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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/4/25 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant filed an RCE on 12/5/25. Claims 1, 8, 10, 15, 18, and 24 are amended, claims 3, 6, 16, and 19-21 are canceled and claims 27-31 are new. Therefore, claims 1, 8-15, 18, and 22-31 are pending.
After careful consideration of applicant arguments the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a Non-Final office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a payment platform application” is referred to as “the payment platform application and then “the first instance of the payment platform application” and later “second instance of the payment platform application” However, the use of “the payment platform application” after “the first instance of a payment platform application” followed by “first instance of the payment platform application” makes it unclear if the payment platform application is the same or different that the first instance of the payment platform application. 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, 8-15, 18, and 22-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without more.
Here independent claim 1 is considered representative of the independent claims. Claims 15 and 18 are similar to claim 1.
Claims 1, 8-15, 18, and 22-31 (claims 1, 15, 18) are directed to statutory categories of invention such as method, system and computer readable medium (respectively).
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity such as “funds transfer”. These funds transfer activities recite a fundamental economic practice, then it falls with certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly the claims recites an abstract idea.
In this case, the abstract idea includes,
generating, by a first instance of a … application of a … of a first user, a machine-readable code, wherein the machine-readable code comprises a bar code or a Quick Response (QR) code receiving, by a … of a … associated with the … application and from [[an]]the … of a first user, data corresponding to [[a]]the machine-readable code generated by the first instance of the … application … of the first user; storing, by the … and in a mapping database, an association between a first financial account of the first user and the data corresponding to the machine-readable code; causing presentation, utilizing the first instance of the … application and on a … of the …, of the machine-readable code; …, utilizing a second instance of the … application on a … of a second user, the machine-readable code from a … of the ….: receiving, by the … and from [[an]]the … of [[a]]the second user, a transaction request associated with a transaction between the first user and the second user, wherein the transaction request includes an amount to be withdrawn from or deposited into the first financial account of the first user and the data corresponding to the machine-readable code, wherein the machine-readable code was scanned by the … of the second user from of the … of the first user, and wherein the … holds a first balance of the first financial account of the first user in a fund holding account and maintains a first accounting of the first balance of the first financial account of the first user; identifying, by the … via the … and based at least in part on the data corresponding to the machine-readable code, the first financial account of the first user and a second financial account of the second user, wherein the … holds a second balance of the second financial account of the second user in the fund holding account and maintains a second accounting of the second balance of the second financial account of the second user; adjusting, by the … and via the …, the second balance of the second financial account of the second user and the first balance of the first financial account of the first user based at least in part on the amount of the transaction; and transmitting, by the … and to at least one of the … of the first user or the … of the second user, a confirmation message confirming [[the]] adjustment of the second balance based on the transaction.
Here the elements that are not abstract include first electronic device, transaction server, second electronic device, scanning, arguably “payment platform”, transaction server, “user interface display”
Here in summary, managing account balance transfers is a fundamental economic practice and implementing such a practice with generic computing components to the abstract idea is not sufficient to overcome 35 USC 101. The invention is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements above (server and device) are recited at a high level of generality. 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 without a practical application (Step 2A prong 2 No)
The dependent claims 8-14, and 22-31 do not further overcome the rejection. However, claims 28-30 contain biometric based identification which may help with the creation of an ordered combination or practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 1,8-15, 18, 22-26 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication to Ortiz 20140108263 in view of US Patent 8762210 to Balasubramanian
As per claim 1 Ortiz discloses
generating, by a first instance of a payment platform application of a first electronic device of a first user, a machine-readable code, wherein the machine-readable code comprises a bar code or a Quick Response (QR) code (like a QR code … 0072 of applicant spec see 0134 of Ortiz)
receiving, by a transaction server of a payment platform associated with the payment platform application and from the first electronic device of a first user, data corresponding to the machine-readable code generated by the first instance of the payment platform application electronic device of the first user; (0048, transaction between user and merchant)
…, an association between a first financial account of the first user and the data corresponding to the machine-readable code; causing presentation,
utilizing the first instance of the payment platform application and on a user interface of the first electronic device, of the machine-readable code; scanning, utilizing a second instance of the payment platform application on a second electronic device of a second user , the machine-readable code from a display of the first electronic device: ortiz(0134, 0048, if the second user is a peer 0078, P2P is also a potential with Ortiz)
receiving, by the transaction server and from [[an]]the second electronic device of [[a]]the second user, a transaction request associated with a transaction between the first user and the second user, wherein the transaction request includes an amount to be withdrawn from or deposited into the first financial account of the first user and the data corresponding to the machine-readable code,
Ortiz(0078 P2P transfer… “or” requires only one of the two)
wherein the machine-readable code was scanned
Ortiz(0089)
by the electronic device of the second user from of the electronic device of the first user,
and wherein the payment platform holds a first balance of the first financial account of the first user in a fund holding account and maintains a first accounting of the first balance of the first financial account of the first user;
Ortiz(applicant spec. 0124, the system can maintain an accounting for each user….. in Ortiz 0020, accounting for the purchaser or a group of purchasers)
the first financial account of the first user and a second financial account of the second user, wherein the payment platform holds a second balance of the second financial account of the second user in the fund holding account and maintains a second accounting of the second balance of the second financial account of the second user;
Ortiz (Peer to peer transactions to transfer funds, 0154-5)
the second balance of the second financial account of the second user and the first balance of the first financial account of the first user based at least in part on the amount of the transaction; and transmitting, by the transaction server and to at least one of the first electronic device of the first user or the second electronic device of the second user, a confirmation message confirming
Ortiz(0139 confirmation step)
[[the]] adjustment of the second balance based on the transaction.
Ortiz does not explicitly disclose a mapping database
which Balasubramanian teaches;
storing, by the transaction server and in a mapping database
adjusting, by the transaction server and via the mapping database,(col. 8, lines 40-60 mapping function between a database and a token identifier to identify a consumer to a merchant.) Identifying, by the transaction server via the mapping database and based at least in part on the data corresponding to the machine-readable code,
Balasubramanian (col 8 lines 35-45, col. 17 as well for payment tracking)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the banking disclosure of Ortiz with the mapping teachings of Balasubramanian for the motivation of making online transactions “safe” by eliminating uncertainty. (col. 1 lines 45-60)
Claims 15 and 18 are similar to claim 1.
As per claim 8 Ortiz discloses; The method of claim 1, wherein the second user is a merchant and wherein the second electronic device of the first user is a merchant point-of-sale (POS) system. Ortiz(0135 POS sales)
As per claim 9 Ortiz discloses;
The method of claim 1, wherein the first second user has conducted a plurality of transactions with one or more second first users through the transaction server, and wherein adjusting the second balance of the second financial account of the first second user based at least in part on the amount of the transaction comprises modifying a transaction amount owed to the second financial account of the first second user based on the amount of the transaction, wherein the transaction amount is based at least in part on respective amounts associated with the plurality of transactions.
Ortiz(0128)
As per claim 10 Ortiz discloses;
The method of claim 1, wherein the first electronic device of the second user is any one of a smart phone, a tablet, a portable media device, a wearable device, or a portable computer.
Ortiz(0136)
As per claim 11, Ortiz discloses; banking but not a mapping database, Balsubramanian teaches;
The method of claim 1, further comprising creating, by the transaction server and in the mapping database associated with the transaction server, the first financial account of the second first user based responsive at least in part to receiving the data corresponding to the machine-readable code on the identifying information for the second user, wherein the mapping database automatically and remotely links the data corresponding to the machine-readable code identifying information for the second user with the first financial account of the second first user.
Balasubramanian (Mapping col. 8 lines 40-50 mapping is taught)
The motivation is similar to that provided for claim 1.
As per claim 12 Ortiz discloses; The method of claim 1, wherein the transaction request is associated with a deposit, and wherein adjusting the second balance of the second financial account of the first second user and the first balance of the first financial account of the second first user includes decreasing the second balance of the second financial account of the first second user by the amount of the transaction and increasing the first balance of the first financial account of the second first user by the amount of the transaction.
Ortiz(0028)
As per claim 13, Ortiz discloses; The method of claim 1, wherein the transaction request is associated with a withdrawal, and wherein adjusting the second balance of the second financial account of the second first user and the first balance of the first financial account of the second first user includes increasing the second balance of the second financial account of the first second user by the amount of the transaction, and decreasing the first balance of the first financial account of the second first user by the amount of the transaction.
Ortiz(between customer and merchant device and the associated accounts)
As per claim 14 Ortiz discloses; wherein the fund holding account is associated with at least one of a bank or a credit union. (0024, by a bank, at least one broadly could be just one)
As per claim 22 Ortiz discloses; The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of claim 18, wherein the data is received by the transaction server during the transaction, the operations further comprising: opening the first financial account during the transaction. (0016)
As per claim 23 Ortiz discloses; The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of claim 18, wherein the association is a first association and a second association between the first financial account and a PIN for the first financial account is stored in the mapping database. Ortiz(0075, PIN)
As per claim 24 Ortiz discloses; The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of claim 18, wherein the first electronic device of the first user generates the machine-readable code responsive to transmission by the transaction server of a command to the first electronic device of the first user to generate the machine-readable code. Ortiz(0134, bar code)
As per claim 25 Ortiz does not explicitly disclose what Cooke teaches; The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of claim 18, wherein the transaction request is associated with a loan. (0037, home equity) the motivation for the combination is similar to that for claim 1.
As per claim 26 Ortiz discloses; The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of claim 18, wherein the transaction request is associated with a cash advance. (0023, cash at the point of service)
Claim(s) 27-31 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication to Ortiz 20140108263 in view in view of US Patent 8762210 to Balasubramanian and further in view of US Patent to Buentello 10387876
As per claims 27,29 Ortiz and Balasubramanian do not explicitly disclose what Buentello teaches; “real time identity verification” (col. 13 lines 55-end) It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the payment system of Ortiz with the identity teachings of Buentello for the motivation of automated “convenient banking outside the banking location” (col. 1 lines 35-40)
As per claims 28-31 Ortiz and Balasubramanian do not explicitly disclose what Buentello teaches, biometric information used to identify someone. (col. 13 lines 55-end) It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the payment system of Ortiz with the biometric identity teachings of Buentello for the motivation of automated “convenient banking outside the banking location” (col. 1 lines 35-40)
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an RCE on 12/5/25. Claims 1, 8, 10, 15, 18, and 24 are amended, claims 3, 6, 16, and 19-21 are canceled and claims 27-31 are new. Therefore, claims 1, 8-15, 18, and 22-31 are pending.
After careful consideration of applicant arguements the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a Non-Final office action.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS - persuasive.
CLAIMS 1, 8-15,18, AND 22-26 COMPLY WITH 35 U.S.C. § 101 – moot in view of updated grounds.
Claims 1, 8-15, 18, and 22-26 Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
The Office carries the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In doing so, "the 2014 IEG [Interim Examiner Guidance] instructs examiners to refer to the body of case law precedent in order to identify abstract ideas by way of comparison to concepts already found to be abstract." July 2015 Update, p. 2. In this case, the Office asserts that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a "methods of organizing human activity." Office Action, p. 4. However, as explained below, the claims cannot be fairly said to fall into one or more of the groupings11 of 21
enumerated in the 2019 Guidelines, and as such, the Office has not carried its burden of establishing that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
As stated in the 2019 Guidelines, when performing step 2A of the patent- eligibility guidelines, the Office is required to determine whether the claims are directed to one of the groups enumerated in the 2019 Guidelines. 2019 Guidelines, p. 9. The groupings include (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (3) mental processes. Id., pp. 9-11. To start, the claims cannot be fairly said to fall into one of the other groupings. For example, no mathematical concepts are recited or
claimed.
Here Organizing human activity contains fundamental economic practice which is where a payment process is categorized.
Second, the claims recite the use of multiple applications, devices, and servers across a network of devices and systems to generate machine-readable code that includes a bar code or QR code and then causing various devices to physically change states on the fly to employ and utilize scanning and transmission technology only when needed to perform the recited verification process. At least these features illustrate a computer-centric solution to the computer-centric problem of hardware and software implementation and selective utilization. As such, the claims go far beyond mental processes and methods of organizing human activity because the claims focus on operations that simply cannot be performed in the human mind and are directed to computer-centric problems and solutions.
Additionally, even assuming arguendo that the Office could satisfy the first prong of the "abstract idea" analysis, under the second prong, the claims are integrated into a practical application and are therefore not directed to an abstract idea. For example, the claims recite novel functionality to allow for the on-the-fly generation and utilization of machine-readable code across multiple devices in a given computer-centric ecosystem. At least these features show that the claims are integrated into a practical application specific to advancements in device communication and mapping technologies. As such, the claims are integrated into a practical application.
Here practical application of recent appears to require an improvement to the underlying technology.
Thus, while practical in some minds, it may be difficult to fit a business method into the practical application box. The examiner has noted that the biometric might satisfy this element.
All told, the claims as amended herein are in line with the recently-added Example 47 (specifically claim 4 of that example) from the Patent Eligibility Guidelines because the claims specifically recite technological solutions that address computer- centric challenges.
Example 47 and Example 48 are replete with instances where patent eligible subject matter is identified when the recited claims solve technological
problem(s). The same is true in this instance. The claims specifically recite solutions that amount to improvements to multiple technologies as described in Applicant's specification, and thus these solutions should be deemed eligible.
In addition to the above, the August 2025 Memo provides significant insight as to why the present claims are patent eligible. The August 2025 Memo states:
Examiners are reminded that if it is a "close call" as to whether a
claim is eligible, they should only make a rejection when it is more likely than not (i.e., more than 50%) that the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
101.20 A rejection of a claim should not be made simply because an examiner is uncertain as to the claim's eligibility. In order to make a rejection of a claim under any of the statutory bases (i.e., 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, 112), unpatentability must be established by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Here, the examiner looked up example 47 claim 4 and could not find it. However, example 47 is directed to machine learning / artificial intelligence so the fact pattern might not be the same.
Here, Applicant has pointed to many specific examples of technological improvements and has amended the claims to be directed to those specific technological improvements. As such, Applicant has provided a host of evidence as to why the claims at issue are patent eligible. Absent considerable evidence to the contrary showing more than 50% that the claim is ineligible, the § 101 rejection should be removed.
Importantly, in a recent Appeals Review Panel (ARP) decision dated September 26, 2025 (Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567), the ARP found that the claims of U.S. Application No. 16/319,040 are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong Two because the claims, when considered as a whole, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Ex Parte Desjardins, p. 10. In its analysis, the ARP found that "at least the following limitation of claim 1... reflects [an] improvement [to how the machine learning model itself operates]:'adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task."'Id.at p. 9.
In noting that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel in Ex Parte Desjardins "eschewed the clear teachings of Enfish" in its § 101 analysis, the ARP stated that "[p]anels should treat such precedent with more care."Id at pp. 9-10. The ARP specifically pointed to Enfish as recognizing that "[m]uch of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may13 of 21sQ-oi70-usi-c3sis not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes." Id. at p. 8 (citing 822 F.3d at 1339). The ARP also reminded the Board panel that, in Enfish, "because '[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can,' the Federal Circuit held that the eligibility determination should turn on whether 'the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea." Id. (citing 822 F.3d at 1336).
In Ex Parte Desj ardins, the ARP also noted, with respect to the patent application at issue (which relates to training machine learning models), that the Board panel "essentially equated any machine learning with an unpatentable 'algorithm' and the remaining additional elements as 'generic computer components,' without adequate explanation," and the ARP reminded Examiners and panels that they "should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality." Id. at p. 9. In addition, the ARP stated that the Ex Parte Desjardins case "demonstrates that §§ 102, 103 and 112 are the traditional and appropriate tools to limit patent protection to its proper scope," and that "[t]hese statutory provisions [§§ 102, 103 and 112] should be the focus of examination." Id. at p. 10.
For at least the reasons presented herein, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has not established a prima facie case of patent ineligibility with respect to claims 1, 8-15, 18, and 22-26. As such, Applicant requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of claims 1, 8-15, 18, and 22-26.
Here the 50/50 and Desjardins are more applicable to machine learning and improvements of technology.
2. Claims 1, 8-15, 18, and 22-26 Recite Significantly More than the Alleged Abstract
Idea
Even assuming arguendo that the Office could carry its burden of establishing that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, which it cannot as described above, the claims recite features that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For example, regarding consideration of the features of a claim as a whole, in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, the Federal Circuit recently emphasized that "[t]he inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. As is the case here [in Bascom],14 of 21s an inventive concept can be found in the nonconventional and nongeneric arrangement of known, conventional pieces." Bascom, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (2016). Similar to the claims under consideration in Bascom, even if arguendo all of the features that the currently pending claims recite are "known" or "conventional," the claims at issue are still patent eligible because the claims recite a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement" of those features and so recite an "inventive concept" and "specific technical solution." Specifically, the claims at issue can correlate a level of computing and communications hardware with a level of service need in a way and using particular types of information that provides both an inventive concept and a specific technical solution.
Additionally, as the Federal Circuit points out on page 14 of Steven E. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., No. 17-1437 (Fed. Cir. February 8, 2018) (hereinafter "Berkheimer"), "[w]hether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination ... The mere fact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example, does not mean that it was well understood, routine, and conventional." As set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I), an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry (emphasis in original). In this case, the Office has not established that Applicant's claim elements constitute "well-understood, routine, conventional activities" as required by the April 2018 Memo. Instead, the Office merely simplifies the claims and does not consider the other features recited in the claims that fall fairly outside that narrow generalization. Consequently, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has not made a prima facie rejection of claims under Step 2B of the Mayo test.
For at least the reasons presented herein, claims 1, 8-15, 18, and 22-26 recite significantly more than the abstract idea alleged by the Office. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has not established a prima facie case of patent ineligibility with respect to claims 1, 8-15, 18, and 22-26. As such, Applicant requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of claims 1, 8-15, 18, and 22-26.
Here Berkheimer is not invoked as the technical elements are generic not well understood and conventional.
In regards to 35 USC 103(a)
Independent Claim 1 (redacted)
Argument:
Ortiz describes "[s]ystems, methods, and non-transient machine-interpretable data representing executable instruction sets and/or other products for the processing of data for the secure creation, administration, manipulation, processing, and storage of electronic data useful in the processing of payment transactions and other secure data16 of
processes." Ortiz, Abstract. Balasubramanian describes "A system and method process [sic] a transaction between a merchant and a consumer at a point of sale (POS)." Balasubramanian, Abstract. Cooke describes "[a] method of initiating a consumer transaction using a human interaction device to read voice or human based gesture actions." Cooke, Abstract.
However, the combination of Ortiz, Balasubramanian, and Cooke does not teach or suggest at least "generating, by a first instance of a payment platform application of a first electronic device of a first user, a machine-readable code, wherein the machine- readable code comprises a bar code or a Quick Response (QR) code,""receiving, by a transaction server of a payment platform associated with the payment platform application and from the first electronic device of a first user, data corresponding to the machine-readable code generated by the first instance of the payment platform application,""storing, by the transaction server and in a mapping database, an association between a first financial account of the first user and the data corresponding to the machine-readable code,""causing presentation, utilizing the first instance of the payment platform application and on a user interface of the first electronic device, of the machine- readable code," and "scanning, utilizing a second instance of the payment platform application on a second electronic device of a second user, the machine-readable code from a display of the first electronic device," as amended claim 1 recites.
Specifically, Applicant herein amends claim 1 to recite additional subject matter and operations as highlighted above. Applicant respectfully asserts that the combination of cited references does not teach or suggest at least these features of amended claim 1. For example, Ortiz, Balasubramanian, and Cooke all do not teach or suggest the type of machine-readable code generation, transmission, and utilization across multiple user devices and a transaction server, as amended claim 1 recites. Indeed, prior to the amendments made herein, the Office acknowledged that Ortiz and Balasubramanian did not teach or suggest several features of amended claim 1, but alleged that Cooke teaches these features. However, Cooke has no disclosure on machine-readable code generation, transmission, and utilization across multiple user devices and a transaction server, as amended claim 1 recites.
Here Cooke has been removed in view of applicant arguments and amendments. The examiner has updated the grounds of rejection in view of amendment. Thus the arguments may be moot. The general argument made is merely that the claims do not teach rather than a specific element is missing.
For at least the reasons presented herein, claim 1 would not have been obvious in view of Ortiz, Balasubramanian, and Cooke. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 103 rejection of claim 1.
Claims 15, 18 are similar to claim 1,
Dependent Claims 8-14 and 22-26 – by virtue of dependency.
NEW CLAIMS 27-31 – updated grounds of rejection. However, the biometric might help with 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 9355530 to Block
The state of the technology, IEEE 1977
Projecting Parameters Trade Electronic Platform, IEEE 2019
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693