Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-18, and 20 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
Double Patenting
*** Applicant’s indication to hold this rejection in abeyance until the § 101 and prior art rejections are overcome is acknowledged. ***
Claim 1-6, 8-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,755,261, respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the broader instant claims recite the same limitations contained in the narrower claims of the parent applications. As such, the instant claims are obvious in light of the parent claims.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In reLongi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(1)(1) - 706.02(1)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/ AIA / 26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
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 1-6, 8-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they recite non-patentable subject matter, under MPEP § 2106 (e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update). The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, method of organizing human activity, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under the 2019 PEG, step 2a-prong 1, Claims 1-13, 15-18, and 20 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps are directed towards accessing first and second linked financial accounts using a stored value card (e.g., a debit card, gift card, etc.), including activating and funding the card at a vendor/merchant POS. Stored-value cards, such as credit, debit, pre-paid, loyalty, and gift cards (see, ¶ [0016] of the instant specification) have long been used to access first and second (e.g., checking, saving, reserve, overdraft, etc.) linked accounts. For example, a debit card in particular, has long been tied to a checking account and a savings account or overdraft line of credit, as issued by banks, etc. to allow the owner of the savings account immediate access to the money in the multiple accounts. ATM’s often ask the user which account it wishes to draw from (e.g., checking or savings). Such cards and savings accounts have long been “associated with at least a first or second financial account” (e.g., a checking account that is the person’s primary account, etc.); and in such instances, the owner is able to transfer money from his primary account(s) to his savings account, via online banking for example. When a minimum balance is achieved, it is also long-standing commercial practice to offer a reserve account from which funds are automatically transferred to the checking account. The funds from the reserve account are not transferable directly to a third party, and must first be transferred to the user’s checking account. As such, the inventions recite abstract idea(s) under the 2019 PEG, and Alice Corporation.
Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In the instant case, the claims generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology (a stored value card is a generic form of storing data and providing consumers with portable access to that data to be read and debited/credited by processors (https://www.finweb.com/banking-credit/what-is-a-stored-value-card.html#). “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements of the independent and dependent claims (e.g., specific types of accounts, keeping accounts open and viable regardless of timing issues or balance values, reloading accounts, etc.) further delineate the abstract idea, recite insignificant extra-solution activity, or applies the abstract idea across generic technology. None of the dependent claims recite an innovative concept or significantly more. The dependent claims, taken individually and as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because they further delineate the abstract idea, i.e., linking a card to the first and second accounts, and/or apply an insignificant stipulation to the use thereof. The claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Under Alice, merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility.
Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. MPEP 2106.05(d) The italicized functions are particularly germane to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Blankenship et al (US 2007/0023504), in view of Scipioni et al (US 2008/0228637), in view of US 2007/0265961 to Shah et al., and further in view of US 2008/0114696 to Singh et al.
Referring to claim 1, Blakenship discloses a financial account system (see Abstract, par. 0012, the financial card system), comprising: a stored-value card (see fig. 1, par. 0051, the financial card; also, par. 0083); a first financial account directly accessible via the stored-value card (see par. 0013, the general account fund bucket; par. 0083); a second financial account associated with the first financial account (see par. 0013, the second account fund bucket; par 0083).
Blankenship fails to expressly teach wherein funds may be transferred between the first financial account and the second financial account. However, in disclosing a linked savings account, Scipioni teaches wherein funds may be transferred between the first financial account and the second financial account (see par. 0076, transfer funds between the spending and savings account). Scipioni further teaches a reload transaction for funding the accounts (FIG. 18; [0035];[0090], funds transfers); and initiating via an activation request for the stored-value card at a merchant’s POS ([0074]). Scipioni teaches a merchant's or third party's interface being designed to accommodate the account ([0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the above features onto the invention of Blakenship using the teachings of Scipioni for the purpose of saving for the long term (Scipioni par. 0002).
Blankenship fails to expressly teach, but Shah teaches one or more additional accounts associated with the first and/or second account, wherein funds are transferrable between all accounts ([0016], “one or more backup funding sources,” can include credit lines and accounts, etc.) wherein the second account funds cannot be directly transferred to a third party via the SVC (“back up”). As interpreted in accordance with the specification, and in overcoming prior 112 rejection, the term “directly” is interpreted as not being used for purchases or point source (e.g. POS) transactions, which is the same as overdraft protection. Shah teaches account holders making transaction-time decisions about backup funding sources ([0024]), which teaches accessing the backup choice, even though you can’t make a debit directly thereto. Shah provides: “In one embodiment, the account can be accessed by multiple debit cards and different backup funding sources can be configured for each debit card ([0031]). In one embodiment, the backup funding servers 218 and 222 provide access to the backup funding sources” ([0031], further teaching that other embodiments do not provide access). Shah teaches the use of multiple linked accounts and a secondary account for overdraft protection. (claim 12 therein; [0033];[0053]) Shah further teaches depositing funds within the account(s), i.e., funding said accounts or a fundable account ([0047]). Shah teaches the account and backup sources being “accessed” by the debit card ([0031-33]. Shah teaches “even though account holders have many payment methods at their disposal, they are often concerned about having enough money/credit in their accounts to complete their transactions.” [0003]. Shah teaches the funding system architect 200 being connect to a merchant computer 202 (which teaches a merchant’s point of sale terminal) [0023]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Blankenship to keep linked accounts open and viable regardless of timing issues and balances therein, in order to alleviate concerns regarding the balance of any one account.
Blakenhip fails to expressly teach, but Singh teaches wherein the stored-value card is configured for purchase and activation by a consumer at a vendor’s point of sale. [0006] Singh discusses the desire to purchase multiple cards from differing card issuers in a singular package assembly and activate each card a point of sale. [0005] it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Blakenship to include activation at a point of sale as taught by Singh in order to better enable consumers to activate their SVC’s at a merchant’s POS.
Referring to claim 2, Blakenship discloses wherein the funds maintained in the first financial account and the second financial account comprise a consumer's financial interest (see par. 0031, the financial account has funds bucket with an associated amount/financial interest).
Referring to claim 3, Blakenship discloses wherein the consumer may only withdraw funds from the first financial account (see par. 0023, unrestricted general account fund bucket for unrestricted purchase of goods).
Referring to claim 5, Blakenship discloses wherein balance limits of the first financial account and the second financial account are determined by a stored-value card issuer, financial account manager, sponsor bank, or combinations thereof (see par. 0090, different limitations placed on the account fund buckets that limit the rate spent on the funds).
Referring to claim 6, Blakenship discloses wherein transaction codes associated with the second financial account are configurable to correspond to bank, issuer, and/or manager desired parameters (see par. 0060, the code distinguishes between different type of service providers/ issuers).
Referring to claim 7, Blakenship discloses wherein the first financial account and/or the second financial may remain open and viable regardless of any timing issues and/or balance amount values (see par. 0029, the account fund buckets include overdraft protection, balance amount values).
Referring to claim 8, Blakenship discloses comprising service agents, wherein the service agents may have an ability to effectuate any transaction and/or request associated with the stored-value card, the first financial account, the second financial account, or combinations thereof (see par. 0113, card may access financial network through telephone call center, service agents).
Referring to claim 9, Blakenship is silent on wherein transfers between the first financial account and the second financial account may be automatic, recurring, or one-time events and wherein the automatic, recurring, or one-time events may be transacted regardless of a current balance of the first financial account and/or the second financial account. However, Scipioni teaches wherein transfers between the first financial account and the second financial account may be automatic, recurring, or one-time events and wherein the automatic, recurring, or one-time events may be transacted regardless of a current balance of the first financial account and/or the second financial account (see par. 0076, the recurring transfer, fund transfer permit transfer money between spending and savings account). Under the same rationale as Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the above features onto the invention of Blakenship using the teachings of Scipioni for the purpose of saving for the long term (Scipioni par. 0002).
Referring to claim 10, Blakenship is silent on wherein interest is paid on the first financial account and/or the second financial account at times designated by bank, issuer, and/or manager desired parameters. However Scipioni teaches wherein interest is paid on the first financial account and/or the second financial account at times designated by bank, issuer, and/or manager desired parameters (see par. 0073, the interest savings allow fund in the secondary account to earn interest). Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the above features onto the invention of Blakenship using the teachings of Scipioni for the purpose of saving for the long term (Scipioni par. 0002).
Referring to claim 11, Blakenship discloses wherein any component of the system may be provided to a consumer as an individual and/or stand-alone feature (see par. 0085, the second account fund bucket for a restricted purchase, the consumer can use only that individual feature).
Referring to claim 12, Blakenship discloses wherein a consumer may purchase and/or establish the stored-value card, the first financial account, the second financial account, or combinations thereof with an amount designated by a stored-value card issuer, financial account manager, sponsor bank, or combinations thereof (see par. 0014, the financial card is being used for the purchase of goods and services).
Referring to claim 13, Blakenship is silent on wherein any fees associated with the system are configurable to correspond to bank, issuer, and/or manager desired parameters. However Scipioni teaches wherein any fees associated with the system are configurable to correspond to bank, issuer, and/or manager desired parameters (see par. 0105, the financial service provider may charge a transaction fee). Under the same rationale as Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the above features onto the invention of Blakenship using the teachings of Scipioni for the purpose of saving for the long term (Scipioni par. 0002).
Referring to claim 14, Blakenship is silent on one or more additional financial accounts associated with the first financial account and/or the second financial account, wherein all financial accounts may be associated and funds may be transferred between financial accounts. However Scipioni teaches one or more additional financial accounts associated with the first financial account and/or the second financial account, wherein all financial accounts may be associated and funds may be transferred between financial accounts (see par. 0034-0035, the account secondary account linked to secondary account). Under the same rationale as Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the above features onto the invention of Blakenship using the teachings of Scipioni for the purpose of saving for the long term (Scipioni par. 0002).
Referring to claim 15, Blakenship discloses wherein the funds maintained in the financial accounts comprise a consumer's financial interest (see par. 0031, the financial account has funds bucket with an associated amount/financial interest).
Referring to claim 17, Blakenship discloses wherein balance limits of the financial accounts are determined by a stored-value card issuer, financial account manager, sponsor bank, or combinations thereof (see par. 0090, different limitations placed on the account fund buckets that limit the rate spent on the funds).
Referring to claim 18, Blakenship discloses wherein transaction codes associated with the financial accounts are configurable to correspond to bank, issuer, and/or manager desired parameters (see par. 0060, the code distinguishes between different type of service providers/issuers).
Referring to claim 20, Blakenship discloses service agents, wherein the service agents may have an ability to effectuate any transaction and/or request associated with the stored-value card, the financial accounts, or combinations thereof (see par. 0113, card may access financial network through telephone call center, service agents).
Response to remarks
Applicant’s remarks dated 3/2/2026 have been considered, but are not persuasive where objections/rejections are maintained. The prior art rejections for Claims 4 and 16 have been withdrawn, because it would require piecemealing and improper hindsight to erect a proper § 103 rejection. The claims are unamended.
Applicant’s traversal of the § 112 rejection is persuasive, such that the § 112 rejection has been withdrawn. However, the support cited by Applicant does not clarify how the reload deposit is made, but does state that the request to activate the card may include a reload amount. Additional clarification is requested.
In response to the remarks, Applicant emphasizes that the reload deposit may be initiated via an activation request for the SVC at a merchant’s POS. Scipioni teaches access to the primary account at a “merchant’s interface.” Under its BRI, a reload deposit is a transfer deposit for replenishing the card or account balance tied to the card; an SVC includes a debit card (Specification, ¶ [0016]); and a merchant POS could include the bank ATM, etc. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a reload deposit may be initiated by an activation request for the card. However, the prior art teaches the use of a debit card to transfer funds into one of linked accounts; and the card holder could do so after initially activating the card at the same ATM or POS. As such, the reload deposit may be initiated by the activation request of the card. How the scope of this limitation, as argued by Applicant, distinguishes therefrom is unclear. A conventional debit card is not a specialized machine or article of manufacture integral to the claim (nor is the POS) that converts the abstract idea into a practical application.
As previously presented, the § 101 rejection is maintained, because initiating a replenishment of an active card is well known, routine, and conventional activity (see prior art references of rejection). That is to say making an activation request for a debit card at a bank, and then using it to replenish a secondary account via a primary account at the bank via the activated debit card were known in the art. Moreover, activation and purchase of a gift card at a vendor’s POS does not recite an innovate concept or significantly more. Finally, transferring money to a SVC at a POS is also not an innovative concept. Shah teaches this at a merchant’s computer. Singh teaches activation at a vendor’s POS. Conventional bank accounts are subject to reload or replenishment, which fails to introduce novelty. That is to say, checking, savings, etc. accounts have long been able to receive funds/deposits with a stored-value card (for example at an ATM—users have long been able to approach an ATM, insert their stored-value (debit) card, select deposit, and enter cash into the machine for deposit into one or more accounts associated with the card). Banks have long offered additional accounts tied to a business checking for example, such as reserve and overdraft accounts, money manager, HELOC, etc. that are transferable between the checking account, and accessible by the debit card via online banking. Reserve lines for example cannot be used to pay a third party directly. Overdraft protection has long existed to transfer money between first and second accounts when the balance in the first account falls below a threshold, e.g., is negative, is less than the opening deposit requirement, etc. See, prior art references of record. As such, the remarks fail to overcome patent ineligibility. Applicant is asked to specify which limitations recite a practical application (i.e., an improvement to the functioning of a computer, relegation to a particular machine recited in the claims, a transformation, or an additional element that applies the abstract idea in some meaningful way beyond linking it to an environment). Simply reciting a stored value card (e.g., a debit card) for accessing the accounts fails to recite a particular machine. Using an SVC is itself, fundamental economic activity, and a part of the abstract idea(s) captured by the instant invention. At the time of the invention, stored value (or prepaid, debit, loyalty, gift, etc.) cards were generic computing technology; moreover, transferring funds from one account to another linked account was an abstract idea. Additional references have been added to the record which supports this. A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In the instant case, the claims generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology (a stored value card is a generic form of storing data and providing consumers with portable access to that data to be read and debited/credited by processors (https://www.finweb.com/ banking-credit/what-is-a-stored-value-card.html#). “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted).
As per the § 103 rejection, Singh teaches activation of an SVC at a vendor’s POS. Otherwise, the prior combination still teaches the added limitation (“reload transaction”), which is also being interpreted as “reload deposit.” See, e.g., scipioni (FIG. 18; [0035];[0090]). Shah teaches overdraft protection (e.g., maintaining a sufficient balance), such that the account(s) remain open and viable even if they dip below the opening deposit requirement (e.g., becomes negative). The prior art references of record continue to teach one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, each and every limitation of the claims. Please note that the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitation verbatim, and also that the entirety of a prior art reference is to be applied to the respective claim(s), such that the pinpoint citations above are exemplary and provided for Applicant’s benefit; other locations within the applied reference(s) may further support the rejection. MPEP 2141.02(VI). US 2002/0190123 to Anvekar et al (e.g., ¶ [0009]) remains directed to Applicant’s further attention; also US 2008/0208689 to Johnson has been added to the record which further teaches opening an account and maintaining a minimum balance for an agreed period. [0045]
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/ Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights