DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Feb. 2, 2026, and is made Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Examiner interviews are available by telephone or, preferably, by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Interviews conducted solely for the purpose of “sounding out” the examiner, including by local counsel acting only as a conduit for another practitioner, are not permitted under MPEP § 713.03. The Office is strictly enforcing established interview practice, and applicants should ensure that every interview request is directed toward advancing prosecution on the merits in compliance with MPEP §§ 713 and 713.03.
For after-final Interview requests, supervisory approval is required before an interview may be granted. Each AIR should specifically explain how the After-Final Interview request will advance prosecution—for example, by identifying targeted arguments responsive to the rejection of record, alleged defects in the examiner’s analysis, proposed claim amendments, or another concrete basis for discussion. See MPEP § 713. If the AIR form’s character limits prevent inclusion of all pertinent details, Applicants may send a contemporaneous email to the examiner at James.Miller1@uspto.gov.
The examiner is generally available Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST.
For any GRANTED Interview Request, Applicant can expect an email within 24 hours confirming an interview slot from the dates/times proposed and providing collaboration tool access instructions. For any DENIED Interview Request, the record will include a communication explaining the reason for the denial.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on Nov. 21, 2025 (x2), were filed after the first Office action on the merits but before final action and contained the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). Therefore, said IDSs are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(c). Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered.
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1–20 remain pending and examined with Claims 1, 10, and 19 in independent form.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are presently amended.
No Claims are presently cancelled or added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Aug. 10, 2023, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 103 Argument
Applicant argues that prior art Ilincic does not disclose “verifying … that the enhanced security input data [data #2] was received by the mobile device within a predetermined period of time after the mobile device received the cryptogram [data #1]” as recited by the amended claims, because “both [data #1 and data #2] are [not] received via a user locally interacting with the client device 1320 … within the time period.” Applicant’s Reply at 8–9.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant misapprehends prior art Ilincic.
Prior art Ilincic discloses that the user’s tap/request is what initiates the time window. Ilincic, ¶ 189 (mobile device sends a message to the backend server “to configure the system to allow the next card present transaction within the given time” of “five minutes”). Upon a tap, the cryptogram is communicated initiating the time window of five minutes. Ilincic, Fig. 1B. The server’s subsequent transaction notification (Ilincic, Fig. 14, block 1404) is merely the server’s back-end acknowledgment transmitted after the time window has already been initiated by the user’s tap. Thus, the tie window of Ilincic is exactly what is claimed.
Examiner stipulates that Ilincic does not teach an enhanced security data input, but the Examiner did not relay on Ilincic for that element, but rather primary reference Cook. Applicant did not argue the combination but only Ilincic individually. Therefore, in response to applicant's arguments against one reference individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking a reference individually where the rejection is based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues prior art Ilincic does not disclose “verifying … that the enhanced security input data [data #2] was received by the mobile device within a predetermined period of time after the mobile device received the cryptogram [data #1]” as recited by the amended claims. “Ilincic fails to determine whether some other piece of data is received within a time period after the transaction approval is received.” Applicant’s Reply at 9.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Applicant attacks prior art Ilincic in isolation, but Examiner identified that primary reference Cook discloses the sequential relationship between the cryptogram and the enhanced security data input. Non-Final Act. at 11. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking a reference individually where the rejection is based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, Applicant’s argument that the cryptogram must come first to identify the account so that the enhanced security data can be verified against that account is already taught by Cook, not Ilincic. See Cook, ¶¶ 92, 84, 45. Ilincic is not needed to supply the sequence and was not relied on in the Office Action.
Third, even under Applicant’s interpretation of Ilincic, the combination of Cook and Ilincic renders the claim element obvious.
The § 103 rejection is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
a short-range communication antenna is limited to an NFC, Bluetooth, or Wi-Fi communication antenna. Spec. ¶ 83.
silent mobile authentication = without user input
back end = server
cryptogram = derived encrypted value that authenticates and identifies a user based on cryptographic data stored on the contactless card.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0267449 filed May 2, 2023) [“Cook”] in view of Fisi et al (U.S. Pat. No. 10,719,803) [“Fisi”] and further in view of Ilincic et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0104840) [“Ilincic”]
Regarding Claim 1, Cook discloses:
A method comprising:
(See at least ¶ 2, “methods”)
receiving, by a short-range communication antenna of a mobile device, a cryptogram from a contactless card tapped on or brought within a communication range of the short-range communication antenna by a user;
(See at least Fig. 8 and associated text ¶ 81, “At process 804, the contactless card transmits the information to the customer device 102 via a NFC transmission.” See also, ¶ 82. “The customer device 102 is also structured as a contactless reader structured to enable the reception of information wirelessly from the contactless card 104. Examples of the customer device 102 include a mobile device.” The information transmitted from the contactless card 104 may “include a cryptographic token, cryptographic key, digital certificate, or encryption algorithm that is profiled to the user” and explains that when “the wireless interface 12 interacts with the contactless enabled chip 115 the cryptographic key (e.g., token, etc.) gets accessed by the customer device 102. That is, the customer device 102 receives the cryptographic key (e.g., token, etc.).” ¶ 45. “[T]he customer device 102 receives the encrypted information that is indicative of an identity of a user associated with the transaction card.” ¶ 92.)
after receiving the cryptogram, verifying, by a processor of the mobile device, the cryptogram to identify a customer account associated with the contactless card;
(See at least ¶ 92, “[T]he customer device 102 receives the encrypted information that is indicative of an identity of a user associated with the transaction card.” “T]he provider institution computing system 108 "may use the cryptographic key (e.g., or token, etc.) to identify the user associated with the cryptographic key" and "performs a decryption algorithm with the cryptographic key (e.g., or token) and uses the decrypted key in order to determine (e.g., find or identify) a customer in the customer database 120 that is associated with the cryptographic key." ¶ 45. "[T]he token...in combination with the customer device data...serves as the credentials for the account" and enables identification of the customer. ¶ 72. The card issuer computing system 108 may then use the encrypted cryptographic key, the seed information that was used to generate the encrypted cryptographic key, and/or the count number as inputs into a decryption algorithm in order to generate an output that is used by the card issuer computing system 108 to cross-reference the output within a database on the card issuer computing system 108 that includes multiple cryptographic keys, each corresponding to a different customer.” ¶ 92. Identifying the customer account occurs after receiving the cryptogram.)
after receiving the cryptogram and identifying the customer account, verifying, by the processor of the mobile device, that a phone number of the mobile device is associated with the customer account based on a silent mobile authentication executed on a back end with a mobile network operator;
(See at least ¶ 56, The “card issuer computing system 108” receives information about the customer device 102, including "phone number, carrier information, serial number, mobile identification number (MIN), mobile subscription number (MSIN), etc. The card issuer computing system 108 may then reference the stored information regarding the customer device 102 during future password-less login attempts … to provide enhanced security (e.g., by only allowing expedited password-less login on a known customer device).” See also, ¶ 55. “[T]he card issuer computing system 108 may verify the information received based on … a phone number of the customer device 102" by cross-referencing with "information stored in the customer database 120." ¶ 69. [T]he card issuer computing system 108 receives the identity information regarding the customer device 102 and the embedded information,” ¶ 83, such as, “a MIN, MSIN, or phone number regarding the customer device 102,” ¶ 82, and “verify[ing] that a customer profile within a customer database 120 includes the identity information of the customer device 102.” ¶ 83. “[T[he card issuer computing system 108 may also use information indicative of an identity of the customer device 102 (e.g., received during the communications at process 918) and cross-reference, verify, or check that the information identifying the customer device 102 belongs or is known to have been used by the customer in the past. See also, ¶ 99, 118.)
after verifying the cryptogram, identifying the customer account, and verifying that the phone number of the mobile device is associated with the customer account, receiving, by a user interface device of the mobile device, enhanced security input data from the user;
(See at least Fig. 8, step 818, and associated text ¶ 84, “at process 818 the customer device 102 receives a prompt for authentication information. The customer device 102 may then redirect the display of the web browser or the mobile application to display a request to the user for authentication information. Examples of such a display is shown and described in reference to FIG. 6. At a process 820, the customer device 102 receives the authentication information as an input on the device.” Fig. 6 discloses the user entering “the last four numbers of your social security number.” Additionally, see Fig 9, step 912, “Receive additional authentication information” and associated text ¶ 101. “FIG. 11 depicts an example of a customer device 102 at process 910 [Prompt user for additional authentication information] described in reference to FIG. 9.” ¶ 121. "[T]he additional authentication information may be a personal identification number (PIN), a voiceprint, a fingerprint, a face print or other biometric data of the user." ¶ 45. Additional authentication information is received after verifying the cryptogram, identifying the customer account, and verifying that the phone number of the mobile device is associated with the customer account. See Figs. 8, 9 (Step 912 occurs after steps 906, 922, 924).
after receiving the enhanced security input data, verifying, by the processor of the mobile device, […, See, Ilincic] and that the enhanced security input data matches enhanced security record data associated with the customer account; and
(See at least ¶ 45, “The provider institution computing system 108 may use the identification information (e.g., token, etc.) and additional authentication information (e.g., the PIN) to authenticate the user and allow the customer device 102 to access and display some or all of the user's account information … via cross referencing the additional authentication information with stored information regarding the user within the customer database 120.” After successful authentication, information, information is "saved in the customer database 120" and "future authentications...may be expedited in the future." ¶ 76.
Regarding the time-period limitation, Cook discloses time-based verification mechanisms. “[I]n the case that the customer device 102 does not respond or cannot respond to the instructions to transmit identity information to the card issuer computing system 108, a time stamp placed on the identity information (e.g., via the encryption algorithm on the transaction card) may be used to determine that the contactless communication occurred after a pre-determined amount of time (e.g., 5 minutes) and, in response, automatically block access to an account.” ¶ 94. “[T]he encryption algorithm time stamps the bit sequence that is generated.” ¶ 114. “Process 926 may have a set duration. That is, the card issuer computing system 108 may only allow customer access via the customer device 102 for a pre-determined amount of time (e.g., 30 minutes, 1 hour, etc.). In some embodiments, the card issuer computing system 108 may disable customer access (e.g., end process 926) after a pre-determined amount of time (e.g., 10 minutes) of inactivity (e.g., a time period where the card issuer computing system 108 is not receiving any customer inputs via the customer device 102).”) “[T]he customer device 102 may package the encrypted identity information, the random number (e.g., the seed) that was sent within the command, and time stamp the package” for transmission to the card issuer computing system. ¶ 117. Authentication "may enable activation of the card or, after activation, account access" based on matching information "within a field of the web page." ¶ 62.)
[…, See, Fisi]
Cook does not disclose that the enhanced security input data was received by the mobile device within a predetermined period of time after the mobile device receiving the cryptogram. Thus, Cook does not disclose but Ilincic discloses:
that the enhanced security input data was received by the mobile device within a predetermined period of time after the mobile device receiving the cryptogram
(See at least Abstract, “An application on the client device receives a transaction lockdown request, sends a request to the server to begin to allow a transaction approval within a time period, receives the transaction approval via an authentication tap [cryptogram event] from the contactless card, sends the transaction approval to the server; and receive an allowance or disallowance response from the server.” The client device receives the transaction approval via an authentication tap (i.e., a cryptogram event generated by the contactless card physically tapping the card reader of the client device). Ilincic, ¶¶ 8, 40–44, 185. The application initiates a time window, initiated by the tap, and only treats the approval as valid if received within the time window. If it arrives outside of the time window, the system disallows it, which is the time window verification initiated by the tap. Ilincic, ¶¶ 8, 10, 185, 189, 192; FIG. 14. "A user may tap his secure card on a mobile device. In response, the mobile device may authenticate the user…the mobile device may send a message to a backend server to configure the system to allow the next card present transaction within the next five minutes." ¶ 189. This initial user card tap is what opens the “five minute” time window at block 1402 of FIG. 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined he enhanced security input data was received by the mobile device within a predetermined period of time after the mobile device receiving the cryptogram, as explained in Ilincic, with the known multi-factor authentication sequence of Cook, in the same field of mobile contactless card authentication, with the motivation to “prevent a replay attack,” ¶ 114, improving security.
Cook discloses at most two verification methods before logging into a mobile application running on a mobile device to access the customer account, namely verification of the cryptogram and phone number of the mobile device. Cook, Figs. 8 & 9; ¶ 100. Cook discloses a third verification method when the user device is not “registered.” E.g., Cook, Fig. 8, step 818. Cook teaches that not being registered means the first two verification methods are not recognized or verified. Cook, ¶¶ 65, 84. Cook does not disclose three verification methods before granting access to a customer account. Cook reaches either the cryptogram and telephone number are required to access a customer account or “the last four numbers of your social security number” but not all three verification methods. Thus, Cook does not disclose but Fisi discloses
responsive to the [first authentication], the [second authentication], and the enhanced security input data being verified, [permitting] the mobile device to access the customer account [Fig. 1, element 24].
(See at least Fig. 4A disclosing a first, second, and third authentication before permitting user account access. Fig. 4B, elements 412a (username/password), 412b (telephone number/pin), 412c (identification number/pin), describe the permitted first level authentication methods. Fig. 6, elements 616a (knowledge), 616b (physical object), 616c (physical characteristic), 616d (text message), 616e (email message), describe the permitted second and third authentication methods. Fisi, Col. 8:25–6, 28–9. “Physical characteristic authentication 616c requires the user attempting to a log into a secondary session to transmit through their device a biometric characteristic such as a fingerprint, eye iris, voice, typing speed, pattern in key press intervals, etc.” Col. 10:47–51.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined when the [first authentication], the [second authentication], and the enhanced security input data have been verified, [permitting] the mobile device to access the customer account as explained in Fisi, to the known invention of Louie, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to provide account owner preferences for improved security. Fisi, col.7:61–3 (“a third level authentication may also be prompted if required in accordance with account owner preferences.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic disclose
The method of claim 1 and the enhanced security input data.
Cook further discloses
wherein the enhanced security input data includes an alphanumeric password.
(See at least Fig. 5. Alternatively, Fisi, Fig. Fig. 4B, element 412a. For Fisi, the resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 2.)
Regarding Claim 3, Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic disclose
The method of claim 1, the user interface device, and the enhanced security input data.
Cook further discloses
wherein the user interface device includes a camera of the mobile device, and wherein the enhanced security input data includes a photograph of a user
(See at least ¶ 101, “the additional authentication information includes biometric information (e.g., a thumb print on a thumb reader of the mobile device or facial recognition via a camera on the mobile device), a personal identification number (PIN), the last four of the social security number of the user associated with the account, security questions, code words or sentences, or a combination thereof.”
Alternatively, Fisi, Fig. 2, camera 234. For Fisi, the resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 3.)
Regarding Claim 4, Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic disclose
The method of claim 1 and the enhanced security input data.
Cook further discloses
wherein the enhanced security input data includes biometric input data.
(See at least ¶ 101, “the additional authentication information includes biometric information (e.g., a thumb print on a thumb reader of the mobile device or facial recognition via a camera on the mobile device), a personal identification number (PIN), the last four of the social security number of the user associated with the account, security questions, code words or sentences, or a combination thereof.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic disclose
The method of claim 1.
Cook further discloses
further comprising: responsive to verifying the cryptogram and the phone number of the mobile device, displaying, on a display device of the mobile device, [the online account]
(See at least Fig. 8, steps 814, 816, and associated text ¶ 83.)
Cook does not disclose but Fisi discloses
responsive to [first authentication] and [second authentication], displaying, on a display device of the mobile device, a solicitation for the enhanced security input data [third authentication].
(See at least col. 9:50–9, “The type of second and third level authentication used is set as a preference by the account owner (e.g., see authentication type preferences 616a-616e of FIG. 6). In this instance the, account owner has set a preference for second level authentication of "Knowledge" 506d (i) and the authentication has been successfully performed, "Y'' for YES 506d (ii). Further, the account owner has set a preference for third level authentication of "E-Mail Message" 506e (i), which has also been successfully performed, "Y'' for YES 506e.” The second authentication method of knowledge and the third authentication method of e-mail message are exemplary and Fisi reasonably discloses the third authentication could me knowledge. “Knowledge authentication 616a requires the user … to enter a password or PIN.” Alternatively, Cook, Figs. 11, 12.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic disclose
The method of claim 1.
Cook further discloses
successfully decrypting the cryptogram to verify the cryptogram and identify the customer account.
(See at least Fig. 9, steps 920, 922, and 924, and associated text ¶¶ 97, 99, 100. The italicized limitations are interpreted as intended use. Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).)
Regarding Claim 7, Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic disclose
The method of claim 6.
Cook further discloses
further comprising: decrypting protected data in the cryptogram; comparing the protected data to stored record data associated with the contactless card; and identifying the customer account based on a match between the protected data and the stored record data.
(See at least See at least Fig. 9, steps 920, 922, and 924, and associated text ¶¶ 97, 98, 99, 100.)
Regarding Claim 8, Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic disclose
The method of claim 1
Cook further discloses
further comprising: transmitting the cryptogram and the enhanced security input data from the mobile device to a server; and
(See at least Fig. 9, steps 918 and line from step 914 to step 924, where the customer device 102 transmits the cryptogram and enhanced security input data to a card issuer computing system 108.)
receiving, at the mobile device, one or more indications that the cryptogram, the phone number of the mobile device, and the enhanced security input data have been verified.
(See at least Fig. 9 step 926. An indication of verification is received when access to the customer account is permitted. Figs. 7A, 7B.
Regarding Claim 9, Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic disclose
The method of claim 8.
Cook further discloses
further comprising: transmitting one or more messages from the mobile device to the server, wherein the one or more messages include the cryptogram and the enhanced security input data.
(See at least Fig. 9, step 918 (cryptogram) and associated text ¶ 99 and Fig. 9, line between step 914 and step 924 and associated text ¶ 103.)
Regarding Claim 10, Cook discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
(See at least ¶ 6, Claim 16.)
The remaining limitations of Claim 10 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 1 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic for the same rationale presented in Claim 1 supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 10.
Regarding Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic disclose
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10.
The remaining limitations of Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, are not substantively different than those presented in Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively, and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic for the same rationale presented in Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively, supra.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic disclose
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15.
The remaining limitations of Claims 16 and 17, are not substantively different than those presented in Claims 7 and 8, respectively, and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic for the same rationale presented in Claims 7 and 8, respectively, supra.
Regarding Claim 18, Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic disclose
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17.
The remaining limitations of Claim 18 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 9, and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic for the same rationale presented in Claim 9, supra.
Regarding Claim 19, Cook discloses
A mobile device comprising: a short-range communication antenna; a user interface device; a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
(See at least Fig. 1, customer device 102, memory 128, antenna 132, processor 110 and associated text ¶¶ 24, 25, 26 (memory storing instructions), 28.
The remaining limitations of Claim 19 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 1 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic for the same rationale presented in Claim 1 supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic disclose
The mobile device of claim 19.
The remaining limitations of Claim 20 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 5, and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Cook, Fisi, and Ilincic for the same rationale presented in Claim 5, supra.
Conclusion
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 JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 PM (EST).
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/JAMES H MILLER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights