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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
The Amendment of claims 1, 7-8 and 15, filed on 01/28/2026 is acknowledged and entered.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 and 21-23 are pending and are hereby examined.
Examiner’s Response to Amendment/Arguments
USC § 101
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 and 21-23 is directed towards authenticating a user. This is still an abstract idea, even after considering the amendment. The computer technology merely automates and implements the abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites (in part) “receiving…an encrypted authorization request; decrypting the encrypted authorization request to obtain an authorization request, the authorization request comprising the first biometric identifier; identifying internal data for a user based at least in part on the first biometric identifier; determining that the first biometric identifier matches a second biometric identifier stored in association with the internal data for the user; and sending an authorization response to the point of interaction device…comprises a digital token and/or a response code that indicates authorization”, which is grouped within the grouping "Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices…; commercial or legal interactions…; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…” grouping of abstract ideas because the claim involves receiving, decrypting, identifying, determining and sending information (in a transaction), in prong one of Step 2A (see MPEP 2106). Claims 8 and 15 recite similar language and are rejected under similar reasoning. The additional elements ("point of interaction device”; “processor and memory” and “machine-readable instructions”), do not improve the functioning of a computer nor does it improve a technology or technical field. Also, the additional elements of computer technology merely automate the abstract idea. In this instance, these are all elements of a computer and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The devices, merely automates and implements the abstract idea to perform the functions. The devices do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, the claim continues to be non-statutory.
The claim has been amended to include the language “…wherein the point of interaction device lacks access to financial account details;” and “wherein the transaction authorization request does not comprise financial account details;” These added elements does not help to improve the claims from been directed to an abstract idea, and also the amendment do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1, 8 and 15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered. The claims have been amended to include a new limitation “…wherein the point of interaction device lacks access to financial account details;” and “wherein the transaction authorization request does not comprise financial account details;”.
Furthermore, in page 22 of the response filed on 01/28/2026, Applicant assert
that {“Mitchell in view of Narasimhan and in further view of Habib does not disclose "obtain a transaction authorization request, the transaction authorization request comprising the first biometric identifier, and wherein the authorization request does not comprise financial account details" as recited in amended claim 1. The Office Action (p. 5) in rejecting this subject matter, states (emphasis added): Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15, Mitchell et al. teaches [ . .], the authorization request comprising the first biometric identifier [C2 L24-40 " ... in a computer implemented method of authenticating a financial transaction requested by a user using a remote terminal, the method of including the steps of storing account information in machine readable form, the information relating to one or more financial accounts, storing identity information relating to each account, the identity information including machine readable information corresponding to a unique biological identifier supplied by at least one individual authorized to access at least one of the accounts, submission by the user of the user's unique biological identifier, and submission of the user's transaction request at the remote terminal, transmission from the remote terminal to a clearing house of the user's unique biological identifier and the user's transaction request. .. ", C4 L32 - 35 "Preferably the information on the fingerprint (of other unique biological identifier) is encrypted along with the financial information and transmitted by the remote terminal to the clearing house."; Claims 1, 2, and 14].
However, the cited portions of Mitchell, Narasimhan, and Habib appear to be silent regarding "... wherein the point of interaction device lacks access to financial account details obtain a transaction authorization request; decrypting the encrypted transaction authorization request ... the transaction authorization request comprising the first biometric identifier, and wherein the authorization request does not comprise financial account details" as recited in amended claim 1. (Emphasis added). Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Mitchell in view of Narasimhan and further in view of Habib fails to disclose at least this element of claim 1}.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis of the Applicant. In additional to the portion of Mitchell misrepresented by the Applicant analysis, Examiner is adding additional paragraphs in Mitchell to help explain the portion of the newly added language of “…wherein the point of interaction device lacks access to financial account details;” and “wherein the transaction authorization request does not comprise financial account details;” in C4 L52-C5 L17 “…the invention provides a method of authenticating financial transactions by establishing a clearing house which stores information in machine readable form on a plurality of customers, each customers information including at least information on the customer's account, including the account balance and credit limit for the account, and information pertaining to a unique biological identifier Supplied by the customer, linking the clearing house to one or more remote terminals which remote terminals can be accessed by customers or by merchants, or both, (for example point of sale terminals or ATM machines), means for transmitting from one or more of those terminals information to the clearing house, information containing details of the transaction to be approved by the clearing house, information containing details of the account type or clearing house which administers the account, and information relating to the unique biological identifier detected or measured by the terminal, the clearing house comparing the received information on the account type to direct the transaction to the appropriate account for the clearing house, and comparing the received information on the transmitted unique biological identifier with its store of Such information, identifying the particular account correlated with the received unique biological identifier, and then comparing the details of the financial transaction with the account information and any rules relating to that particular account, to determine whether the transaction should be approved or declined. Preferably, if the transaction is declined, information on this is transmitted back to the originating terminal, and if the transaction is approved, the appropriate financial transactions are performed, and recorded on the customer's account ledger, and confirmation of the transaction is transmitted to the originating terminal”.
Clearly this shows that the encrypted received information disclosed in previous mapping of C4 L32 - 35 "Preferably the information on the fingerprint (of other unique biological identifier) is encrypted along with the financial information and transmitted by the remote terminal to the clearing house." Only has the encrypted unique biological identifier in different packaging, along with the financial information, does not have the payment account included, as the payment account information is already stored in the database that is used for the correlation. Emphasis added by the Examiner. Therefore, Mitchell discloses this amended limitation, in C4 L32 - 35 and C4 L52-C5 L11 as the received unique biological identifier is used to identifying the particular account correlated and associated with the transaction, so the 103 rejection is hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–5, 7-12, 14-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
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
integrated into a practical application. Examples of abstract ideas include mathematical
concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes (MPEP 2106.04).
Analysis
In the instant case, Claims 1-5 and 7 are directed toward a method; Claims 8-12 and 14 are directed toward a system; and Claims 15-19 and 21-23 directed toward a non-transitory, computer-readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Amended Claim 1 is still directed toward authenticating a user, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites (in part) “receiving…an encrypted authorization request; decrypting the encrypted authorization request to obtain an authorization request, the authorization request comprising the first biometric identifier; identifying internal data for a user based at least in part on the first biometric identifier; determining that the first biometric identifier matches a second biometric identifier stored in association with the internal data for the user; and sending an authorization response to the point of interaction device…comprises a digital token and/or a response code that indicates authorization”, which is grouped within the grouping "Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices…; commercial or legal interactions…; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…” grouping of abstract ideas because the claim involves receiving, decrypting, identifying, determining and sending information (in a transaction), in prong one of Step 2A (see MPEP 2106). Claims 8 and 15 recite similar language and are rejected under similar reasoning.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when
analyzed under prong two of step 2A, the additional elements of the claim such as
"point of interaction device”; “processor and memory” and “machine-readable instructions”, merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent computer(s) performing functions that correspond to (i.e., automate and/or implement) to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B,
the additional elements amount to no more than using a computer or processor to
automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The additional elements merely provide instructions to “apply it” using generic computer components [see Applicant’s Specification ¶0012; 0047; 0077; 0080]. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe authenticating a user using computer technology. Considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. Which, according to the MPEP, cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 16 and 21 further refine the abstract idea within the independent claims, and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 3 - 5, 10 – 12,17 - 19, 22 and 23 continue describing the abstract idea. The claims additionally include a “camera”; “fingerprint reader”; and “microphone”. The elements are recited at a level of generality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s). This is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Accordingly, these elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US 8,090,657) in view of Narasimhan et al., (20050250538 A1), and in view of Tariq Habib (US 20130159194 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15, Mitchell et al. teaches
receiving, from a point of interaction device, an encrypted transaction authorization request, wherein the point of interaction device lacks access to financial account details [Abstract; C2 L4 – 48 “Suitable unique biological identifiers…include fingerprints (the most preferred form of unique biological identifier), palm prints, retinal scans, voice prints and DNA measurement. By linking the unique biological identifier…with an account number…including the steps of… submission by the user of the user's unique biological identifier, and submission of the user's transaction request at the remote terminal…to ascertain whether the requested transaction is allowable,”; C4 L32 – 35 “Preferably the information on the finger print ( of other unique biological identifier) is encrypted along with the financial information and transmitted by the remote terminal to the clearing house.”; C4 L52-C5 L17 “…the invention provides a method of authenticating financial transactions by establishing a clearing house which stores information in machine readable form on a plurality of customers, each customers information including at least information on the customer's account, including the account balance and credit limit for the account, and information pertaining to a unique biological identifier Supplied by the customer, linking the clearing house to one or more remote terminals which remote terminals can be accessed by customers or by merchants, or both, (for example point of sale terminals or ATM machines), means for transmitting from one or more of those terminals information to the clearing house, information containing details of the transaction to be approved by the clearing house, information containing details of the account type or clearing house which administers the account, and information relating to the unique biological identifier detected or measured by the terminal, the clearing house comparing the received information on the account type to direct the transaction to the appropriate account for the clearing house, and comparing the received information on the transmitted unique biological identifier with its store of Such information, identifying the particular account correlated with the received unique biological identifier, and then comparing the details of the financial transaction with the account information and any rules relating to that particular account, to determine whether the transaction should be approved or declined. Preferably, if the transaction is declined, information on this is transmitted back to the originating terminal, and if the transaction is approved, the appropriate financial transactions are performed, and recorded on the customer's account ledger, and confirmation of the transaction is transmitted to the originating terminal”, and also Claims 1, 2, and 14].
Examiner’s Note: As shown in the underline above, the received unique biological identifier, is use to compare the details stored in the clearing house to correlate a marching user account identified with the received unique biological identifier.
[…], the transaction authorization request comprising the first biometric identifier and wherein the transaction authorization request does not comprise financial account details [C2 L24-40 “…in a computer implemented method of authenticating a financial transaction requested by a user using a remote terminal, the method of including the steps of storing account information in machine readable form, the information relating to one or more financial accounts, storing identity information relating to each account, the identity information including machine readable information corresponding to a unique biological identifier supplied by at least one individual authorized to access at least one of the accounts, submission by the user of the user's unique biological identifier, and submission of the user's transaction request at the remote terminal, transmission from the remote terminal to a clearing house of the user's unique biological identifier and the user's transaction request…”, C4 L32 – 35 “Preferably the information on the finger print ( of other unique biological identifier) is encrypted along with the financial information and transmitted by the remote terminal to the clearing house.”, C4 L52-C5 L17, Claims 1, 2, and 14].
identifying internal data for a user based at least in part on the first biometric identifier [C2 L4 – 67 “if the users unique biological identifier matches any of the
stored identity information, then the transaction information is compared with the account to which the biological information relates to ascertain whether the requested
transaction is allowable”; C4 L52-C5 L17, C6 L57 – 60 “if a match is made the clearing house, then recognizes the customer's account number”; Claim 13].
determining that the first biometric identifier matches a second biometric identifier stored in association with the internal data for the user [C2 L4 – 48 “…if the users unique biological identifier matches any of the stored identity information, then the transaction information is compared with the account to which the biological information relates to ascertain whether the requested transaction is allowable…; C6 L57 – 60; Claims 1 and 13], and
sending the tokenized authorization response to the point of interaction device, wherein the tokenized authorization response does not comprise financial account details [C3 L19 – 32 “…transmitting from one or more of those terminals information to the clearing house information containing details of the transaction to be approved by the clearing house, and information relating to the unique biological identifier detected or measured by the terminal, the clearing house comparing the received information on the transmitted unique biological identifier with its store of such information, identifying the particular account correlated with the received unique biological identifier and then comparing the details of the financial transaction with the account information and any rules relating to that particular account, to determine whether the transaction should be approved or declined. If the transaction is declined, information on this is transmitted back to the originating terminal…”, Claim 1 “…card carrying information that identifies the clearing house storing the individual user's unique biological identifier, said card i) not visually identifying any particular account associated with the individual user, ii) does not visually identify the individual user's name, iii) does not electronically identify any account associated with the individual user, and iv) and does not electronically identify the individual user's name…”] ”; C7 L3 – 4 “For example, consider the case of a customer who has existing credit cards with MASTERCARD, VISA and DINERS CLUB, who wishes to travel, yet minimize the risk of inconvenience resulting from lost or stolen credit cards. In which case the customer may apply to MASTERCARD to use the fingerprint from his/her index finger as the unique biological identifier for MASTERCARD transaction. This means that the customer could continue to use the credit card in some circumstances but when travelling, or perhaps out running or walking and wishes to make a transaction without the presence of his or her credit card, the customer can simply use the fingerprint identification from the customer's first finger to access the customer's MASTERCARD account to allow the transaction”].
Mitchell does not explicitly disclose, however, Narasimhan teaches decrypting the encrypted transaction authorization request to obtain a transaction authorization request […] [0065 - 0066 “...Virtual PIN pad 107 encrypts the entered PIN…transmits the encrypted PIN over a secure channel to payment institution…payment institution 111 decrypts the PIN and verifies it in order to authorize the payment…If the payment is authorized…a payment authorization code is sent…to merchant…”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Mitchell to include the elements of Narasimhan. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to facilitate secure and seamless payments transaction by obfuscating and unscrambling the data in the payment request. Furthermore, Mitchell discloses method to authenticate payment in a payment transaction. Narasimhan is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of facilitating secure and seamless payments transaction by obfuscating and unscrambling the data in the payment request in the same or similar context. Because both having a method to authenticate payment in a payment transaction, as well as facilitating secure and seamless payments transaction by obfuscating and unscrambling the data in the payment request 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 Mitchell, as well as Narasimhan 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 Mitchell/Narasimhan.
The combination of Mitchell in view of Narasimhan does not explicitly teach, however, Habib discloses in response to determining that the first biometric identifier matches the second biometric identifier, generating a tokenized authorization response that excludes financial account details, wherein the tokenized authorization response comprises a transient payment token (Fig 2B, ¶ 0008 “…The system also includes a processor for executing stored computer-executable instructions that, when executed implement a voice authentication engine that: (i) compares a current voice print obtained from a recipient requesting authorization and access to at least one of the series of benefit transfers with the biometric baseline file for requesting recipient, and (ii) upon determining the current voice print matches with the biometric baseline file associate with the requesting recipient within an acceptable threshold, creates an authorization token comprising an authorization code and communicate the authorization token to the requesting recipient. In some embodiments, the authorization token and/or code may expire after a specific time period such that the expired authentication code cannot be used to obtain a benefit transfer after expiration”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Mitchell in view of Narasimhan, to include the elements of Habib. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to facilitate secure and seamless payments transaction by obfuscating the authorization response from hackers. Furthermore, Mitchell discloses method to authenticate payment in a payment transaction, Narasimhan discloses facilitating secure and seamless payments transaction by obfuscating and unscrambling the data in the payment request. Habib is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of facilitating secure and seamless payments transaction by obfuscating the authorization response from hackers, in the same or similar context. Because both having a method to authenticate payment in a payment transaction, and facilitating secure and seamless payments transaction by obfuscating and unscrambling the data in the payment request as well as facilitating secure and seamless payments transaction by obfuscating the authorization response from hackers 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 Mitchell in view of Narasimhan, as well as Habib 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 Mitchell/Narasimhan/Habib.
Regarding Claims 3, 10 and 17, Mitchell in view of Narasimhan and Habib teaches the invention in Claims 1, 8 and 15. Mitchell et al. continues to teach wherein the first biometric identifier comprises a facial structure obtained from a camera of the point of interaction device [C2 L4 – 7; C8 L10 – 23].
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 18 and 22, Mitchell in view of Narasimhan and Habib teaches the invention in Claims 1, 8 and 15. Mitchell continues to teach wherein the first biometric identifier comprises a fingerprint captured using a fingerprint reader of the point of interaction device [C2 L4 – 7 “Suitable unique biological identifiers of the present time include fingerprints (the most preferred form of unique biological identifier), palm prints, retinal scans, voice prints and DNA measurement”].
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 19, Mitchell in view of Narasimhan and Habib teaches the invention in Claims 1, 8 and 15. Mitchell continues to teach wherein the first biometric identifier comprises a voiceprint captured using a microphone of the point of interaction device [C2 L4 – 7].
Regarding Claims 7, 14 and 21, Mitchell in view of Narasimhan and Habib teaches the invention in Claims 1, 8 and 15. Mitchell continues to teach
receiving the second biometric identifier prior to receiving the transaction authorization request [C2 L4 – 23, L29 - 34]; and
storing the second biometric identifier in association with the internal data for the user [C2 L4 – 23, L29 - 34].
Regarding Claim 23, Mitchell in view of Narasimhan and Habib teaches the invention in Claims 1, 8 and 15. Mitchell continues to teach wherein the first biometric identifier comprises a set of vascular patterns obtained from a biometric sensor of the point of interaction device [C12 L25–44 “Fingerprint imaging technology looks to capture or read the unique pattern of lines on the tip of one's finger. These unique pattern of lines can either be in a loop, whorl, or arch pattern. A loop pattern can be detected when the ridges start on one side of the finger, reach the center of the finger (core point) and then go or "loop" back to the same side…”].
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US 8,090,657) in view of Narasimhan et al., (20050250538 A1), and Tariq Habib (US 20130159194 A1), and in further view of Hoyos (US 2014/0337221 A1).
Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 16, Mitchell in view of Narasimhan and Habib does not explicitly teach determining an identity of the point of interaction device; determining that the identity of the point of interaction device is associated with the internal data for the user; and sending the authorization response to the point of interaction device occurs additionally in response to determining that the identity of the point of interaction device is associated with the internal data for the user
However, Hoyos teaches
determining an identity of the point of interaction device [0012; 0013];
determining that the identity of the point of interaction device is associated with the internal data for the user [0012; 0013]; and
sending the tokenized authorization response to the point of interaction device occurs additionally in response to determining that the identity of the point of interaction device is associated with the internal data for the user [0012; 0013; 0106].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Mitchell in view of Narasimhan and Habib, to include the elements of Hoyos. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to facilitate terminal authentication in a payment transaction. Furthermore, Mitchell discloses method to authenticate payment in a payment transaction, Narasimhan discloses facilitating secure and seamless payments transaction by obfuscating and unscrambling the data in the payment request, and Habib discloses facilitating secure and seamless payments transaction by obfuscating the authorization response from hackers. Hoyos is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of facilitating terminal authentication in a payment transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both having a method to authenticate payment in a payment transaction, facilitating secure and seamless payments transaction by obfuscating and unscrambling the data in the payment request, and facilitating secure and seamless payments transaction by obfuscating the authorization response from hackers, as well as functionality of facilitating terminal authentication in a payment transaction 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 Mitchell in view of Narasimhan and Habib, as well as Hoyos 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 Mitchell/Narasimhan/Habib/Hoyos.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the 892 is made of record and not relied upon but
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 VINCENT IDIAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1284. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 10:30AM to 7:30PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICK MCATEE, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-7575. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form
/V.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3698 /PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights