DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed November 16, 2021, (which is on or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10, 12, and 14-21, are presented for examination. Applicant filed a response to a non-final Office action on 08/25/2025 amending claims 1-10, 12, and 16. In light of Applicant’s amendments, Examiner has withdrawn the objections of claims 2-9 and 16; and previous § 101 rejection of claims 1-10, 12, and 14-21. Examiner has, however, established a new § 101 rejection for claims 1-10, 12, and 14-21, in the instant Office action. Further, Examiner has maintained the previous grounds of prior art rejection for claims 1-10, 12, and 14-21. Since the new § 101 rejection was necessitated by Applicant’s amendments and Examiner has maintained the previous grounds of prior art rejection, the instant rejection of claims 1-10, 12, and 14-21, is FINAL rejection of the claims.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon Application No. 2107284 filed in France (FR) on July 6, 2021. The receipt of the certified copy of this foreign application on December 22, 2023, is acknowledged. The priority claim to the foreign priority document in question was timely made in the application data sheet filed December 22, 2023.
Examiner’s Remarks
Patent Eligibility: Applicant argues in pages 10-12 of Applicant’s Remarks:
The unconventional authorization process of claim 1 using the use context data eliminates the need for the prompting of the user to validate the transaction and the user action of validating the transaction. This additional element of the method improves the functioning of the computer implementing the transaction by saving processing and memory resources through the elimination of the need to perform the validation step of prompting the user and receiving a user input.
More importantly, the unconventional authorization process of claim 1 realizes an improvement to the technology of electronic transactions by replacing the conventional authorization process (user prompt and user input) with a process that does not require user intervention, which improves the efficiency of the authorization processes.
As a result, the embodiment of claim 1 includes additional elements that integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application and satisfies 35 U.S.C. 101.
Furthermore, the embodiment of claim 1 appears to be similar to the patent eligible claim discussed in Example 35 of the USPTO's 101 Guidance (December 2016) relating to verifying a bank customer's identify to permit an ATM transaction. Example claims 1 and 3 are provided below.
1. (Ineligible) A method of conducting a secure automated teller transaction with a financial institution by authenticating a customer's identity, comprising the steps of:
obtaining customer-specific information from a bank card,
comparing, by a processor, the obtained customer-specific information with customer information from the financial institution to verify the customer's identity, and
determining whether the transaction should proceed when a match from the comparison verifies the authenticity of the customer's identity.
3. (Eligible) A method of conducting a secure automated teller transaction with a financial institution by authenticating a customer's identity, comprising the steps of:
obtaining customer-specific information from a bank card,
comparing, by a processor, the obtained customer-specific information with customer information from the financial institution to verify the customer's identity, by
generating a random code and visibly displaying it on a customer interface of the automated teller machine,
obtaining, by the automated teller machine, a customer confirmation code from the customer's mobile communication device that is generated in response to the random code, and
determining whether the customer confirmation code matches the random code, and
automatically sending a control signal to an input for the automated teller machine to provide access to a keypad when a match from the analysis verifies the authenticity of the customer's identity, and to deny access to a keypad so that the transaction is terminated when the comparison results in no match.
Example claim 1 recites an authorization process involving a comparison, by a processor, of customer-specific information obtained from a bank card to customer information from a financial institution. Claim 1 was found to be patent ineligible because it represented a conventional authorization process.
However, example claim 3 was found to be patent eligible because it included an unconventional authorization process to ensure that the customer's identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone, and the process does not involve steps that merely gather data for comparison or security purposes.
As explained above, the method of claim 1 includes an unconventional transaction authorization process similar to claim 3 that does not merely involve conventional data gathering and comparison. Accordingly, Example 35 of the USPTO's 101 Guidance supports a finding that amended claim 1 is patent eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Applicant’s recited claim limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 12, lack details and specifics as to how a problem of technology is solved in technological means. Applicant’s claimed limitations are merely using a computing device in performing the claimed steps instead of improving the computing device. As such, instant claims 1-10, 12, and 14-21, are ineligible to be patented under § 101. Second, instant claimed steps of independent claim 1, 10, and 12, are dissimilar to the example 3. For example, example 3 recites:
generating a random code and visibly displaying it on a customer interface of the automated teller machine,
obtaining, by the automated teller machine, a customer confirmation code from the customer's mobile communication device that is generated in response to the random code, and
determining whether the customer confirmation code matches the random code,
Applicant’s independent claim 1, 10, and 12, are different from these claimed elements. However, Applicant’s independent claims 1, 10, and 12, recite limitations that are close to the example 1 (that is ineligible under § 101). Therefore, instant claims 1-10, 12, and 14-21, are ineligible to be patented under § 101.
Prior Art: Applicant argues in page 13 of Applicant’s Remarks:
Gaudin does not disclose: "extracting information relating to the transaction from said received request".
Gaudin does not explicitly describe a step in which the communicating object "extracts information related to the transaction" from the request received from the communication device (POS terminal). In Gaudin, the request received from the payment terminal appears to be a payment or authorization request, but it is not described that the vehicle extracts specific information from this request for further processing.
Furthermore, col. 33, lines 25-38 teach that:
The trigger event may also include determining that the merchant or merchant location is on the list of preferred merchants or merchant locations before allowing secure wireless communication with a merchant communication terminal.
Thus, Gaudin does not disclose extracting information from a request containing data relating to a contactless transaction between a communicating object and a communication device.
Accordingly, Gaudin also does not disclose: "comparing the extracted information with use context data in relation to the communicating object that have been determined by the communicating object", as recited in claim 1. Gaudin provides for authentication checks (biometrics, login, etc.), but not for a contextual comparison between transaction data and contextual data specific to the object.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gaudin specifically teaches:
The method may include building a list of preferred merchants or merchant locations for the driver or passenger, the preferred merchants or merchant locations allowing for, or configured to accept, vehicle payments. The trigger event may also include determining that the merchant or merchant location is on the list of preferred merchants or merchant locations before allowing secure wireless communication with a merchant communication terminal. For example, after detecting one of the trigger event mentioned herein, the method may further include verifying that the merchant's communication terminal is associated with a merchant or merchant location listed, or included within a list of preferred merchants or merchant locations for the driver or passenger identified using biometric or other data. (Gaudin: col. 33, lines 25-38).
Here, Gaudin teaches “extracting information relating to the transaction from said received request” because Gaudin’s comparison by the processors of the vehicle of the merchant identifier with a list of preferred merchants implies that these processors extract the identification of the merchant from the request. Further, Gaudin teaches “comparing the extracted information with use context data in relation to the communicating object that have been determined by the communicating object” because Gaudin compares by the processors the vehicle of the identification of the merchant with a list of preferred merchants. Thus, Gaudin teaches “extracting information” and “comparing the extracted information” limitations found in independent claims 1, 10, and 12.
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 1-10, 12, and 14-21, are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (Prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Here, the claimed invention of claims 1-9 is a series of steps, which is method (i.e., a process) and, thus, one of the statutory categories of invention. Further, the claimed invention of claims 10 and 14-21 is a system, which is also one of the statutory categories of invention. Still further, the claimed invention of claim 12 is a non-transitory computer-readable information medium which is also one of the statutory categories of invention.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-10, 12, and 14-21, are statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the test.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 1-10, 12, and 14-21, however, recite an abstract idea of controlling a contactless transaction between a communicating object and a communication device. The creation of controlling a contactless transaction between a communicating object and a communication device, as recited in the independent claims 1, 10, and 12, belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claims 1, 10, and 12, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea, are found in the following steps:
"extracting information relating to the transaction from said received request" (claims 1, 10, and 12);
"comparing the extracted information with use context data in relation to the communicating object that have been determined by the communicating object" (claims 1.10, and 12); and
"activating sending, to the communication device, a response to the request, said response authorizing the transaction in response to a match between the information relating to the transaction and the use context data" (claims 1, 10, and 12).
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claims 1, 10, and 12, recite additional elements:
"the communicating object" (claims 1, 10, and 12);
"communication device" (claims 1, 10, and 12);
"a processor" (claim 10); and
"a non-transitory computer-readable information medium comprising instructions of a computer program stored thereon" (claim 12).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Also, the following limitation recites insignificant extra solution activity (for example, data gathering):
"receiving a request containing data relating to the transaction" (claims 1, 10, and 12).
These additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 12, here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations). Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1, 10, and 12, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test: The additional elements of independent claims 1, 10, and 12, (see above under Step 2A - Prong 2) are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The Applicant’s Specification describes these additional elements in following terms:
The invention also relates to a communicating object having abilities to control a contactless transaction with a communication device, the communicating object comprising a processor that is configured to receive, from the communication device, a request containing data relating to the transaction. (page 6, lines 16-18).
The invention also relates to a computer program comprising instructions for implementing the method for controlling a contactless transaction according to the invention, according to any one of the particular embodiments described above, when said program is executed by a processor. Such instructions may be stored durably in a non-transient memory medium of the communicating object implementing the method for controlling a contactless transaction according to the invention. This program may use any programming language and be in the form of source code, object code or intermediate code between source code and object code, such as in a partially compiled form, or in any other desirable form. The invention also targets a computer-readable recording medium or information medium containing instructions of a computer program as mentioned above. The recording medium may be any entity or device capable of storing the program. (page 7, lines 1-13).
This is a description of general-purpose computer. Further, the limitation of "receiving" information amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reason this limitations is not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional limitation of "receiving" information was considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A - Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, it is also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), the additional limitation of independent claims 1, 10, and 12, receive data over a network in a merely generic manner. The courts have recognized "receiving" information function as well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional elements/limitation of independent claims 1, 10, and 12, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional elements/limitation add nothing more than what is present when the elements/limitation are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1, 10, and 12, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 2-9 depend on independent claim 1; and dependent claims 14-21 depend on independent claim 10. The elements in dependent claims 2-9 and 14-21, which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
"in the absence of a match between the information relating to the transaction and the use context data, the communicating object either activating sending, to the communication device, a response to the request declining the transaction, or not responding to the request" (Claims 2 and 14: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
"during the comparison of the extracted information with said use context data, at least one additional datum relating to the transaction is determined, said at least one additional datum being added to the response to the request authorizing the transaction" (Claims 3 and 15: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
"in response to the transaction being a payment and the communicating object comprising at least two means of payment associated respectively with two different users of the communicating object, the at least one additional datum is an identifier of the means of payment associated with one of the users of the communicating object at a time of the transaction" (Claims 4 and 16: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
"comparing the extracted information with said use context data comprises the following: generating a reliability score for the comparison; comparing the generated score with a threshold; and depending on a result of the comparison: activating sending, to the communication device, the response to the request authorizing the transaction; or activating sending, to the communication device, a response to the request declining the transaction or not responding to the request" (Claims 5 and 17: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
"the use context data in relation to the communicating object are representative of an environment in which the communicating object is located or contain at least one operating datum in relation to the communicating object" (Claims 6 and 18: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
"the at least one operating datum in relation to the communicating object is a current operating parameter recorded by the communicating object or an element of a history of transactions carried out by the communicating object" (Claims 7 and 19: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
"the use context data representative of an environment in which the communicating object is located are contained in a message received by the communicating object from a communication device or from a message-transmitting device located in said environment" (Claims 8 and 20: further narrowing the recited abstract idea); and
"the use context data representative of an environment in which the communicating object is located contains a datum from at least one sensor belonging to the communicating object" (Claims 9 and 21: further narrowing the recited abstract idea).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims 2-9 and 14-21 do not correct the deficiencies of independent claims 1 and 10 and they are, thus, rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-10, 12, and 14-21, are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under § 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under § 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 12, 15-16, and 18-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gaudin (US 10,803,440 B1).
As to Independent Claims 1, 10, and 12
Gaudin shows:
a communicating object comprising a processor that is configured to receive, from the communication device, a request containing data relating to the transaction, and to autonomously execute the following (Gaudin: col. 32, lines 22-26: step (3), "an identification of the merchant");
extracting information relating to the transaction from said received request (Gaudin: col. 33, lines 25-38: the comparison by the processors of the vehicle of the merchant identifier with a list of preferred merchants implies that these processors extract the identification of the merchant from the request);
comparing the extracted information with use context data in relation to the communicating object that have been determined by the communicating object (Gaudin: col. 33, lines 25-38: comparison by the processors of the vehicle of the identification of the merchant with a list of preferred merchants); and
activating sending, to the communication device, a response to the request, said response authorizing the transaction in response to a match between the information relating to the transaction and the use context data (Gaudin: col. 32, lines 26-44: steps (4) and (5) in combination with col. 33, lines 25-38: the vehicle processors transmit the order and/or the financial information only in the event that the merchant corresponds to one of the preferred merchants).
As to claims 3 and 15: Gaudin shows all the elements of claims 1 and 10. Gaudin also shows that during the comparison of the extracted information with said use context data, at least one additional datum relating to the transaction is determined, said at least one additional datum being added to the response to the request authorizing the transaction (Gaudin: col. 32, lines 26-44: "order" and "financial information").
As to claims 4 and 16: Gaudin shows all the elements of claims 3 and 15. Gaudin also shows that in response to the transaction being a payment and the communicating object comprising at least two means of payment associated respectively with two different users of the communicating object, the at least one additional datum is an identifier of the means of payment associated with one of the users of the communicating object at a time of the transaction (Gaudin: col. 5, lines 7-12).
As to claims 6 and 18: Gaudin shows all the elements of claims 1 and 10. Gaudin also shows that the use context data in relation to the communicating object are representative of an environment in which the communicating object is located or contain at least one operating datum in relation to the communicating object (Gaudin: col. 32, lines 24-26: the merchant identifier is indicative of the POS terminal and thus of the environment of the connected vehicle).
As to claims 7 and 19: Gaudin shows all the elements of claims 6 and 18. Gaudin also shows that the at least one operating datum in relation to the communicating object is a current operating parameter recorded by the communicating object or an element of a history of transactions carried out by the communicating object (Gaudin: col. 32, lines 51-56).
As to claims 8 and 20: Gaudin shows all the elements of claims 1 and 10. Gaudin also shows that the use context data representative of an environment in which the communicating object is located are contained in a message received by the communicating object from a communication device or from a message-transmitting device located in said environment (Gaudin: col. 32, lines 24-26: the merchant identifier is indicative of the POS terminal and thus of the environment of the connected vehicle).
As to claims 9 and 21: Gaudin shows all the elements of claims 1 and 10. Gaudin also shows that the use context data representative of an environment in which the communicating object is located contains a datum from at least one sensor belonging to the communicating object (Gaudin: col. 32, lines 24-26: the merchant identifier is indicative of the POS terminal and thus of the environment of the connected vehicle).
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 § 102 of this title, 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 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gaudin in view of Woods (US 2018/0181955 A1).
As to claims 2 and 14: Gaudin shows all the elements of claims 1 and 10. Gaudin does not show that in the absence of a match between the information relating to the transaction and the use context data, the communicating object either activating sending, to the communication device, a response to the request declining the transaction, or not responding to the request. Woods shows that in the absence of a match between the information relating to the transaction and the use context data, the communicating object either activating sending, to the communication device, a response to the request declining the transaction, or not responding to the request (Woods: page 4, ¶ 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and the system of Gaudin by in the absence of a match between the information relating to the transaction and the use context data, the communicating object either activating sending, to the communication device, a response to the request declining the transaction, or not responding to the request of Woods in order to utilize known protocols for communicating information between vehicle computing devices, merchant computing devices, and payment computing devices in order to enhance and further automate processing transactions and payments. (Woods: page 1, ¶ 4).
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gaudin in view of Fields (US 7,665,658 B2).
As to claims 5 and 17: Gaudin shows all the elements of claims 1 and 10. Gaudin also shows depending on a result of the comparison: activating sending, to the communication device, the response to the request authorizing the transaction; or activating sending, to the communication device, a response to the request declining the transaction or not responding to the request (Gaudin: col. 32, lines 26-44: steps (4) and (5) in combination with col. 33, lines 25-38: the vehicle processors transmit the order and/or the financial information only in the event that the merchant corresponds to one of the preferred merchants).
Gaudin does not show comparing the extracted information with said use context data comprises the following: generating a reliability score for the comparison; and comparing the generated score with a threshold. Fields shows comparing the extracted information with said use context data comprises the following: generating a reliability score for the comparison, and comparing the generated score with a threshold (Fields: col. 2, lines 11-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and the system of Gaudin by comparing the extracted information with said use context data comprises the following: generating a reliability score for the comparison; and comparing the generated score with a threshold of Fields in order to determine which transactions should be aggregated (Fields: col. 1, lines 9-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Desany (WO 2007087273 A2) discloses: “[0027] A "payment network" refers herein to an infrastructure that supports that exchange of data in implementing payment transactions. It is anticipated that the data Wexchange will typically proceed between merchants and financial institutions. Examples of existing commercial networks that are included within the definition of "payment network" include the STAR/MAC network, the NYCE.sup.® network, the VISA.sup.® network, and the MasterCard.sup.® network. Access to a network by a consumer is typically achieved through entry of a secret code, such as a personal identification number ("PEST"), in combination with data extracted from the contactless transaction device. In some embodiments, a signature of the consumer may be used in lieu of a secret code. In some instances, particularly in support of transactions having a low value, a consumer might be permitted access to the payment network with only information extracted from the contactless payment device, without the need to provide a PIN or signature.”
I. Lacmanović, B. Radulović and D. Lacmanović, "Contactless payment systems based on RFID technology," The 33rd International Convention MIPRO, Opatija, Croatia, 2010, pp. 1114-1119.
N. S. S. Shobha, K. S. P. Aruna, M. D. P. Bhagyashree and K. S. J. Sarita, "NFC and NFC payments: A review," 2016 International Conference on ICT in Business Industry & Government (ICTBIG), Indore, India, 2016, pp. 1-7.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 10 am – 6 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights