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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 2026 March 30 has been entered. The following is in reply to the Amendments and Arguments.
Claims amended: 1, 8, 15
Claims cancelled: 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, 20
Claims added: none
Claims currently pending: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, 19
Response to Arguments
Applicant, in the “Remarks” section, presents opening remarks regarding the disposition of the claims and the amendments to the claims. As no specific argument is raised in this/these section(s) with respect to the instant application, no rebuttal is required.
Applicant, in the “Statement of Substance of Interview Held March 03, 2026” section, argues that the newly amended claim language, previously presented and discussed in the previously conducted interview, is supported in sections 0018, 0033-0036 and Figures 3A and 3B. Applicant argues specifically that, “Since both graphics are updated based on the same real-time transaction data, the specification supports synchronization between the first and second graphic, including dynamic updating of one based on changes reflected in the other”. This argument is unpersuasive as updating both graphics based upon a change in the source data (i.e., real-time transaction data) is not the same as updating one graphic based upon a change in another graphic within a user interface. Additionally, the specification supports updating the graphic based on the source data, but the update is performed by “reward manager 154, reward database 156, and/or reporting module” and through the user interface. This is not the same as the “real-time progress tracker” performing the synchronization itself based upon a change in one graphic. This is doubly so as the specification does not describe disparate graphic elements and the claims are reliant upon a generous interpretation of the content of Figures 3A and 3B in light of the high level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the invention was filed. Therefore, grounds of rejection are presented herein under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) with respect to these elements.
Applicant, as the First item in the “Rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101” section, refers to newly amended claim language, and argues that the “real-time synchronization and coordinated updating of multiple interrelated graphical elements based on transaction-state changes” integrates the abstract concept into a practical application that, “improves the functioning of the user interface itself”. In contrast to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner notes that the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art in the realm of user interface design and user interface element usage at the time the invention was filed was incredibly high. PHOSITA would have readily applied the “first” and “second” graphical elements and synchronized their display based on a change in the underlying data. The presence of user interface element kits with APIs allowing for graphically laying out user interfaces without requiring significant background coding renders the elements in the instant claims as well-understood, routine, and conventional. As noted in the Fowler reference, data binding was a known concept well before the date the invention was filed as was its usage at various levels of processing (i.e., UI itself, client device, or server). Thus, the claims are not found to be directed towards a practical application of the abstract idea; similarly, the claims are not found to improve the functioning of the computer itself.
Applicant, as the Second item in the “Rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101” section, refers to Steb 2B, refers to the newly amended claim language, and argues that the “amended claim features are not disclosed in any prior art references and therefore favor eligibility”. Examiner disagrees to this notion as the newly amended claim language is rejected herein involving a newly applied reference which was necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is herein maintained, albeit updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant, in the “Rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103” section, refers to newly amended claim language regarding synchronization of two graphical elements by the real-time progress tracker, and argues the previously applied references of Hariramani in view of Abbott does not teach these aspects. Examiner notes that these arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. The grounds of rejection presented herein rely upon a newly introduced reference of Fowler that discusses synchronization of user interface elements within a graphical user interface.
Applicant, in the “Priority Challenge” section, refers to now cancelled claim 6 (and 13 and 20) and the priority notification found in the previous Office action. Cancellation of said claims has caused the withdrawal of the priority notification found in the previous Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 contains the limitation:
updating, within the UI, the real-time progress tracker to reflect the change based on a combination of the respective transaction exceeding the threshold number and the pending transactions being received, wherein the real-time progress tracker synchronizes the first graphic and the second graphic by dynamically updating the first graphic in response to changes in the number of pending transactions indicated by the second graphic;
Support for the synchronization of a first graphic based on transactions indicated by the second graphic is not found within the specification. The specification does not indicate that the invention changes the first graphic based on changes to the number of transactions indicated by the second graphic. That is, the claim language allows for a sequence of operations of determining changes in the number of pending transactions, which causes the second graphic to change, then determining that the second graphic has changed, which in turn causes the first graphic to change. The invention, as described within the specification does not contain such a linkage between the graphic elements in sequence. Rather, the specification, in at least 0033-0036, describes that the “reward manager 154, reward database 156, and/or reporting module 158 may communicate the progress of accumulated transactions (e.g., the number of transaction {sic.} and/or a list of transaction details) for a particular transaction account through user interface 135”. That is, the development of what information to report is conducted within these modules and not process by or through the User Interface. Examiner notes that Applicant listed paragraphs 0018, 0033-0036 as providing support for this limitation, in their response filed 30 March 2026. The level of detail and specific structure for the display of information in the user interface as found in this limitation is absent within the body of the specification, inclusive of the drawings.
Claims 8 and 15 contain similar recitations and are similarly rejected. As are all of their dependent claims. Examiner recommends writing the claims such that they do not cover a synchronization action as performed by the real-time progress tracker itself.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, 19 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.
Step 1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 are directed towards a method. Claims 8, 9, 11,12, 14 are directed towards a manufacture (computer-readable medium). Claims 15, 16, 18, 19 are directed towards a system. Thus, these claims, on their face, are directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A - Prong One: As per MPEP 2106.04, Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim(s) recites a judicial exception; that is, whether the claim(s) set forth or describe a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.
Claim 1 is presented here as a representative claim for specific analysis (The underlined claim terms here are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two):
A method comprising:
for each of a plurality of transactions initiated by a user over a specific time period, determining eligibility of the respective transaction for a reward program;
determining, within the reward program, a benefit to the user when a threshold number of transactions during the specific time period is determined to be eligible, wherein the reward program comprises adding an additional reward value to a current reward value based on the respective transaction exceeding the threshold number,
selecting, based on the determined eligibility, a first portion and a second portion of the reward program, wherein the first portion comprises a real-time functionality for modifying a progress toward the threshold number of transactions for the benefit based on the current reward value of the user within the reward program,
and wherein the second portion comprises a real-time functionality for adding the additional reward value to the current reward value based on the respective transaction exceeding the threshold number;
generating a user interface (UI) to display real-time transaction data of the respective transaction associated with the selected first portion and the second portion of the reward program, wherein the real-time transaction data indicates the progress toward or over the threshold number;
communicating the UI to a user device to cause the UI to be displayed on the user device;
determining a number of pending transactions that are currently not eligible for the benefit associated with the reward program;
generating, within the UI, a real-time progress tracker monitoring a status of the respective transaction for the second portion of the reward program,
wherein the real-time progress tracker comprises a first graphic indicating a number of eligible transactions of the second portion over the specific time period,
and wherein the real-time progress tracker comprises a second graphic indicating the number of the pending transactions;
modifying, based on the status of the respective transaction for the second portion of the reward program, the UI to display a change of the real-time transaction data of the respective transaction, wherein the change indicates the additional reward value being added to the current reward value;
updating, within the UI, the real-time progress tracker to reflect the change based on a combination of the respective transaction exceeding the threshold number and the pending transactions being received, wherein the real-time progress tracker synchronizes the first graphic and the second graphic by dynamically updating the first graphic in response to changes in the number of the pending transactions indicated by the second graphic;
and in response to the real-time progress tracker being updated, communicating the modified UI to the user device to cause the modified UI to be displayed on the user device, wherein the UI comprises display of the changed real-time transaction data associated with the respective transaction.
The claims here are based on the recitation of an abstract idea (i.e. recitation other than the additional elements delineated here with underlining and further addressed per Step 2B - Prong Two). The claims recite the abstract idea of presenting information to a user regarding progress towards a reward threshold where eligibility of a transaction is based on a number of transactions performed within a specific time period which is found within falls within certain methods of organizing human activity.
The phrase "certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions. Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
The remaining claims: The analysis of claim 1 is applicable to the additional independent claims 8 and 15 as these additional claims comprise alternate embodiments that implement the same steps of the method of the claim analyzed above. The additional independent claims recite the same additional elements as the claim analyzed above and/or fail to recite any additional elements except non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer executable instructions, computing device in claim 8 and a computer system, a processor, and a non-transitory memory in claim 15.
The dependent claims recite the same additional elements as the parent claim(s) and/or fail to recite any additional elements. The dependent claims further reiterate the same abstract idea with further embellishments: claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18 further detail the types of transactions; claim 7 further embellishes the user interface elements; claims 5, 12, 19 further embellish the rewards available for the transactions.
Therefore, the identified claims fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: As per MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2, Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims offer the additional elements of: a user device, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer executable instructions, computing device, a computer system, a processor, a non-transitory memory. It would have been readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was filed that the additional elements represent generic computing devices. The additional element(s) are simply utilized as generic computing tools to implement the abstract idea, functioning as mere instructions to apply the exception as noted in MPEP 2106.05(f). This is made evident by at least 0028 of the specification that details that the "reward manager 154 may be any suitable software and/or hardware" and in 0083 that states, "Accordingly, any portion of the system or a module may take the form of a processing apparatus executing code...".
The claims offer the additional elements of: a first graphic, a second graphic, a user interface (UI). As currently written, the claims use broad generic terms for describing the user interface elements. The presentation of data in a graphical form represents insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the claims appear to be a solution to a commercial/business problem of rewarding users for spending frequency which incentivizes purchases as detailed in 0002-0004 of the specification. It is readily apparent that the claims are not directed towards a technical improvement in the functioning of the computer.
The ordered combination of these additional elements amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The ordered combination offers nothing more than employing a generic configuration of computer devices and computer functions. The claims do not amount to a practical application, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient.
Step 2B: As per MPEP 2106.05, the additional elements are analyzed, both individually and in combination, to determine whether an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
a first graphic, a second graphic, a user interface (UI) represent generic user interface functionality such as a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
The ordered combination of steps is doing nothing more than using computers as tools, which means the ordered combination of steps does not add any meaningful improvements in a technical field or meaningfully limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical environment beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, taking these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when the elements are taken individually and the claims here fail to contain an additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered to be significantly more that the abstract idea.
References of Record but not Applied in the Current Grounds of Rejection
The prior art listed below is made of record as considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is not relied upon in the grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Those starred with '*' were added to this list in this Office action. Those without "*" were added in a previous Office action and are not repeated on a PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form, but are maintained herein for informational purposes only.
Marshall et al. (Pub. #: US 2003/0233278 A1) discloses a system for providing rewards for performing behaviors such as making purchases wherein the reward increases with increasing performance of the behavior.
Guiney (Pub. #: US 2015/0213478 A1) discloses a system for calculating a reward in real-time based on transactions conducted by a user.
Nguyen et al. (Pub. #: US 2008/0071640 A1) discloses a system for presenting an interface to a user in response to business rules that include at least "remaining eligible discount items".
Katana et al. (Pub. #: EP 1 136 931 A1) discloses a system for incentivizing patronage for retail businesses based on the "frequency of transactions".
Taylor et al., in "The current and future sales impact of a retail frequency reward program", discusses the short-term and long-term effects of a frequency reward program.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hariramani et al. (Pub. #: AU 2009296658 B2) in view of
Abbott et al. (Pub. #: US 2014/0149201 A1) in view of
“GUI Architectures” by Martin Fowler.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15:
These claims are analogous with different representative embodiments; claim 1 is a method embodiment, claim 8 is a computer-readable medium embodiment, claim 15 is a system embodiment. Hariramani teaches a computer system with computer-readable media in at least 0076 and 00766 for performing the steps:
for each of a plurality of transactions initiated by a user over a specific time period, determining eligibility of the respective transaction for a reward program;
(Hariramani discloses determining eligibility of transactions which have been "authorized" (i.e., posted) in at least 0058-0059 and which are "qualified" (i.e., eligible) for a reward in a loyalty reward program in at least 0061-0062.)
determining, within the reward program, a benefit to the user when a threshold number of transactions during the specific time period is determined to be eligible, wherein the reward program comprises adding an additional reward value to a current reward value based on the respective transaction exceeding the threshold number,
(Hariramani discloses rewarding a user after determining that a number of transactions within a period of time meets a threshold in at least 0061-0062 and specifically the rewarding of a free cup of coffee after purchasing "4 cups of coffee during the month" in at least 0017. Examiner notes that a current reward value could be zero free cups of coffee to which a free cup of coffee is added after the purchase of 4 cups of coffee. Additionally, Hariramani discloses multiple levels of rewards and the display of progress towards those levels and the effect reaching those levels would have on a reward in at least 0064. Examiner notes that in Hariramani, a "current reward value" could correspond to zero free cups of coffee to which the user is entitled.)
selecting, based on the determined eligibility, a first portion and a second portion of the reward program, wherein the first portion comprises a real-time functionality for modifying a progress toward the threshold number of transactions for the benefit based on the current reward value of the user within the reward program,
(Hariramani discloses multiple levels of rewards and the display of progress towards those levels and the effect reaching those levels would have on a reward in at least 0064. Hariramani discloses that the notifications may be presented in "real time" in at least 0074.)
and wherein the second portion comprises a real-time functionality for adding the additional reward value to the current reward value based on the respective transaction exceeding the threshold number;
(Hariramani discloses rewarding a user after determining that a number of transactions within a period of time meets a threshold in at least 0061-0062 and specifically the rewarding of a free cup of coffee after purchasing "4 cups of coffee during the month" in at least 0017. Examiner notes that a current reward value could be zero free cups of coffee to which a free cup of coffee is added after the purchase of 4 cups of coffee. Additionally, Hariramani discloses multiple levels of rewards and the display of progress towards those levels and the effect reaching those levels would have on a reward in at least 0064.)
generating a user interface (UI) to display real-time transaction data of the respective transaction associated with the selected first portion and the second portion of the reward program, wherein the real-time transaction data indicates the progress toward or over the threshold number;
communicating the UI to a user device to cause the UI to be displayed on the user device;
(Hariramani discloses computing various elements of a user interface and sending the user interface to a user's device in at least 0062-0065. Hariramani discloses that the notifications may be presented in "real time" in at least 0074. Hariramani discloses presenting progress towards a threshold for a reward program in at least 0042.)
determining a number of pending transactions that are currently not eligible for the benefit associated with the reward program;
generating, within the UI, a real-time progress tracker monitoring a status of the respective transaction for the second portion of the reward program, wherein the real-time progress tracker comprises a first graphic indicating a number of eligible transactions of the second portion over the specific time period, and wherein the real-time progress tracker comprises a second graphic indicating the number of the pending transactions;
modifying, based on the status of the respective transaction for the second portion of the reward program, the UI to display a change of the real-time transaction data of the respective transaction, wherein the change indicates the additional reward value being added to the current reward value;
updating, within the UI, the real-time progress tracker to reflect the change based on a combination of the respective transaction exceeding the threshold number and the pending transactions being received,
wherein the real-time progress tracker synchronizes the first graphic and the second graphic by dynamically updating the first graphic in response to changes in the number of pending transactions indicated by the second graphic;
and in response to the real-time progress tracker being updated, communicating the modified UI to the user device to cause the modified UI to be displayed on the user device, wherein the UI comprises display of the changed real-time transaction data associated with the respective transaction.
As for the underlined portions above: Examiner notes that the claims appear to be primarily describing the content of Figure 3B which presents information regarding a "20% Extra Reward Benefit", including pending transactions and an extra 20% discount. The claims contain a "first graphic" that corresponds to a number of transactions eligible toward the threshold number needed, a "second graphic" that indicates a number of "pending transactions". Hariramani discloses notifying the user of their progress towards a reward threshold in at least 0042, 0046-0050 and discloses that the notification may be graphical in nature in at least 0062: "... the reward status indicator can comprise a sound, symbol, picture, or other type of message". Hariramani does not appear to specify presenting the information with specific graphics. However, Abbott discloses determining and presenting a number of pending transactions in at least Figures 9 and 10 and 0133-0135. Abbott discloses presenting information in graphical format regarding rewards program status, including pending transactions in at least 0118, 0121, Figures 9 and 10 and 0133-0135. More specifically, 0118, states that an indicator for a transaction may "comprise a visual indicator (e.g., at least one of text, graphics, or the like)". The use of graphical user interfaces for displaying information comprises a high level of automation indicated by the use of any number of readily available graphical user interface design tools. Abbott discloses generating a graphic for displaying "rebates that may possibly be applied to a user's account in the future" in at least Figure 9 and 0133-0135. This includes a "Rebates Earned And Not Paid" and "Rebates Possibly Earned" with the latter corresponding to a "change between the current reward value and the new reward value".
Given the low level of actual skill required to implement a desired user interface using existing design tools, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the notification of reward status per transactions meeting a reward program eligibility as taught by Hariramani with the techniques of presenting real-time transaction information in a graphical user interface (GUI) as taught by Abbott. Motivation to combine Hariramani and Abbott comes from both references pertaining to transaction reward/rebate processing and in order to allow offers with different parameters such as a transaction that "may qualify for the rebate if the user did not return the purchase ... prior to clearance of the second transaction" (Abbott: 0134).
As for, “wherein the real-time progress tracker synchronizes the first graphic and the second graphic by dynamically updating the first graphic in response to changes in the number of pending transactions indicated by the second graphic;”: Hariramani, in view of Abbott, discloses user interface elements displaying transaction information as described above. Hariramani, in view of Abbott, does not appear to make explicit synchronization, within the UI itself, of graphical elements based on changes made to one of the graphical elements. However, Fowler teaches a technique of data binding that synchronizes GUI elements based on a change made to any one of them in at least the “Forms and Controls” section.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface of Hariramani, in view of Abbott, with the technique of data binding as described by Fowler. Motivation to combine the references derives from the need to select a specific method of “organizing the code for a rich client system” (Fowler: under “GUI Architectures”).
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16:
Hariramani does not appear to specify, but Abbott further teaches:
wherein the plurality of transactions that are pending are initiated but not yet posted.
(Abbott discloses generating a graphic for displaying "rebates that may possibly be applied to a user's account in the future" in at least Figure 9 and 0133-0135.)
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18:
wherein the plurality of transactions are specified as records from a payment processing system.
(Hariramani discloses transactions that are records from a payment processing system in at least 0031, 0044, and 0052: "...The reward engine can receive information regarding a purchase transaction 10 ('transaction data') from any suitable source, such as from the merchant 22, the payment processing network 26, or the notification server 29...")
Claim(s) 5, 12, 19:
wherein the reward program comprises a first portion and a second portion, the first portion being an accumulated benefit available to the user after the threshold number of transactions has posted, the second portion being an immediate benefit available before the threshold number of transactions has posted.
(Hariramani discloses a notification message with two portions, "reward status indicators" and "additional information" with the additional information comprising at least an "offer" in at least 0072 and 0073.)
Claim(s) 7, 14:
Hariramani does not appear to specify, but Abbott further teaches:
monitoring a number of the plurality of transactions that are eligible over the specific period of time; and updating a real-time amount of the plurality of transactions currently displayed by a user interface.
(Abbott discloses generating a graphic for displaying "rebates that may possibly be applied to a user's account in the future" in at least Figure 9 and 0133-0135. This includes a "Rebates Earned And Not Paid" and "Rebates Possibly Earned" with the latter corresponding to a "change between the current reward value and the new reward value".)
Conclusion
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 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 SCOTT SNIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-9604. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 9:00-4:30 Mountain (11:00-6:30 Eastern).
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at (571)270-3948. 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.
/S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights