DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 8/13/2020, is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/31/2025 has been entered
a. Claims 1, 4, 7 are amended
b. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9 are cancelled
Overall, Claims 1, 4, 7, 10-12 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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, 4, 7, 10-12 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application) without significantly more.
Per Step 1 and Step 2A of the two-step eligibility analysis, independent Claim 1, Claim 4 and Claim 7 and the therefrom dependent claims are directed respectively to a computer implemented method, to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium and to a system. Thus, on its face, each such independent claim and the therefrom dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
However, Claim 1, (which is repeated in Claims 4, 7) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites: authenticating said user via said native mobile application; allowing said user access to said mobile loyalty services via said native mobile application after said user is authenticated.
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations mentally or manually, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the one or more processors,” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or manually by a human. For example, “authenticating said user via said native mobile application”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally authenticating a person. Further, “maintaining said device unlock process as long as said user remains within a virtual perimeter”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally conditionally keeping the device functional. Finally, “allowing said user access to said mobile loyalty services via said native mobile application when the physical location of the device and the biometrics of the user match”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally giving access to the services. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, (A) remaining elements of the independent claims are directed to: receiving a request to initiate a mobile loyalty services; capturing with a sensor biometrics of a user; automatically generating a physical location of the said mobile device; obtaining the physical location and the biometrics of user, comparing said physical location of the mobile device with a pre-approved location perimeter, comparing the user biometrics with the stored user biometrics.
When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general computation, receipt and transmission claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) Additional remaining claim elements are: the mobile application services, the mobile loyalty services; the authenticating. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, they do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
(C) Finally, recited computing elements, i.e. processor; memory are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing elements performing generic computer functions, like obtaining data, interpreting the obtained data and providing results, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, these additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because: (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
(A) Step 2B of the eligibility analysis for the independent claims concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, remaining elements of the independent claims are directed to: receiving a request to initiate a mobile loyalty services; capturing with a sensor biometrics of a user; automatically generating a physical location of the said mobile device; obtaining the physical location and the biometrics of user, comparing said physical location of the mobile device with a pre-approved location perimeter, comparing the user biometrics with the stored user biometrics.
When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general computation, receipt and transmission claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) Furthermore, additional remaining elements of the independent claims contain descriptive limitations explaining the nature, structure and/or content of: the mobile application services, the mobile loyalty services; the authenticating. However, these claim elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claimed invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
(C) Finally, the recited computing elements of the independent claims are: processor; memory. When considered individually, these additional claim elements serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. They do not constitute “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”. (MPEP 2106.05(a)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of any of these areas.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to significantly more, to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination.
Dependent Claims 10 (which are representative of Claims 11-12) are not directed to any abstract ideas and are not directed to any further non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these recited claims provide further descriptive limitations of elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of: the sensor captured biometrics. However, these elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules, as disclosed in the application specification in fig1 and [0024]-[0034], including among others: display, processor, memory, gps, camera.
In sum, Claims 1, 4, 7, 10-12 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Written Description (New Matter)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of the relevant portion of 35 U.S.C. §132(a):
No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for failing to comply with the written description requirement. MPEP 2163.06 stipulates – If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) – written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 4, 7 have been amended by Applicant to include the limitation “maintaining said device unlock process as long as said user remains within a virtual perimeter”. The limitation has no support in the specification, drawings or initial set of claims.
As per claims 1, 4, 7, Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the offending claim limitation in the application as filed, in the drawings or in the initial set of claims.
The application specification describes operations that take place only within the virtual perimeter, however, the specification does not disclose “maintaining said device unlock process as long as said user remains within a virtual perimeter”.
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, if the difference 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 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(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perold et al (US 9,913,135), in view of Walker et al (US 2013/0060635).
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 7 – Perold discloses: A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request to initiate a … within a mobile application, wherein both said mobile application and said … are stored on a mobile device; {see at least fig2, (37)/[18:2-20] smartphone request; 6)/[2:6-25] … some contact based solutions call for a user to place his or her finger on the device sensor which has the ability to capture the user's fingerprint, which is then matched against local or remotely located fingerprint data to determine if there is a match sufficient to allow the user or the device to access one or more resources (reads on native application); fig1A, rc103, [(18)/[15:37-48] unlocking access to an electronic key stored on the mobile device (reads on native mobile application); (6)/[2:6-25] (reads on native applications)}
capturing with a sensor of said mobile device biometrics of a user of said mobile device at a time of said request; … {see at least fig3, (42)-(43)/[18:35-19:20], fig4, (45)-(46)/[19:30-57] biometric parameters are obtained; (6)/[2:6-25] … some contact based solutions call for a user to place his or her finger on the device sensor which has the ability to capture the user's fingerprint, which is then matched against local or remotely located fingerprint data to determine if there is a match sufficient to allow the user or the device to access one or more resources (reads on native application)}
automatically generating, with a global positioning system (GPS) of said mobile device and in response to said obtaining said biometrics of said user, a physical location of said mobile device; {see at least (13)-(15)/[3:61-8:63] measurement of the proximity of a geo-location …}
… and a timestamp indicating a time of said generation of said physical location by said GPS {see at least (32)/[17:48-55] contextual data comprises timestamp. The claim element “indicating a time of said generation of said physical location by said GPS” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
obtaining, by said mobile application, said physical location of said user {see at least (13)/[5:43-6:64] geo-location data} and said biometrics; {see at least fig3, (42)-(43)/[18:35-19:20], fig4, (45)-(46)/[19:30-57] biometric parameters are obtained}
authenticating said user via said mobile application prior to providing access to said mobile loyalty services, {see at least [claim1], [claim13] user authentication}
wherein said authenticating said user via said mobile application is performed after a device unlock process used to provide said user access to said mobile device, {Perold fails to expressly disclose the conditional claim limitation; however, one can infer that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the device that the authentication of the user via the mobile application is performed after the mobile device has been unlocked – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
maintaining said device unlock process as long as said user remains within a virtual perimeter; {see at least (13)/[5:43-7:22] In some embodiments, contextual data about the location of the physical or virtual resource changes over time, requiring time-based or event-based updates containing this location data to be sent from the physical or virtual resource to the digital processing devices of the end users, such that any geo-location dependent permissions associated with the location data of the physical or virtual resource remain valid (reads on maintaining the device in an unlock state as long as it remains within the virtual perimeter)}
comparing said physical location of said mobile device is with a pre-approved location perimeter at said time said biometrics of said user were captured; and {see at least (15)/7:23-8:63) user in the expected location and distance (reads on pre-approved or pre-agreed)}
comparing said captured biometrics of said user with a stored biometrics of said user; {see at least [claim13] (b) biometric modalities; (42)/[18:35-46] comparing user biometrics with the corresponding model in the database}
allowing said user access to said … stored on said mobile device when said physical location of said mobile device was within said pre-approved location perimeter at said time said biometrics of said user were captured and said biometrics of said user match said stored biometrics of said user. {see at least [claim1], [claim13] user authentication and access (authentication takes place before access); (15)/7:23-8:63) user in the expected location and distance (reads on pre-approved or pre-agreed); (15)/7:23-8:63) obtaining biometric features and geo-location data (reads on the time the biometrics were captured; (42)/[18:35-46] comparing user biometrics with the corresponding model in the database}
Perold does not disclose, however, Walker discloses:
… mobile loyalty services … {see at least fig7, rc704, [0106] loyalty program in conjunction with location-based services}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Perold, to include the elements of Walker. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to apply the process to mobile loyalty services as well. In the instant case, Perold evidently discloses accessing based on location and biometrics. Walker is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of mobile loyalty service in a geo-fenced area in the same or similar context. Since both accessing based on location and biometrics, as well as mobile loyalty service in a geo-fenced area are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Perold, as well as Walker would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Perold / Walker.
Regarding Claims 10-12 – Perold, Walker discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 4, 7. Perold further discloses:
wherein said sensor captured biometrics is selected from a group consisting of: a fingerprint, a voice sample, an eye scan, and a heart rate. {see at least (14)-(16)/[10:31-15:35] fingerprint; [claim1], [claim13] fingerprint, human voice}
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230394930 A1 Shore; Michael W. et al. LOCATION-BASED WAGERING VIA REMOTE DEVICES - Location based wagering method sand systems. An online wagering service can be invoked via a mobile device. A determination can be then made regarding the location of the mobile device and a jurisdiction (e.g., state, county, city, etc.) associated with that location. The mobile device and hence a user can be authorized to access the online wagering service based on the location of the mobile device. Based on the location, it can also be determined if use of the online wagering service is allowed in the jurisdiction along with prescribed limitations of use in that jurisdiction. Wagering options are then presented via the mobile device, which conform to the laws and/or regulations of the jurisdiction.
US 11830048 B1 Sahni; Bipin M. et al. Computer implemented systems and non-transitory computer readable media for testing and purchase of goods - Systems and methods for processing customer requests to access purchasable items using financial assessments are described. A customer using a mobile device can identify a good of interest and transmit a request to access and test it. A financial institution computing system with a database of customer financial information can generate a financial assessment of the customer and the customer's identified good, which can then be used to determine whether the customer's request should be granted.
US 20220027501 A1 Kusko; Mary P. et al. USER PRIVACY FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES - Data privacy for data associated with traveling in a vehicle that has access to passenger data, vehicle location data, vehicle navigation data, peripheral data; and/or itinerary data. Privacy is achieved by data classification and corresponding data security preferences and/or user selection including end of trip data disposition actions. Autonomous Vehicle, also referred to as Vehicular Automation, involves the use of mechatronics, artificial intelligence, and multi-agent system to assist a vehicle's operator. These features and the vehicles employing them may be labeled as intelligent or smart. A vehicle using automation for difficult tasks, especially navigation, may be referred to as semi-autonomous. A vehicle relying solely on automation is consequently referred to as robotic or autonomous. After the invention of the integrated circuit, the sophistication of automation technology increased. Manufacturers and researchers subsequently added a variety of automated functions to automobiles and other vehicles.
US 20210266737 A1 Burke; Christopher John MULTI-USAGE CONFIGURATION TABLE FOR PERFORMING BIOMETRIC VALIDATION OF A USER TO ACTIVATE AN INTEGRATED PROXIMITY-BASED MODULE - An interactive computing device has an integrated memory device, which stores a multi-usage configuration table that identifies a plurality of real-world contexts, which are distinct from one another, a biometric template corresponding to each of the plurality of real-world contexts, and a biometric database corresponding to biometric data of a user of the interactive computing device. The biometric template identifies one or more biometric modalities based on one or more access request types. Furthermore, the interactive computing device has a proximity-based detection module, integrated within the interactive computing device, that detects proximity to a proximity-based reader positioned externally to the interactive computing device. Additionally, the interactive computing device has a proximity-based transmission module and a user input device integrated within the interactive computing device; the user input device receives a biometric input of the user.
US 20200143363 A1 SCHMIDT; Mike SEAMLESS ELECTRONIC SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR APPLICATION, ACCEPTANCE OF, AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO, AND TRACKING PURCHASES MADE WITH A NEW CREDIT ACCOUNT - A seamless electronic system and method for application, acceptance of, authorizing access to, and tracking purchases made with a new credit account is disclosed. The method uses a mobile device to electronically apply for a new credit account and receive a metadata file formatted for a mobile wallet on the mobile device, the metadata file providing a new credit account for making purchases via a mobile payment. A biometric security is provided to limit access to the new credit account, the biometric security being different than an input needed to access the mobile device. A user is authenticated with the biometric security, prior to receiving access to the new credit account; and initiating a mobile purchase therewith. A digital receipt identifying one or more aspects of the mobile purchase is received.
US 20160352520 A1 SCHWACH; Jory et al. ENCRYPTION USING BIOMETRIC IMAGE-BASED KEY - Methods and systems according to the present disclosure improve upon known biometric security systems by not permanently storing (e.g., for later comparison as in known systems) the actual image of the biometric characteristic. Instead, an image of a biometric identifier (e.g., retina, fingerprint, etc.) may be used to form a key which may be used to secure and provide access to data. The key may be formed, in embodiments, using a neural network and/or a random input (e.g., a vector of random characters), for example. The image of the biometric identifier may be discarded, and thus may not be vulnerable to theft. In an embodiment, the key may be used in a key-based encryption system.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “It would not be appropriate for the examiner to take official notice of facts without citing a prior art reference where the facts asserted to be well known are not capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
No Official Notice has been taken in the eligibly analysis of the instant Office Action.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Therefore, based on the cited findings above which directly contrast the Office Action's unsupported conjecture, withdrawal of the improper rejection is respectfully requested.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Therefore, the Step 2A prong 1 Mental Processes analysis must result in the answer being No. The Claim elements do not fall within the "Mental Processes - Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)" grouping of abstract ideas.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See responses here above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits “With respect to Perold and Walker, Applicant respectfully submits that neither Perold nor Walker disclose or suggest "comparing said …””
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
This is a very broad argument, which precludes a specific response for the raised issues. Applicant is requested to provide specific arguments/remarks, so that specific answers can be provided.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698