFi, cellular service, beacon derived location determination and the like. Moreover, the location determined by the mobile device location service may be useful even at differing levels of accuracy. For example, a GPS enabled mobile device 110 can provide location information that is accurate to within a few meters while a cellular service, beacon or WiFi location capabilities of mobile device
110 can provide a location radius or location area…
[0050] For example, in one embodiment, attribution system 210 will receive a location from a location capability of a customer's mobile device (e.g., GPS, map application, etc.)….
[0071] In one embodiment, the device-to-device communication between the customer's mobile device and the store's electronic device 330 can include, for example, a data exchange, a hotspot interaction with one or more of the store's electronic device(s), or the like. …
application process.
[00120] At 620, accessing a physical location of the mobile device. For example, when a user attempts to submit the electronic credit application, the user is authenticated. The security procedure for authentication includes accessing the physical location of the user (which is the physical location of the mobile device assuming that the mobile device is in proximity to the user). In one embodiment, the physical location is
determined by GPS 118.
[00131] In one embodiment, the device-to-device communication between the customer's mobile device and the store's electronic device can include, for example, a data exchange, a hotspot interaction with one or more of the store's electronic device, a WiFi communication, a near field communication (NFC), and the like. For example, using a device bump, when a customer wants to apply for the credit account, the store's
electronic device is configured to send a signal to the customer's mobile device that will provide the access to the electronic application to the customer's mobile device. In one embodiment, the store's electronic device will push the access over NFC (Bluetooth, WiFi triggering link, or the like) to the customer's mobile device when a customer taps the store's electronic device with the customer's mobile device.
[00151] By automatically determining the location of the customer's mobile device, instead of allowing the customer to input the location information as part of the application process, the opportunity for fraudulent application detection in the Internet centric mobile application world is reduced since the store/customer location information is automatically derived by the mobile device GPS, a mapping application, a mobile
tower provided location, etc.
The specification discloses with respect to the link selection at the mobile device:
[0018] The term "the access" refers to an electronic data file sent from the store's electronic device to the customer's electronic device. In one embodiment, the access is an electronic file that is sent in a text message (e.g., SMS, MMS, or the like) via a mobile network to the phone number associated with the customer's mobile device. In one embodiment, the access could also be an email, a device-to-device communication via NFC, and the like, that is received by the customer's mobile device, an App on the
customer's mobile device, or the like. In general, the access could include one or more of, a link to a web URL, a link to an App (e.g., an app that can be found in an app store), an electronic file that includes the entire electronic application, and the like.
[00128] With reference now to 710 of Figure 7, one embodiment receives, at a customer's mobile device and from the store's electronic device 330, an access to an electronic application for a new account, the access sent to the contact information for the customer, the contact information for the customer being accessible by the customer's mobile device. The access could be a web URL link (in a message), a link
to an app for the customer's mobile device, the entire electronic application provided from the store's electronic device to the customer's mobile device, and the like.
[00133] For example, the associate's mobile device will use a phone number provided by the customer. In so doing, the associate will send the message (text, SMS, MMS, email, or the like) to the phone number provided by the customer. When the text is opened on the customer's mobile device it will trigger the electronic application process on the customer's mobile device. In one embodiment, the text message will be a web URL (link, etc.), and the selecting of the web URL will cause a web browser on the customer's mobile device to navigate to a web page containing the electronic application for the new account.
[00134] In another example, when the access is a link to an App for the customer's mobile device 110, selecting the link to the App will cause the customer's mobile device to queue the App for downloading to the customer's mobile device. The App could be downloaded automatically to the customer's mobile device or the customer could be queried, and permission obtained before the App is downloaded. Included in the App would be the electronic application for the new account.
The disclosure of the specification makes clear that the mobile device and the functions claimed are conventional. The specification discloses that any of a plurality of devices can perform the invention of a process for account application (para 0015, para 0021, para 0025). The specification in para 0018 recites that “access” refers to a data file sent in a text message, email, device to device communication such a NFC or the like. The specification discloses in para 0019 and 0021, that the verification can be the contact information, customer identity obtained as POS. The specification discloses a computer system “that the present technology can operate on or within a number of different computer systems including general purpose networked computer systems, embedded computer systems, routers, switches, server devices, user devices, various intermediate devices/artifacts, stand-alone computer systems, mobile phones, personal data assistants, televisions and the like.” (see para 0106-0107). The specification discloses that inputting location information derived by the GPS of the mobile devices as part of the application process mitigates risk (see para 0151). The specification in para 0154 discloses the mobile device as the means to obtain information for the application process. The specification discloses the programming in para 0156 as program modules that include routines, programs, objects components, data structure that perform tasks. With respect to the “prefill” of the application the specification is silent as to a technical process to perform the process in para 0072, the specification recites the action and the expected result (obtain at least a portion of the customer identification information and prefills at least a portion of the electronic credit application for the new credit account); para 0073 (the queuing up the credit application will also interact with the cache or other store memory on the customer's mobile device to obtain customer information and prefill the credit application); para 0074 (some or all of the customer information can be obtained and prefilled in the credit application using customer look-up methods and customer data acquisition from other databases); para 0088 (some or all of the customer information can be obtained and prefilled in the credit application using customer look-up methods and customer data acquisition from other databases); para 00136 (customer information will be automatically (or customer authorized if that is a customer's mobile device setting or option) used to prefill at least a portion of the electronic application... some or all of the customer information can be obtained and prefilled in the electronic application using the memory access in conjunction with customer lookup methods and customer data acquisition from other databases). The specification fails to provide any special programming features that could be found to be providing the needed significantly more. The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-7 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is directed toward a group of store devices to perform the abstract idea, listing the generic devices could be, without significantly more. Dependent claims 3 and 4 are directed toward providing data and receiving a link – insignificant extra solution activity. Dependent claim 5 is directed a group of communication means to perform the data transmission without significantly more. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward obtaining application and causing a web browser to navigate web page containing application a well-known technical process of navigation of web browser. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward link to an app, selecting the link causes app to download, the app comprising account application.- a well understood routine process in business account access processes.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-7 and 11-12 are directed towards patent
In reference to Claims 13-17:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system, as in independent Claim 13 and the dependent claims. Such systems fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. System claim 13 recites functions to (1) receive data, (2) generate verification message (3) transmit verification message (4) receive verification message (5) select selectable link (6) obtain account application access (7) validate customer information (8) cause mobile device to generate location information (9) obtain customer identification information (10) prefill account application (11) complete application (12) transmit location information and application (13) receive store and mobile device GPS location (14) evaluate store location data, store device location data and mobile device GPS location (15) determine first distance location between physical store location and store device location (16) determine second distance location between store physical location and mobile device GPS location (17) determine third distance location between store device location and mobile device GPS location (18) reject application is first, second and third distance determination exceeds a threshold (19) accept application is first, second and third distance determination less than a threshold . The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial interaction and risk mitigation.
This is because when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a verification and account application process. It is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 13 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification is titled “Out-Of-Band Verification for an Electronic Application,” and discloses, in the Background section, that it there is a need to prevent fraud, when electronically applying for credit applications at a specific store since it is difficult to detect fraud when credit accounts for electronic applications can be available immediately (spec 0002). The Specification describes that in the customer opening, completing and submitting of an electronic application, that the conventional application approach using paper applications where a store associated can attach identifying information to the paperwork as part of the application as well as a store stamp is not compatible with electronic applications. It also is challenging in the use of electronic credit account applications without needed an associate providing verification a new different identification and fraud problem exist. (spec 0020). The specification discloses that the focus of the invention is to provide verification and the completion of an online account application (spec 0023).
These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising a store’s electronic device comprising a memory to store instructions, location generator, one or more processors to execute instructions, a customer mobile device comprising a memory to store instructions, at least one processor to execute instructions, with GPS technology, a broadcast range of an identified beacon, WiFi hotspot and provider computer system comprising a memory to store instructions, at least one processor to execute instructions.
The claimed store’s electronic device to perform the steps “transmitting an electronic message...”,
The claimed mobile device to perform the steps “receiving …message” and “transmitting…location information….”
The claimed provider computer system to perform the steps “receiving location information” and “completed…application”
The operations performed by the mobile device, store’s device and provider computer system which include the steps “receiving” and “transmitting” which according to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) are directed toward extra solution activity. The courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The claim limitations (transmitting …verification from store’s device a message”, “receiving at mobile device …message”, “transmitting …store’s location information and GPS location and application by mobile device”, “receiving at provider computer system …information “) operations are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional elements include performed by the mobile device the steps “selecting …selectable link” the selecting link encompassing automatically validating information, automating providing access to application for account, automatically generating GPS location data, the wherein clause expanding the technology applied for determining location data to include one of broadcast range of identified beacon, or WiFi hotspot, or overlapped area covered by plurality of telephone signal providers when GPS not available, automatically obtaining information from mobile device, utilizing obtained data to prefill account application, completing application which are recited at a high level of generality amounting to no more than mere instructions for an expected result without details of technical implementation in order to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements performed by the provider computer system include evaluating location information of the store device, mobile device and store location by determining distances between the locations greater than or less than a threshold distance and rejecting/accepting application respectively based on threshold distance evaluation. The evaluating operation performed by the provider computer system is recited at a high level of generality amounting to no more than mere instructions to perform an expected result based on analyzed data to prevent fraud. .
The claim limitations when considered individually fail to provide any indications of patent eligible subject matter, according to MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The claim limitations and specification lack technical disclosure on how the providers computer system, store’s device, customer mobile device and GPS perform the recited steps. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the mobile device and GPS at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. The wherein clause expands the technology applied to determine location to include “broadcast range of identified beacon” or “WiFI hotspot” or overlapped area covered by plurality of mobile telephone signal providers” in the event GPS not available. However similar to the GPS operations, the limitations applying alternative technology lacks technical description and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the alternative technology to determined location of the mobile device.
Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations 1-4 are directed toward risk mitigation by receiving information and transmitting a verification message – a common business practice and risk mitigation. The combination of limitations 1-4 and 5-11 are directed toward obtaining customer information and location and prefilling and completing an account application with the data obtained -risk mitigation and business process. The combination of limitations 12-19 is directed toward transmitting, receiving and analyzing proximity data between physical store location, store device location and mobile device GPS location in order to determine whether proximity distance exceeds or is less than a threshold and based on threshold analysis exceeds distance reject application and if threshold analysis less than distance accept completed application of limitations 1-11- business practice and risk mitigation. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
Therefore, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. The claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of customer verification and the completion and submission of an account application which is a process directed toward a business practice and risk mitigation.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to verify customers and perform an account application and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. As discussed above, the specification discloses that the focus of the invention is to provide verification and the completion of an online account application (spec 0023). The claim provides no technical details regarding how the “selecting”, “prefilling application” or generation of location information operations are performed at the mobile device or by the mobile device GPS. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond that abstract idea include a system comprising a store electronic device, comprising a memory storing instructions and one or more processors executing instructions, location generator–is purely functional and generic. Nearly every electronic device will include a “memory storing instructions” and “one or more processors executing instructions” capable of performing the basic functions claimed. The system processors are applied to perform the operations of receive data, generate messages with content and a selectable link, and transmit messages. The system operations claimed are not sufficient to provide significantly more than the abstract idea as applying processors to receive data, generate messages with content and transmit messages are well understood functional and generic functions of computer devices. The additional element beyond the system includes a customer mobile device comprising a memory storing instructions and one or more processes executing instructions –is purely functional and generic. Nearly every mobile device will include a “memory storing instructions” and “one or more processors executing instructions” capable of performing the basic functions claimed. The customer mobile device to receive data, generate messages, transmit messages -– are well understood functional and generic functions of computer devices. The system further comprising a new account provider computer system comprising a memory to store instructions and at least one processor to execute instructions... –is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer system will include a “memory storing instructions” and “one or more processors executing instructions” capable of performing the basic functions claimed. The system functions device to receive data, evaluate distance data, determine distances and perform fraud risk analysis by determine risk measurement which applies thresholds for rejecting or accepting transactions -– are well understood functional and generic functions of computer devices. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment that is, implemented via computers. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a store device to generate a message and a mobile device to receive a message are merely tools to apply the application process. The link selected is not an action that is perform using technology but instead an action of the user in order to verify data and obtain an account application. The claimed subject matter and specification makes clear that the mobile device and store devices are no more than a tool to apply the abstract idea of accessing applications and generating a verification for the intended use of submitting the application for a new account. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms... the recited functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data receiving, selecting, attaching is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis conclude that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility.
The specification makes clear that the system comprising the claimed elements including the mobile device and the functions claimed are conventional. The specification discloses that any of a plurality of devices can perform the invention of a process for account application (para 0015, para 0021, para 0025). The specification in para 0018 recites that “access” refers to a data file sent in a text message, email, device to device communication such a NFC or the like. The specification discloses in para 0019 and 0021, that the verification can be the contact information, customer identity obtained as POS. The specification discloses that inputting location information derived by the GPS of the mobile devices as part of the application process mitigates risk (see para 0151) The specification in para 0154 discloses the mobile device as the means to obtain information for the application process. The specification discloses the programming in para 0156 as program modules that include routines, programs, objects components, data structure that perform tasks. With respect to the “prefill” of the application the specification is silent as to a technical process to perform the process in para 0072, the specification recites the action and the expected result (obtain at least a portion of the customer identification information and prefills at least a portion of the electronic credit application for the new credit account); para 0073 (the queuing up the credit application will also interact with the cache or other store memory on the customer's mobile device to obtain customer information and prefill the credit application); para 0074 (some or all of the customer information can be obtained and prefilled in the credit application using customer look-up methods and customer data acquisition from other databases); para 0088 (some or all of the customer information can be obtained and prefilled in the credit application using customer look-up methods and customer data acquisition from other databases); The specification discloses a computer system “that the present technology can operate on or within a number of different computer systems including general purpose networked computer systems, embedded computer systems, routers, switches, server devices, user devices, various intermediate devices/artifacts, stand-alone computer systems, mobile phones, personal data assistants, televisions and the like.” (see para 0106-0107). The specification discloses para 00136 (customer information will be automatically (or customer authorized if that is a customer's mobile device setting or option) used to prefill at least a portion of the electronic application... some or all of the customer information can be obtained and prefilled in the electronic application using the memory access in conjunction with customer lookup methods and customer data acquisition from other databases). The specification fails to provide any special programming features that could be found to be providing the needed significantly more.
The specification discloses with respect to the location generation via GPS:
[0027] In general, mobile device 110 is an example of a customer's mobile device, a store's mobile device, an associate's mobile device, or the like. Mobile device 110 could be a mobile phone, a smart phone, a tablet, a smart watch, a piece of smart jewelry, smart glasses, or other user portable devices having wireless connectivity. For example, mobile device 110 would be capable of broadcasting and receiving via at least
one network, such as, but not limited to, WiFi, Cellular, Bluetooth, NFC, and the like. In one embodiment, mobile device 110 includes a display 112, a processor 114, a memory 116, a GPS 118, a camera 119, and the like. In one embodiment, instead of providing GPS information, the location of mobile device 110 may be determined within a given radius, such as the broadcast range of an identified beacon, a WiFi hotspot, overlapped area covered by a plurality of mobile telephone signal providers, or the like.
[0029] In one embodiment, mobile device 110 optionally includes application location information 211. For example, the application location information 211 could be obtained from GPS 118 of mobile device 110.
[0031]… For example, if mobile device 110 is equipped with a GPS, the location information may be specific latitude and longitude….
[0046] Actual location information may be obtained by the user's mobile device location services, such as but not limited to, GPS, WiFi, cellular service, beacon derived location determination and the like. Moreover, the location determined by the mobile device location service may be useful even at differing levels of accuracy. For example, a GPS enabled mobile device 110 can provide location information that is accurate to within a few meters while a cellular service, beacon or WiFi location capabilities of mobile device
110 can provide a location radius or location area…
[0050] For example, in one embodiment, attribution system 210 will receive a location from a location capability of a customer's mobile device (e.g., GPS, map application, etc.)….
[0071] In one embodiment, the device-to-device communication between the customer's mobile device and the store's electronic device 330 can include, for example, a data exchange, a hotspot interaction with one or more of the store's electronic device(s), or the like. …
application process.
[00120] At 620, accessing a physical location of the mobile device. For example, when a user attempts to submit the electronic credit application, the user is authenticated. The security procedure for authentication includes accessing the physical location of the user (which is the physical location of the mobile device assuming that the mobile device is in proximity to the user). In one embodiment, the physical location is
determined by GPS 118.
[00131] In one embodiment, the device-to-device communication between the customer's mobile device and the store's electronic device can include, for example, a data exchange, a hotspot interaction with one or more of the store's electronic device, a WiFi communication, a near field communication (NFC), and the like. For example, using a device bump, when a customer wants to apply for the credit account, the store's
electronic device is configured to send a signal to the customer's mobile device that will provide the access to the electronic application to the customer's mobile device. In one embodiment, the store's electronic device will push the access over NFC (Bluetooth, WiFi triggering link, or the like) to the customer's mobile device when a customer taps the store's electronic device with the customer's mobile device.
[00151] By automatically determining the location of the customer's mobile device, instead of allowing the customer to input the location information as part of the application process, the opportunity for fraudulent application detection in the Internet centric mobile application world is reduced since the store/customer location information is automatically derived by the mobile device GPS, a mapping application, a mobile
tower provided location, etc.
The specification discloses with respect to the link selection at the mobile device:
[0018] The term "the access" refers to an electronic data file sent from the store's
electronic device to the customer's electronic device. In one embodiment, the access is
an electronic file that is sent in a text message (e.g., SMS, MMS, or the like) via a
mobile network to the phone number associated with the customer's mobile device. In
one embodiment, the access could also be an email, a device-to-device communication
via NFC, and the like, that is received by the customer's mobile device, an App on the
customer's mobile device, or the like. In general, the access could include one or more
of, a link to a web URL, a link to an App (e.g., an app that can be found in an app store),
an electronic file that includes the entire electronic application, and the like.
[00128] With reference now to 710 of Figure 7, one embodiment receives, at a
customer's mobile device and from the store's electronic device 330, an access to an
electronic application for a new account, the access sent to the contact information for
the customer, the contact information for the customer being accessible by the
customer's mobile device. The access could be a web URL link (in a message), a link
to an app for the customer's mobile device, the entire electronic application provided
from the store's electronic device to the customer's mobile device, and the like.
[00133] For example, the associate's mobile device will use a phone number provided
by the customer. In so doing, the associate will send the message (text, SMS, MMS,
email, or the like) to the phone number provided by the customer. When the text is
opened on the customer's mobile device it will trigger the electronic application process
on the customer's mobile device. In one embodiment, the text message will be a web
URL (link, etc.), and the selecting of the web URL will cause a web browser on the
customer's mobile device to navigate to a web page containing the electronic
application for the new account.
[00134] In another example, when the access is a link to an App for the customer's
mobile device 110, selecting the link to the App will cause the customer's mobile device
to queue the App for downloading to the customer's mobile device. The App could be
downloaded automatically to the customer's mobile device or the customer could be
queried, and permission obtained before the App is downloaded. Included in the App
would be the electronic application for the new account.
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 14-17 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 13. Dependent claims 14 and 15 are directed toward receiving a link –insignificant extra solution activity. Dependent claim 16 is directed toward link cause access to application and navigate a web page containing application- a well-known, routine and conventional process utilized in business practices. Dependent claim 17 is directed link cause access to application and cause device to queue an app be downloaded- a routine conventional process.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 13. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 14-17 are directed towards patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 10,482,441 B1 by Watson et al; US Patent No. 9,965,797 B1 by Poole et al; CA 3240496 A1 by Bell et al; US Pub No. 2016/0292666 A1 by Chauhan; US Pub No. 2014/0180777 A1 by Moshrefi et al.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights