DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to amendment and response filed on 3/2/26. Claims 1, 23 and 24 have been amended. Claims 2 and 25 were cancelled. Claims 1, 3-6, 11-13 and 23-24, 26-32 are pending.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
pp. 17-19. step 2A, prong two,
The Applicant argues that “initializing an oracle service of an oracle and monitoring on-chain block confirmation and transaction events on a blockchain”, “encrypt a transaction request by using a public key of the payment front-end device based on an asymmetric encryption algorithm, the asymmetric encryption algorithm comprising an elliptic curve encryption algorithm that uses plane elliptic curves to calculate groups of asymmetric special values”, “call the oracle coupled to the payment front-end device through the smart contract” and “wherein the on-chain and off-chain transaction operations are performed interactively, to guarantee a credibility and security of the off-chain transaction compared to only performing off-chain transaction operations” are technical improvements that improve security in blockchain transactions by performing the transactions in a trusted environment.
The Examiner disagrees.
“initializing an oracle service of an oracle and monitoring on-chain block confirmation and transaction events on a blockchain” includes the additional elements of initializing “an oracle service of an oracle” on “a blockchain” which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). In this case, the claim merely discloses starting/initiating an application (the “oracle service” associated with a blockchain. “monitoring … confirmation and transaction events” merely further describes the abstract idea.
“encrypt a transaction request by using a public key of the payment front-end device based on an asymmetric encryption algorithm, the asymmetric encryption algorithm comprising an elliptic curve encryption algorithm that uses plane elliptic curves to calculate groups of asymmetric special values”. These additional elements that include encryption do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how the “the asymmetric encryption algorithm comprising an elliptic curve encryption algorithm that uses plane elliptic curves” encrypts information by “using a public key of the payment front-end device”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
“call the oracle coupled to the payment front-end device through the smart contract” recite additional elements disclosing execution of instructions within an instruction container such as the “smart contract” to communicate with the oracle and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“wherein the on-chain and off-chain transaction operations are performed interactively, to guarantee a credibility and security of the off-chain transaction compared to only performing off-chain transaction operations” discloses the additional elements of on-chain and off-chain which merely describe location of where a transaction associated with a blockchain is performed. As such, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Transaction operations performed interactively to guarantee a credibility and security of the transaction compared to only performing transaction operations merely further describes the abstract idea.
pp. 19-20, Step 2B,
The claims as a whole are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the recited additional elements:
do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or
do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
As such, an updated rejection addressing the amended claims is provided.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes, the phrasing “calling, by the blockchain” and “encrypting, by the blockchain” is being interpreted as “calling, by [the computer associated with the ledger], which is a less common interpretation, but is constant with Applicant’s use throughout the specification.
To explain further, Applicant’s use of the term “blockchain” herein is atypical. This is because the term “blockchain” in its narrowest interpretation refers to the ledger (e.g. the records, and metadata) itself, which data. In this interpretation, data would not be capable of performing “calling” or “encrypting” on its own. Applicant uses the term “chain” for this (see ¶ 4 for example)
In perhaps the most common interpretation of the term “blockchain” the term refers, more broadly, to the technologies associated maintaining the aforementioned ledger (e.g. the encryption algorithms, the rules and procedures, etc.). Effectively a (a shorthand for “blockchain technology”. However, this interpretation appears to be a bit broader than the applicant uses the term. Applicant uses the term “blockchain technology” for this (see ¶ 2, for example)
In the instant application, the term “blockchain” is being used constantly to mean “a computer associated with the ledger”, or what would be traditionally known as blockchain “node”. This can be seen in ¶ 52, where Applicant points to fig 1. element 102, and fig. 2 “Blockchain”. Therefore, this is the interpretation the examiner has taken of the term.
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 1-6, 11-13 and 23-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite a process (claim 1), an apparatus (claim 23) and an article of manufacture (claim 24). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 23 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity and mathematical concepts, as a method of providing financial transaction verification and settlement through an intermediary, as are all a form of commercial or legal interaction.
A payment system, comprising:
a payment front-end device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the program, implements:
initializing an oracle service of an oracle and monitoring on-chain block confirmation and transaction events on a blockchain;
the oracle, which is a computing device that connects external data and a smart contract, and configured to act as an intermediate layer between the blockchain and data application programming interfaces (APIs) of the payment front-end device;
a blockchain node in the blockchain, configured to:
encrypt a transaction request by using a public key of the payment front-end device based on an asymmetric encryption algorithm, the asymmetric encryption algorithm comprising an elliptic curve encryption algorithm that uses plane elliptic curves to calculate groups of asymmetric special values;
call the oracle coupled to the payment front-end device through the smart contract;
send the transaction request to the payment front-end device through the oracle;
perform an on-chain processing operation corresponding to the transaction request based on a transaction pre-processing outcome transmitted by the payment front-end device, to generate an on-chain transaction outcome;
wherein the processor of the payment front-end device is further configured to implement:
receiving, by the payment front-end device, the transaction request sent by the blockchain, the transaction request comprising a sender account, a payment amount, and a recipient account, wherein the sender account and the recipient account are off-chain accounts;
decrypting, by the payment front-end device, the transaction request by using a private key based on the asymmetric encryption algorithm;
in response to the encrypted transaction request being intercepted by a third party, presenting random numbers and letters to the third party;
in response to the transaction request after the decrypting, sending, by the payment front-end device, a corresponding transaction pre-processing request to an off-chain payment system, wherein the transaction pre-processing request comprises a request of transferring the payment amount from the sender account to the recipient account and a request of locking the payment amount in the recipient account, and wherein the off-chain payment system performs a corresponding transaction pre-processing operation, to obtain a transaction pre-processing outcome;
receiving, by the payment front-end device, the transaction pre-processing outcome sent by the off-chain payment system, and sending, by the payment front-end device, the transaction pre-processing outcome to the blockchain;
detecting, by the payment front-end device, that the blockchain has generated the on-chain transaction outcome corresponding to the transaction request;
in response to the on-chain transaction outcome indicating a successful on-chain transaction, sending, by the payment front-end device, a first transaction instruction note to the off-chain payment system to release the lock of the payment amount in the recipient account; and
in response to the on-chain transaction outcome indicating an unsuccessful on-chain transaction, sending, by the payment front-end device, a second transaction instruction note to the off-chain payment system to return the payment amount from the recipient account to the sender account,
wherein the on-chain and off-chain transaction operations are performed interactively, to guarantee a credibility and security of the off-chain transaction compared to only performing off-chain transaction operations.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“ A payment system, comprising”, “a payment front-end device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the program, implements”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“initializing an oracle service of an oracle”, “on-chain block” and “a blockchain”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[receiving …] sent by the off-chain payment system, and sending, by the payment front-end device […] to the blockchain”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“the oracle, which is a computing device that connects external data and a smart contract, and configured to act as an intermediate layer between the blockchain and data application programming interfaces (APIs) of the payment front-end device”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“a blockchain node in the blockchain, configured”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“encrypt […] by using a public key of the payment front-end device based on an asymmetric encryption algorithm, the asymmetric encryption algorithm comprising an elliptic curve encryption algorithm that uses plane elliptic curves”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the details of how the “the asymmetric encryption algorithm comprising an elliptic curve encryption algorithm that uses plane elliptic curves” encrypts information by “using a public key of the payment front-end device”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
“call the oracle coupled to the payment front-end device through the smart contract”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“send [the transaction request] to the payment front-end device through the oracle”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[perform an] on-chain [processing operation …] transmitted by the payment front-end device, [to generate an] on-chain [transaction outcome]”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“wherein the processor of the payment front-end device is further configured to implement”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[receiving], by the payment front-end device, […] sent by the blockchain, [… are] off-chain [accounts]”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“decrypting, by the payment front-end device, […] by using a private key based on the asymmetric encryption algorithm”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the details of how information is decrypted “by using a private key based on the asymmetric encryption algorithm”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
“[in response to the] encrypted [transaction request …] presenting […]”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[in response to …] the decrypting, sending, by the payment front-end device, […] to an off-chain payment system”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[receiving], by the payment front-end device, […] sent by the off-chain payment system, and sending, by the payment front-end device, […] to the blockchain”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[in response to …] sending, by the payment front-end device, […] to the off-chain payment system”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of providing financial transaction verification and settlement through an intermediary, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 3 and 26, recited “wherein sending the corresponding transaction pre-processing request to the off-chain payment system comprises”, “decrypting the encrypted transaction request to obtain transaction information in the transaction request” and “generating the transaction pre-processing request based on the transaction information”, and “sending the transaction pre-processing request to the off-chain payment system”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“sending the corresponding transaction pre-processing request to the off-chain payment system”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of providing financial transaction verification and settlement by securing the transaction with a cryptographic algorithm, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 4 and 27, recited “in response to transaction request sent by the blockchain, determining whether the on- chain transaction identifier, contract name, and call sequence number included in the transaction request are consistent with an on-chain transaction identifier, contract name, and call sequence number included in a historical transaction request”, “determining that the on-chain transaction identifier, contract name, and call sequence number included in the transaction request are consistent with an on-chain transaction identifier, contract name, and call sequence number included in a historical transaction request” and “in response to that the on-chain transaction identifier, contract name, and call sequence number included in the transaction request are consistent with the on-chain transaction identifier, contract name, and call sequence number included in the historical transaction request, sending the corresponding transaction pre-processing request to the off-chain payment system”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“sent by the blockchain” and “sending the corresponding transaction pre-processing request to the off-chain payment system”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of providing financial transaction verification and settlement by securing the transaction with a cryptographic algorithm, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 5 and 28, recited “in response to that the on-chain transaction identifier, contract name, and call sequence number included in the transaction request are consistent with the on-chain transaction identifier, contract name, and call sequence number included in the historical transaction request, determining whether a transaction pre-processing outcome corresponding to the transaction request has been cached”, “in response to that the transaction pre-processing outcome corresponding to the transaction request has been cached, sending the cached transaction pre-processing outcome corresponding to the transaction request to the blockchain” and “in response to that the transaction pre-processing outcome corresponding to the transaction request has not been cached, waiting for the off-chain payment system to return the transaction pre-processing outcome corresponding to the transaction request”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“determining whether […] has been cached” and “[…] has not been cached”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of providing financial transaction verification and settlement through an intermediary, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 6, recited “before sending the transaction instruction note to the off-chain payment system”, “detecting that the blockchain has generated a predefined number of blocks corresponding to the transaction request” and “upon detecting that the blockchain has generated the predefined number of blocks corresponding to the transaction request, determining that the on-chain transaction outcome corresponding to the transaction request indicates a successful on-chain transaction”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“detecting that the blockchain has generated a predefined number of blocks”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of providing financial transaction verification and settlement through an intermediary, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 11, recited “wherein the sender account is a payment token applied by a client terminal from a token service provider through the payment front-end device”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“[…] applied by a client terminal from a token service provider through the payment front-end device”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of providing financial transaction verification and settlement through an intermediary, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 12, recited “wherein the transaction request includes a sender address, a digital currency string corresponding to the sender address, and a recipient address, wherein the sender address and the recipient address are obtained by a client terminal through a digital currency wallet, and the transaction pre-processing request includes a request to lock the digital currency string” and “detecting that the on-chain transaction outcome indicates a successful on-chain transaction, and sending a fifth transaction instruction note to the off-chain payment system, where the fifth transaction instruction note is a note of transferring the digital currency string from the sender address to the recipient address, to obtain a fifth off-chain transaction outcome”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“[wherein … a] digital [currency string … obtained] by a client terminal through [a] digital [currency wallet]” and “[detecting …] sending a fifth transaction instruction note to the off-chain payment system”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, “digital [currency string]” and “digital [currency wallet]” are general linking as “digital” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of providing financial transaction verification and settlement through an intermediary, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 13, recited “wherein the transaction request includes a sender address, a digital currency string corresponding to the sender address, and a recipient address, wherein the sender address and the recipient address are obtained by a client terminal through a digital currency wallet, and the transaction pre-processing request includes a request to lock the digital currency string”, “detecting that the on-chain transaction outcome indicates an unsuccessful on-chain transaction, sending a sixth transaction instruction note to the off-chain payment system, wherein the sixth transaction instruction note is a note of releasing the digital currency string, to obtain a sixth off-chain transaction outcome”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“[detecting …] sending a sixth transaction instruction note to the off-chain payment system”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of providing financial transaction verification and settlement through an intermediary, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 29, recited “wherein, before sending the transaction instruction note to the off-chain payment system, the computer program further causes the payment front-end device to implement”, “when it is detected that the blockchain has generated a predefined number of blocks corresponding to the transaction request, determining that the on-chain transaction outcome corresponding to the transaction request indicates a successful on-chain transaction” and “if it is not detected that the blockchain has generated a predefined number of blocks corresponding to the transaction request, determining that the on-chain transaction outcome corresponding to the transaction request indicates an unsuccessful on-chain transaction, wherein the predefined number is determined based on configuration information of a consensus algorithm or endorsement strategy in the blockchain”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“when it is detected that the blockchain has generated a predefined number of blocks […]”, “if it is not detected that the blockchain has generated a predefined number of blocks […]” and “a consensus algorithm […] in the blockchain”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of providing financial transaction verification and settlement through an intermediary, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 3, 4, 26, 27 and 30-32 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights