Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election of Species
2. This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A: Represented by paragraph 55 of the Specification (PGPub), in which an offer comprising a plurality of dynamic incentives is generated based on the application of user-configurable rules to user-specific data and the offer is transmitted to a customer device,
Species B: Represented by fig. 13 and paragraphs 69 and 123 of the Specification, in which a score is determined, a single dynamic incentive is determined based on the score, and the offer is transmitted to a requestor device which in turn presents the offer to a user,
Species C: Represented by paragraphs 45 and 72 of the Specification, in which a single dynamic incentive is generated based on the application of user-configurable rules to transaction history, other user-specific data and transaction data and an offer comprising the single dynamic incentive is transmitted to a customer device.
The species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims are generic.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
3. Amended claims 1 and 15 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended. Claim 1 now recites generating a plurality of incentives based on user-specific data and presenting the incentives on a user device. While claim 15, as amended, recites generating a single incentive from transaction history, other user-specific data and transaction data. And, therefore, are mutually exclusive from each other as well as claim 8.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of Claims
4. Claims 8-14 have been examined.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 8 recites “collect…”. The term “collect” needs to be in gerunds form in line with the other limitations.
Response to Arguments
6. Initially, the Examiner would like to point out the basis of the 101 rejection is not a particular “example” but the Supreme Court’s Alice Decision and the process laid out in MPEP 2106. In other words, claim 8 recites “providing an incentive to a customer”. Specifically, the claim recites “in response to a user initiating a transaction, obtain a request for a dynamic incentive for an installment payment plan…” and goes on to describe how the dynamic incentive is determined such as by collecting user-specific data (“[collecting]…”), applying rules to the data (“applying…”), generating incentives (“based on…”), calculating a score (“calculating…”) and choosing an incentive from the generated incentives based on the score (“selecting…”), and providing the chosen incentive to a user (“transmitting…”). Therefore, the claim describes organizing human activity (e.g. commercial or legal interaction) which is an abstract idea. The additional elements of “network” and “user interface device” do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technological field.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection to claims 8-14 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
Optional language
7. Claim 8, “in response to a user initiating a transaction…”
Claim 12, “providing… in response to the eligibility score indicating the user is eligible for dynamic incentives”
“in response to a user initiating a transaction” is optional language. The subsequent limitations of “receiving a request…”, “collect…”, “applying…”, “based on the application… generating…”, “calculating…”, “selecting…” and “transmitting…” are also optional as each is dependent on a user initiating a transaction (claim 8). Same holds for claims 9-10 and 12-14 which do no more than further describe the optional language of claim 8. Similarly, the provision of a second installment payment plan does not occur if the eligibility score does not indicate that the user is eligible for dynamic incentives (claim 12). As a result, the language will not differentiate their respective claims from the prior art (MPEP 2103 I C).
Not positively recited
8. Claim 8, “transmitting… wherein the requester provides an offer to the user via a user interface device…
“wherein the requester provides an offer to the user via a user interface device” (claim 8) represents an action performed by a requester [device] and not the device that performs the steps of “in response to… receiving…”, “collect…”… and “transmitting”. Therefore, the language will not differentiate the claim from the prior art.
Intended Use
9. Claim 9, “wherein the selected dynamic incentive is recommended for pairing…”
Claim 10, “… to improve an acceptance rate…” Claim 11, “executing… to generate a plurality of dynamic incentives…”
Claim 14, “onboarding… wherein the dynamic incentives are generated by the dynamic service for the user" The language “is recommended for pairing” and “to generate…” represent intended use and will not differentiate their respective claims from the prior art (MPEP 2103 I C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 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.
11. Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
12. Claim 8 recites-
in response to a user initiating a transaction, receiving a request for an installment payment plan incentive customized for the user in real-time from a requester…, the request associated with the transaction to purchase an item or service from a merchant;
collect user-specific data associated with interests and preferences of the customer from transaction history data and other user specific-data from an issuer of a payment card used in the transaction;
applying a set of user-configured rules to the user-specific data, the user-configurable rules being merchant-configurable rules or issuer-configurable rules;
based on the application of the set of user-configurable rules to the user-specific data, generating dynamic incentives associated with an installment payment plan, the dynamic incentives customized to the user;
calculating a score for each of the dynamic incentives, the score associated with each dynamic incentive indicating a priority associated with that dynamic incentive;
selecting a dynamic incentive associated with a highest score for presentation to the user; and
transmitting the selected dynamic incentive to the requester, wherein the requester provides an offer to the user…for acceptance or rejection, the offer comprising the installment payment plan and the selected dynamic incentive customized for the user in real-time during the transaction.
Therefore, the claim recites “providing incentives to a customer”, which is a commercial or legal interaction and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (i.e. organizing human activity) and an abstract idea.
The additional elements of “network” and “user interface device” represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the training of a user and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the training of a user and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field. Hence, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
13. Claim 9 recites “wherein each score indicates a predicted level of desirability of each incentive in the dynamic incentives to the user” and “wherein the selected dynamic incentive is recommended for pairing with the installment payment plan offered to the user” which further describe the abstract idea of “providing incentives to a customer”.
14. Claim 10 recites “updating… at least one rule in the set of user-configured rules to improve an acceptance rate associated with the installment payment plan”, which further describes the abstract idea of “providing incentives to a customer”. The additional element of “machine learning component” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
15. Claim 11 recites “… to generate a plurality of dynamic incentives corresponding to a plurality of plan options customized for the user, the plurality of plan options comprising a first installment payment plan and a second installment payment plan available from the merchant or a lender” and “presenting an offer to the user… wherein the offer comprises the first installment payment plan paired with a first dynamic incentive and the second installment payment plan paired with a second dynamic incentive” which further describe the abstract idea of “providing incentives to a customer”.
The additional elements of “executing an incentives manager associated with a cloud server” and “by an application programming interface” represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “executing…”, the claim lacks technological details regarding how the API executes the “incentives manager” and how the executed “incentives manager” generates a plurality of dynamic incentives. As a result, the limitation is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
16. Claim 12 recites “analyzing the user-specific data associated with the user and the transaction history data associated with the user and the transaction”, “generating an eligibility score based on a result of analysis of the user-specific data and the transaction history data” and “providing a second installment payment plan to the user with a dynamic incentive customized to the user in response to the eligibility score indicating the user is eligible for dynamic incentives” which further describe the abstract idea of “providing incentives to a customer”.
17. Claim 13 recites “selecting the dynamic incentive based on a set of preferences, the set of preference comprising a set of merchant preferences, a set of lender preferences, a set of issuer preferences, and a set of user preferences” which further describes the abstract idea of “providing incentives to a customer”.
18. Claim 14 recites “prompting a user to opt-in to a dynamic incentives service via…” and “onboarding the user into the dynamic incentives service in response to the user selecting an option to opt-in, wherein the dynamic incentives are generated by the dynamic service for the user”, which further describe the abstract idea of “providing incentives to a customer”.
The additional element of “user device” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
19. Additionally, claim 8 recites “in response to a user initiating a transaction…” which is optional language. The subsequent limitations of “receiving a request…”, “collect…”, “applying…”, “based on the application… generating…”, “calculating…”, “selecting…” and “transmitting…” are also optional as each is dependent on a user initiating a transaction (claim 8). Therefore, giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps do not occur (MPEP 2103 I C) and claim 8 is by definition abstract as it lacks method steps (MPEP 2106.03 I). Same holds for claims 9-10 and 12-14 which do no more than further describe the optional language of claim 8.
35 U.S.C. 112(b)
20. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
21. Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Lack of antecedent basis
22. Claim 8 recites the limitation “the user-configurable rules” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
More than one interpretation
23. Claim 8 recites “based on the application of the set of user-configurable rules to the user-specific data, generating dynamic incentives…, the dynamic incentives customized to the user”. It is unclear whether customization is part of the generating of the dynamic incentives or separate and/or performed by a device other than the device that generates the incentives or another device (MPEP 2173.02 I).
Dependent Claims
24. Claims 9-14 are also rejected as each depends from claim 8
25. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
26. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
27. Claim 11 recites “presenting an offer to the user… wherein the offer comprises the first installment payment plan paired with a first dynamic incentive and the second installment payment plan paired with a second dynamic incentive”. Amended claim 8, however, from which claim 11 depends, provides the offer, where the offer comprises a single installment payment plan and a single dynamic incentive (“transmitting… the offer comprising the installment payment plan and the selected dynamic incentive…”). Therefore, claim 11 does not further limit the offer presented to the user in claim 8 but instead provides an alternate and contradictory offer. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
28. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
29. Claims 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khan et al. (U.S. 2018/0260833).
30. As per claim 8, Claim 8 recites “in response to a user initiating a transaction…” “in response to a user initiating a transaction” is optional language. The subsequent limitations of “receiving a request…”, “collect…”, “applying…”, “based on the application… generating…”, “calculating…”, “selecting…” and “transmitting…” are also optional as each is dependent on a user initiating a transaction. According to the MPEP, optional language will not differentiate a claim from the prior art (MPEP 2103 I C). Therefore, as Khan et al. teach a “method for dynamic installment payment plan incentives” (fig. 3c; paras 104, 111, 120 and 121) it is sufficient in terms of anticipation.
31. With respect to claims 9 (“wherein each score… the dynamic incentives… the installment payment plan…”), 10 (“… the set of user-configured rules…”), 12 (“… the user-specific data… the transaction history…”), 13 (“… the dynamic incentive…”) and 14 (“… wherein the dynamic incentives…”) each further describes the optional language of claim 8 and, as a result, will not differentiate the claims from Khan et al. (fig. 3c; paras 104, 111, 120 and 121).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
32. 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.
33. Claims 8, 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards, US 2010057548 in view of Bhargava, US 20200051110 and Walker et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,064,987. As per claim 8, Edwards teaches a method for providing incentives comprising:
… receiving a request for an installment payment plan incentive customized for the user in real-time from a requester network, the request associated with… to purchase an item or service from a merchant; (fig. 6, item 602; paras 68 and 85)
collect user-specific data associated with interests and preferences of the customer from transaction history data and other user specific-data from an issuer of a payment card used in the transaction; (paras 50, 71 and 81)
applying a set of user-configured rules to the user-specific data, the user-configurable rules being merchant-configurable rules or issuer-configurable rules; (paras 76 and 77)
based on the application of the set of user-configurable rules to the user-specific data, generating dynamic incentives associated with an installment payment plan, the dynamic incentives customized to the user; (paras 80 and 81)
calculating a score for each of the dynamic incentives, the score associated with each dynamic incentive indicating a priority associated with that dynamic incentive; (paras 81-85)
selecting a dynamic incentive associated with a highest score for presentation to the user; (paras 19 and 85) and
transmitting the selected dynamic incentive to the requester, wherein the requester provides an offer to the user via a user interface for acceptance or rejection, the offer comprising … the selected dynamic incentive customized for the user… (paras 59, 70).
Edwards does not specifically disclose incentives for payment plans and generating incentives as part of a purchase transaction. However, Bhargava teaches receiving a request for an installment payment plan “in response to a user initiating a transaction” (para 34), “collect [data] from an issuer of a payment card used in the transaction” (paras 34, 35 and 90) and “transmitting… the selected dynamic incentive customized for the user in real-time during the transaction” (para 35) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Edwards and Bhargava in order to “maximize product offerings to customers” in other markets (‘548, para 2) such as card-based POS or website transactions (‘110, paras 2 and 37).
Neither Edwards nor Bhargava disclose but Walker et al. teach an offer comprising “the installment payment plan and [an incentive]” (fig. 14, items 442, 446, 450 and 452; col/line 11/65-12/17; col. 13, lines 1-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Edwards, Bhargava and Walker et al. in order to encourage customers to select an installment plan (‘987, col. 12, 1-5) and/or reduce the likelihood that a customer defaults on a payment (‘987, col. 13, lines 1-6).
34. As per claim 9, Edwards teaches “wherein each score indicates a predicted level of desirability of each incentive in the dynamic incentives to the user” (para 73). However, neither Edwards nor Bhargava disclose, but Walker teaches “wherein the selected dynamic incentive is recommended for pairing with the installment payment plan offered to the user” (fig. 11; fig 14, items 442, 446, 450 and 452). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Edwards, Bhargava and Walker et al. in order to encourage customers to select an installment plan (‘987, col. 12, 1-5) and/or reduce the likelihood that a customer defaults on a payment (‘987, col. 13, lines 1-6).
35. As per claim 12, Edwards teaches:
“analyzing the user-specific data associated with the user and the transaction history data associated with the user and the transaction” (paras 76 and 81)
“generating an eligibility score based on a result of analysis of the user-specific data and the transaction history data” (paras 76 and 81) and
“providing a second installment payment plan to the user with a dynamic incentive customized to the user in response to the eligibility score indicating the user is eligible for dynamic incentives” (paras 70, 76 and 81).
36. As per claim 13, Edwards teaches selecting the dynamic incentive based on a set of preferences, the set of preference comprising a set of merchant preferences (claim 12; paras 19 and 94)… a set of issuer preferences (claims 18; para 94), and a set of user preferences (paras 81-85 and 94). However, neither Edwards nor Bhargava disclose, but Walker teaches “lender preferences” (col. 3, lines 11-23; col. 4, lines 36-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Edwards, Bhargava and Walker et al. in order to devise an offer that benefits all stakeholder parties (‘548, paras 70 and 94).
37. As per claim 14, Bharvaga teach “prompting a user to opt-in to a dynamic incentives service via a user device” (fig. 3, items 302 and 304; paras 42, 56, 57 and 83) and “onboarding the user into the dynamic incentives service in response to the user selecting an option to opt-in, wherein the dynamic incentives are generated by the dynamic service for the user” (fig. 3, items 318 and 320; paras 42, 56, 57 and 83).
38. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards, US 2010057548 in view of Bhargava, US 20200051110, Walker et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,064,987 and Cooksey et al., US 20200160374.
While each of Edwards (paras 72, 76 and 77), Bharvaga (fig. 3, items 318 and 320) and Walker et al. (fig. 7, item 308; col. 8, lines 51-53) teach user-configured rules, and Edwards teaches rules associated with an acceptance rate associated with an offer (paras 72, 73, 77, and 82), and Bharvaga (fig. 3, items 318 and 320) and Walker et al. (fig. 14) teach installment plans. Neither Edwards, Bhargava nor Walker et al. teach “updating, by a machine learning component, at least one rule in the set of user-configured rules…”. Cooksey et al. “updating, by a machine learning component, at least one rule in the set of user-configured rules…” (paras 48 and 49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Edwards, Bhargava, Walker et al. and Cooksey et al. in order to more effectively choose offers (‘548, paras 72, 73, 77 and 94)
Conclusion
39. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Hoerenz, US 20040267611 teaches selecting an offer from a plurality of offers where each of the offers has a score associated with the value of the metric
Pinto et al., US 20200151697 teach determining whether an interaction such as a purchase is eligible for an installment plan
40. 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 CALVIN L HEWITT II whose telephone number is (571)272-6709. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a-7p.
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.
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.
/CALVIN L HEWITT II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692