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 .
Acknowledgments
The submission filed on 10/08/25 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12 and 14-23 are pending.
In the Amendment filed on 10/08/25, claims 1, 11 and 20 were amended, and no claims were cancelled or added (claims 5, 7 and 13 were cancelled in a previous paper).
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12 and 14-23 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim objection
The claim objection was not addressed and so remains outstanding.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Office responds to Applicant's arguments below. In the discussion below, page numbers refer to Applicant's Response unless indicated otherwise.
Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that, on proper analysis, the claimed subject matter is not directed to a method of organizing human activity, as the claims include technical limitations requiring computational analysis and control that do not relate to organizing human activity. Applicant's claimed subject matter is directed to a technological solution for managing and filtering recipient lists for users initiating data transfers. By analyzing historical and master recipient data to generate predicted transfer profiles, the system intelligently identifies deviations in sender behavior and dynamically updates recipient lists by deleting obsolete sender specific recipient profiles. This results in a reduction in memory usage and unnecessary network traffic. (Response, p. 8; emphasis added)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As per the bolded portion of Applicant's argument above, Applicant's claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea, namely, correcting errors (deviations) in data transfer recipient information (note, per Applicant's specification, 0026, 0050, 0074, 0075, 0081, 0082, 0085, 0086, data transfer recipient information is payee, e.g., bill payee, information, in the context of a payment, e.g., bill payment, system). The computational analysis and technical/technological content in the claims consists merely of generic computer elements, used off-the-shelf, not described, recited at a high level of generality, and used to apply the abstract idea (e.g., data stores, processors, selection field of a user interface). The alleged reduction in memory usage and unnecessary network traffic results from the putative improvement in the abstract idea. The computer functioning/other technology is not improved as such since it is merely off-the-shelf technology used in its ordinary capacities.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite a judicial exception, as they are directed to a technological solution to a technical problem in computer-based recipient data management. Applicant's claimed subject matter does not simply automate a manual or economic process, nor does it recite a result-oriented or generic idea. Instead, Applicant's claimed subject matter recites specific rules and logic implemented to address technical challenges in recipient management and data filtering for data transfer systems.
The system generates predicted transfer profiles for recipients based on historical sender behavior and master recipient profiles, which are pre-generated and stored in advance of user action, avoiding the need to compute recipient relevance at runtime. The profiles are compared with stored sender-specific recipient data to identify deviations. A deviation triggers a notification to the user, soliciting feedback to confirm or update data. The recipient list displayed in the UI is dynamically filtered to exclude flagged or obsolete recipients, improving accuracy and usability.
These features improve the functioning of the computing system by optimizing how recipient data is managed and presented to the user. The system dynamically filters out irrelevant or outdated recipient profiles, and proactively identifies anomalies based on predictive analytics which enhance the accuracy and efficiency of user interactions and reduce the likelihood of errors. These are concrete improvements that adaptively modify the system's behavior based on technical analysis of historical and contextual data. (Response, p. 9)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the first paragraph above, no technological/technical problem/solution is seen in Applicant's claims. To the extent that Applicant's claims are computer-based, the computer elements merely automate a manual or economic process, in other words, they amount to 'apply it'. Even assuming arguendo the claims recite specific rules/logic, the specificity does not pertain to computer functioning/other technology but merely amounts to narrowing the abstract idea.
Regarding the second paragraph above, this merely describes the abstract idea of identifying and correcting deviations in (financial/bill payment) data. The aspects of timing, user notification and feedback, and dynamic filtering are all merely parts of the abstract idea. The UI is merely a generic computer element, used off-the-shelf, not described, recited at a high level of generality, and used to apply to the abstract idea.
Regarding the third paragraph above, the putative improvements represent improvements in the abstract idea. System behavior is not modified in respect of hardware or software or other technological aspects. Any "modification" of system behavior is merely a matter of the system being supplied with / using different data (re: the elimination of erroneous data).
Step 2A, Prong 2
Applicant argues:
Even if Applicant's claimed subject matter was found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1, it satisfies Step 2A, Prong 2 as it integrates that exception into a practical application. Applicant's claimed subject matter includes storing and reusing predicted transfer profiles in memory, generated in advance of a transfer initiation request, to avoid repeated computation at runtime, thereby reducing real-time processing demands and conserving computational resources such as memory bandwidth. The system filters the recipient list before providing the recipient list in the user interface, based on historical data and predicted behavior, reducing unnecessary data retrieval and minimizing processing overhead associated with generating and displaying irrelevant recipient entries. The system dynamically adapts recipient data presented to the user, based on system-detected deviations and user-provided input, ensuring that recipient options remain accurate and contextually relevant, preventing redundant or erroneous data processing cycles that would otherwise degrade system performance. These features amount to an implementation that improves the functioning of the computer system and solves a technical problem associated with managing dynamic recipient data sets in constrained computing environments, particularly in the context of repeated data transfers. (Response, pp. 9-10)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Again, the putative improvements described represent improvements in the abstract idea. The reduction of processing demands/resource usage is merely a natural consequence of the putative improvement to the abstract idea, specifically, the elimination or reduction of erroneous data (which may also be referred to as the identification and correction of errors), which naturally prevent redundant and erroneous data processing cycles. This does not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer system as such, because the computer system is simply used, off-the-shelf, in its ordinary capacity.
Step 2B
Applicant argues:
Applicant's claimed subject matter includes a specific, structured combination of data stores, predictive analytics based on historical and contextual data, and a dynamically updated user interface that excludes recipients deemed irrelevant or inaccurate. This combination of technical components and steps is not well-understood, routine, or conventional, nor is it an abstract recitation of "organizing human activity."
Applicant's claimed subject matter includes the generation of predicted transfer profiles for recipients, generated based on the sender's historical transfer behavior and centrally stored master recipient data (see paragraphs [0084] to [0087]). These profiles are generated in advance and stored, which reduces real-time computational demand and improves system performance.
The predicted profiles are compared against sender-specific recipient data to identify deviations such as irregular transfer patterns, expired account details, or inactive recipients (see paragraphs [0094] to [0096]). When deviations are detected, the system dynamically updates the recipient list by deleting outdated profiles and solicits user input to confirm or revise profile data (see paragraphs [0097] to [0100]). This improves the relevance of the data and reduces the likelihood of erroneous transactions.
Accordingly, the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Rather than claiming a generic computer performing routine functions, the claims implement a non-conventional arrangement of known elements that improves the functioning of the computer system itself, similar to the principles in BASCOM and McRO. The technical problem addressed, maintaining accurate and efficient recipient data in computerized transfer systems where information may become stale, arises in computer environments and Applicant's claimed subject matter provides a specific solution to that problem. (Response, p. 10)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With the exception of the user interface (mentioned in the first paragraph of the argument quoted above) all of the subject matter being argued here by Applicant is part of the abstract idea. As such, Applicant is effectively arguing that the abstract idea is not well-understood, routine or conventional. However, eligibility under step 2B turns on "whether the additional elements contribute an 'inventive concept'. MPEP 2106.05.II. "An inventive concept 'cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." MPEP 2106.05.I. Therefore, even assuming arguendo that the abstract idea of the instant claims is not well-understood, routine or conventional, this would not indicate eligibility under Step 2B or in any other way.
For the same reason, that is, since (except for the user interface) all of the subject matter being argued here by Applicant is part of the abstract idea, this argument cannot demonstrate that "the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea." In other words, the abstract idea itself cannot amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As for the user interface, this is a generic, off-the-shelf computer element, used in its ordinary capacity, recited at a high level of generality, and not described, and the interaction between the user interface and the abstract idea is that the user interface is merely used to apply the abstract idea.
Again, there is no improvement in "the functioning of the computer system itself" or other technology, for the reason stated above, namely, the recited computer elements are used off-the-shelf in their ordinary capacity, their behavior is not modified in respect of hardware or software or other technological aspects, and any "modification" of their behavior is merely a matter of their being supplied with / using different data (re: the elimination of erroneous data). Applicant asserts, but has not demonstrated, any improvement in hardware, software or another technological aspect.
As for BASCOM and McRO, the subject matter of the instant claims is not at all similar to that of either of these cases, and as such Applicant's high-level, summary assertion of analogy, absent any explanation as to how and why, is not persuasive.
As for the reference to a structured combination (cp. "ordered combination"), the Supreme Court's findings in Alice apply as well to Applicant's claims: "the computer components … ‘[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ …. 573 U.S. at 225 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972)." MPEP 2106.05.I.B.
Finally, the claims were not rejected as being well-understood, routine and conventional. Rather, the claims were rejected under Step 2B because, when the additional elements are included in the consideration of the claims as a combination, they are merely generic computer elements recited at a high level of generality, that are used to apply the abstract idea. However, "adding the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" and "generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use" are "[l]imitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as 'significantly more' when recited in a claim with a judicial exception." MPEP 2106.05. (Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More), I. (THE SEARCH FOR AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT), A.(Relevant Considerations For Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Amount To An Inventive Concept).
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
The rejection is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
Note the Office does not necessarily agree with Applicant's arguments regarding the unamended subject matter. Specifically, at pages 13-14 of the Response, Applicant argues that Raw does not teach the step of "responsive to identifying the deviation, updating, by the one or more processors, the data store by deleting the respective sender specific recipient profile of at least one of the plurality of recipients that is associated with the deviation" (claim 1). The Office does not necessarily agree with this argument.
In addition, the Office wishes to clarify the record, as Applicant misstates the rejection. Specifically, Applicant states that "the Office Action … relies on Raw for disclosing this feature" (p. 13) and again that: "Raw does not disclose "deleting sender-specific recipient profiles in response to such deviations. The system in Raw updates data annotations but does not take corrective actions such as removing a recipient profile from a sender's data" (p. 14). For clarification of the record, it should be noted that the rejection did not rely on Raw for the entirety of the subject matter alleged by Applicant. Rather, as per the Office Action, a portion of this subject matter is taught by Southard, not Raw.
Subject Matter Distinguishable From Prior Art
The cited prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to expressly teach or suggest the features found in independent claims 1, 11 and 20. Applicant's invention is directed to bill payment systems and bill payment records management systems. Specifically, claims 1, 11 and 20 maintain bill payment records in databases and update the bill payment records. This is taught by Southard (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0288397 A1), Landry (U.S. Patent No. 6,996,542), Fitzgerald (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0210520 A1), Milam (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0311362 A1), Raw (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0058025 A1) and Ganesan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0013768 A1). For example, Southard teaches updating remittance information associated with a payee, wherein preexisting remittance information stored in a database is replaced with updated remittance information if the updated remittance information has been received a threshold number of times. Landry teaches a system for generating bill records from billing information and making bill payments, wherein payors are given a degree of control to direct changes to be made to their payor/payee records. Milam teaches updating billers/payees based on matching data from a billers database of known billers with payee information from payee files from payors/customers. Fitzgerald teaches updating billing information, including maintaining a consumer/payee information database and a proprietary biller remittance information database as two separate databases. Raw teaches, inter alia, generating predictions, self-variation models, and cross-variation models of payors, which predict future payments based on past payment patterns, and identifying variations/deviations among payments (based on various attributes of the payments such as temporal indicators, location, payors, payees, actions) so as to identify and prevent potential erroneous payments. Ganesan teaches, inter alia, presenting/displaying a payee pick list for a user (payor) to make bill payments, and to add, delete, and update payees in the list.
However, the prior art, whether singly or in any permissible combination, neither teaches nor fairly suggests retrieve recipient information from the data transfer history data store and the master recipient profiles from the master participant data store; generate, for each of the plurality of recipients, a predicted transfer profile based on the retrieved recipient information and the master recipient profiles retrieved from the master participant data store, the generated, predicted transfer profile including a generated, expected data transfer interval; compare the generated, predicted transfer profile the sender specific recipient profile for each of the plurality of recipients; based on the comparison, identify a deviation in data transfers from the sender; responsive to identifying the deviation, update the data store by deleting the respective sender specific recipient profile of at least one of the plurality of recipients that is associated with the deviation; and provide a list of recipients in a selection field of a user interface, the list of recipients excluding the deleted recipient profile, wherein the list of recipients is dynamically filtered based on the predicted transfer profile, and wherein the predicted transfer profile is generated prior to a transfer initiation request and stored in the master participant data store, as claimed in claim 1, and the corresponding limitations of claims 11 and 20, in combination with the other claim limitations of claims 1, 11 and 20, respectively.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites:
compare the generated, predicted transfer profile the sender specific recipient profile for each of the plurality of recipients;
Corresponding independent claims 11 and 21 recite:
comparing the generated, predicted transfer profile to the sender specific recipient profile for each of the plurality of recipients;
In view of the disclosure and the corresponding subject matter of corresponding claims 11 and 21, claim 1 appears to include a typographical / clerical error, namely, of missing the word "to" (see bolded language in claims 11 and 21 above).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6, 8-12 and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12 and 14-23 are directed to a system, method, or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for determining and correcting errors (deviations) in data transfer recipient information (note, per Applicant's specification, 0026, 0050, 0074, 0075, 0081, 0082, 0085, 0086, data transfer recipient information is payee, e.g., bill payee, information, in the context of a payment, e.g., bill payment, system).
For claims 1, 11 and 20 (claim 11 being deemed representative), the limitations (indicated below in bold) of:
storing, by a data store, a list of recipients for a sender and for a plurality of recipients of the list of recipients a sender specific recipient profile comprising recipient information;
storing, by a data transfer history data store, data transfers made by a sender;
storing, by a master participant data store, master recipient profiles of recipients of the list of recipients for which data transfers can be initiated, each master recipient profile for a recipient including an expected data transfer interval of the recipient;
retrieving, by one or more processors, recipient information from the data transfer history data store and the master recipient profiles from the master participant data store;
generating, by the one or more processors, for each of the plurality of recipients, a predicted transfer profile based on the retrieved recipient information and the master recipient profiles retrieved from the master participant data store, the generated, predicted transfer profile including a generated, expected data transfer interval of the recipient;
comparing the generated, predicted transfer profile to the sender specific recipient profile for each of the plurality of recipients;
based on the comparison, identifying, by the one or more processors, a deviation in data transfers from the sender;
responsive to identifying the deviation, updating, by the one or more processors, the data store by deleting the respective sender specific recipient profile of at least one of the plurality of recipients that is associated with the deviation; and
providing, by the one or more processors, a list of recipients in a selection field of a user interface, the list of recipients excluding the deleted recipient profile, wherein the list of recipients is dynamically filtered based on the predicted transfer profile, and
wherein the predicted transfer profile is generated prior to a transfer initiation request and stored in the master participant data store.
as drafted, constitute a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "certain methods of organizing human activity," specifically, "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce, including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks, and "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.A.,B. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 11 and 20 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A - Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite the additional elements of a computer communications network, a data store, a data transfer history data store, a master participant data store, one or more processors, and a selection field of a user interface (all of the foregoing recited in claims 1, 11 and 20), computerized (additionally recited in claims 1 and 11), and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions which, when executed, configure one or more processors to (additionally recited in claim 20), that implement the abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and they are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computer elements performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2A - prong 2: NO. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer communications network, a data store, a data transfer history data store, a master participant data store, one or more processors, and a selection field of a user interface (all of the foregoing recited in claims 1, 11 and 20), computerized (additionally recited in claims 1 and 11), and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions which, when executed, configure one or more processors to (additionally recited in claim 20), to perform the noted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer elements cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such, claims 1, 11 and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more.)
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14-19 and 21-23 are similarly rejected because they further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 11 and 20 as discussed above, and/or do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept such as would render the claims eligible, whether each is considered individually or as an ordered combination.
As for further defining/narrowing the abstract idea:
Dependent claims 2, 12 and 21 merely further describe update … based on data transfers from several senders among the plurality of senders.
Dependent claims 3 and 22 merely further describe wherein comparing the generated, predicted transfer profile to the sender specific recipient profile for each of the plurality of recipients includes: comparing the expected data transfer interval of the generated, predicted transfer profile to the expected data transfer interval of the sender specific recipient profile for each of the plurality of recipients.
Dependent claims 4, 19 and 23 merely further describe wherein the deviation is identified based on one or more pending data transfers to a recipient.
Dependent claim 6 merely further describes wherein comparing the generated, predicted transfer profile to the sender specific recipient profile for each of the plurality of recipients includes: comparing a range of the generated, predicted transfer profile to a range of the sender specific recipient profile for each of the plurality of recipients.
Dependent claim 8 merely further describes wherein comparing the generated, predicted transfer profile to the sender specific recipient profile for each of the plurality of recipients includes: comparing a quantity of the generated, predicted transfer profile to a quantity of the sender specific recipient profile for each of the plurality of recipients.
Dependent claim 9 merely further describes in response to the identifying the deviation, notify the sender of the deviation ….
Dependent claim 10 merely further describes receive a response to the notifying and wherein the updating is performed in response to receiving the response and in accordance with an instruction included in the response.
Dependent claim 14 merely further describes updating the expected data transfer interval for the recipient based on a data transfer to the recipient.
Dependent claim 15 merely further describes receiving sender input including a profile of a recipient to update; and updating, based on the receiving of the sender input, ….
Dependent claim 16 merely further describes storing, in a master recipient profile, payment parameters of data transfers.
Dependent claim 17 merely further describes subsequent to identifying the deviation, notifying the sender of the deviation.
Dependent claim 18 merely further describes wherein the identifying the deviation comprises identifying a dormant account of the sender.
As for additional elements:
Dependent claims 2 and 21 recite "wherein the instructions, when executed [by the one or more processors], further cause the one or more processors to" and "the master participant data store." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 9 recites "wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to" and "over the computer communications network." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 10 recites "wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 12 recites "the master participant data store." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 15 recites "by the one or more processors" and "the data store." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 16 recites "the master participant data store." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 17 recites "by the one or more processors" and "over the computer communications network." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 18 recites "in the data store." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 14, 19, 22 and 23 do not recite any additional elements, and accordingly, for the reasons provided above with respect to the independent claims, are not patent eligible.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14-19 and 21-23 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, as set forth in the accompanying Notice of References Cited (PTO-892), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Description of the cited prior art is provided above ("Subject Matter Distinguishable From Prior Art").
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS W PINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-4131. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/DOUGLAS W. PINSKY/
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights