DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in response to Applicant’s Response to the Election/Restriction Filed dated October 31, 2025.
2. Applicant has elected Invention III, Claims 13-20, without traverse, for continued prosecution. Claims 1-12 are non-elected by Applicant.
3. Claims 13-20 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
4. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
5. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
- Claim 13 recites the following: “where the mobile device and the ATM are configured for performing steps including;” followed by a number of steps presented in the form of method steps. It appears that instead of a semi-colon, this should be a colon and the subsequent steps should be indented further. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the claim in this manner, however appropriate correction is required.
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.
6. Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Claim 13 recites a system claim.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 13 recites the abstract idea of dispensing a cash withdrawal. The idea is described by the following limitations:
transmitting data;
validating an identity of a user;
dispensing cash based on parameters including data transmitted.
The abstract ideas describe certain methods of organizing human activity.
As to certain methods of organizing human activity, the steps involve fundamental economic practices (banking), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) (i.e., transmitting data; validating an identity of a user; and dispensing cash based on parameters including data transmitted).
In the case of the instant claims, the claims may be reciting no more than a user transmitting data to an ATM in order to withdraw cash. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 13 recites a mobile device including a processor, memory and NFC capability, a digital banking systems application (app), a remote computing device, an ATM including a processor, memory, and NFC capability; and an NFC connection.
In particular, the claims only recite a mobile device including a processor, memory and NFC capability, digital banking application (app), a remote computing device, an ATM including a processor, memory, and NFC capability, which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Using NFC of a mobile device associated with a user and the NFC of the ATM are steps that involve the systemization merely as a tool to perform an existing process and describe in general terms application of the judicial exception. The application does not asset that Applicant invented or improved NFC connections, thus further indicating that there is no technological integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory and electronically scanning or extracting data all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“FIG. 1 illustrates a system 100 and environment thereof, including centralized and distributed computing devices, according to at least one embodiment, by which a user 110 benefits through use of services and products of an enterprise system 200. The user 110 access services and products by use of one or more user devices, illustrates in separate examples as a computing device 104 and a mobile device 106, which may be, as non-limiting examples, a smart phone, a portable digital assistant (PDA), a pager, a mobile television, a gaming device, a laptop computer, a camera, a video recorder, an audio/video player, radio, a GPS device, or any combination of the aforementioned, or other portable device with processing and communication capabilities. In the illustrated example, the mobile device 106 is illustrated in FIG. 1 as having exemplary elements, the below descriptions of which apply as well to the computing device 104, which can be, as non-limiting examples, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, or other user-accessible computing device.” (See Applicant Spec para 23)
“Furthermore, the user device, referring to either or both of the computing device 104 and the mobile device 106, may be or include a workstation, a server, or any other suitable device, including a set of servers, a cloud-based application or system, or any other suitable system, adapted to execute, for example any suitable operating system, including Linux, UNIX, Windows, macOS, iOS, Android and any other known operating system used on personal computers, central computing systems, phones, and other devices.” (See Applicant Spec para 24)
“The user device, as illustrated with reference to the mobile device 106, includes components such as, at least one of each of a processing device 120, and a memory device 122 for processing use, such as random access memory (RAM), and read-only memory (ROM). The illustrated mobile device 106 further includes a storage device 124 including at least one of a non-transitory storage medium, such as a microdrive, for long-term, intermediate-term, and short-term storage of computer-readable instructions 126 for execution by the processing device 120. For example, the instructions 126 can include instructions for an operating system and various applications or programs 130, of which the application 132 is represented as a particular example. The storage device 124 can store various other data items 134, which can include, as non-limiting examples, cached data, user files such as those for pictures, audio and/or video recordings, files downloaded or received from other devices, and other data items preferred by the user or required or related to any or all of the applications or programs 130.” (See Applicant Spec para 26)
“The memory device 122 and storage device 124 can store any of a number of applications which comprise computer-executable instructions and code executed by the processing device 120 to implement the functions of the mobile device 106 described herein. For example, the memory device 122 may include such applications as a conventional web browser application and/or a mobile P2P payment system client application. These applications also typically provide a graphical user interface (GUI) on the display 140 that allows the user 110 to communicate with the mobile device 106, and, for example, a mobile banking system, and/or other devices or systems. In one embodiment, when the user 110 decides to enroll in a mobile banking program, the user 110 downloads or otherwise obtains the mobile banking system client application from a mobile banking system, for example enterprise system 200, or from a distinct application server. In other embodiments, the user 110 interacts with a mobile banking system via a web browser application in addition to, or instead of, the mobile P2P payment system client application.” (See Applicant Spec para 28)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claim 13 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 14-20 further define the abstract idea that is presented in the respective independent claim and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above.
Claim 14 further discloses additional details regarding the remote computing device running a banking back-office system which manages account transactions. Claim 15 further discloses additional communication channel between the mobile device and the ATM which may include peer-to-peer WiFi or Bluetooth. Claim 20 further discloses ways to validate an identity of a user of the mobile device which can include facial recognition or a biometric scan. In each instance, the additional elements presented are recited at a high level of generality and fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claim(s) 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Patent 11,257,067) (“Yang”) in view of Naik et. al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0165663) (“Naik”)
Regarding Claim 13, Yang discloses the following:
A cardless cash withdrawal system enabled by near-field communication, said system comprising:
a mobile device including a processor, memory and near-field communication (NFC) capability, the mobile device running a digital banking systems application (app), where the mobile device is in communication with a remote computing device which interacts with the mobile device in running the digital banking systems application; and (See Yang, Col. 3, lines 55-64; Col. 4, lines 1-46, 63-67; Col. 5, lines 1-13, 20-28, Fig. 1; – touchless transaction computing system includes a user mobile device, a provider institution computing system and the one or more user-interactive devices which are each communicably coupled and configured to exchange information over a network; user mobile device may be a mobile computing device associated with a user and is shown to include a network interface circuit, a processing circuit, a mobile application, and an input/output circuit; the network interface circuit [of the mobile computing device] enables the user mobile device to transmit and/or receive information to/from the provider institution computing system [remote computing device] and the one or more user-interactive devices 140 and may include a combination of wireless network transceivers (e.g., cellular modem, a NFC transceiver, a Bluetooth receiver, a WiFi transceiver, etc.) and/or a wired network transceivers; the processing circuit [of the mobile computing device] includes a memory and a processor; the user mobile device is configured to run a variety of application programs and store associated data in a database of the memory where one such application may be the provider institution mobile application [digital banking systems app]; the mobile device includes a mobile application (also referred to as client application), mobile client application and/or provider institution client application that is provided by and coupled to the provider institution computing system. In the example shown, the mobile application is structured as a mobile banking application developed and maintained by the provider institution [digital banking systems app])
an automated teller machine (ATM) including a processor, memory and NFC capability, where the ATM is also in communication with the remote computing device, (See Yang, Col. 3, lines 55-64; Col. 4, lines 1-46, 63-67;Col. 5, line 65-Col. 6, line 50; Col. 11, lines 32-41, 59-67; Col. 12, lines 1-39 – user interaction device 140 is an ATM, NFC communication; user-interactive device or ATM includes a network interface circuit, a processing circuit (which includes a memory coupled to a processor), and an input/output circuit; network interface circuit is structured to establish connections with other computing systems (e.g., user mobile device, provider institution computing system)
where the mobile device and the ATM are configured for performing steps including:
determining that the mobile device is in close proximity of less than five centimeters separation from a designated location on the ATM; (See Yang Col. 6, lines 16-52 – use of NFC implicates a close physical relationship between the mobile device and the device 140 [ATM] and once paired, the mobile device and device 140 may communicate to enable a touchless transaction)
establishing a near-field communication (NFC) connection between the mobile device and the ATM; (See Yang Col. 6, lines 16-52 – use of NFC implicates a close physical relationship between the mobile device and the device 140 [ATM] and once paired, the mobile device and device 140 may communicate to enable a touchless transaction)
transmitting data from the mobile device to the ATM using the NFC connection; (See Yang Col. 6, lines 16-52 – once paired with the user interactive device, data may be exchanged with the user interactive device as part of a touchless transaction to communicate data payloads with an ATM)
validating an identity of a user of the mobile device using either the mobile device or the ATM; and (See Yang Col. 5, lines 35-48; Col. 7, lines 41-51 – user may be required to provide various authentication information to ensure that the user is associated with the user mobile device is authorized to use the mobile application)
dispensing cash by the ATM based on parameters including the data transmitted from the mobile device to the ATM using the NFC connection.(See Yang Col. 17, lines 26-41 – based on the payloads delivered by NFC taps from the user mobile device to the ATM, user can successfully receive their withdrawal in the amount desired and distributed in the currency denomination designated)
Yang discloses his invention as to systems and methods for contactless ATM transactions. (See Yang Abstract) Yang discloses that the innovations related to systems and methods for executing transactions, pre-staged or otherwise, through at least one “tap” of a mobile device against a user-interactive device (e.g., an ATM) where the touchless transactions may be conducted via NFC taps of a mobile device against the user interactive device. (See Yang Col.2, line 60-Col. 3, line 2)
While Yang discloses the invention as described above, and discloses establishing a NFC connection between the mobile device and the ATM via tapping, thus indicative of close proximity, Yang does not clearly disclose that the close proximity is of less than five centimeters from a designated location on the ATM.
Naik discloses his invention as to methods and systems for performing pre-staged transaction, such as a cash withdrawal by a user or a user’s surrogate, employ a host server that receives pre-staged ATM transaction data via a first communication channel from a user’s mobile device and sends a first unique authentication token via a second communication channel to the user’s mobile device processor. (See Naik Abstract) An ATM processor receives entry of a pre-staged ATM transaction request and the first unique authentication token and sends the pre-staged ATM transaction and first unique authentication token to the host server for validation, which validates the received pre-staged ATM transaction input data and the entered first unique authentication token. (See Naik Abstract)
Naik also discloses that the NFC reader of the NFC enabled ATM may receive data transmitted from the user’s NFC-enabled mobile device when the user approaches the ATM and waves or taps the mobile device on or near the NFC reader of the ATM. (See Naik paras 30-31 – tapping on the NFC reader is distinguished from waving the mobile device and is noted to be on [less than five centimeters if the reader is on, not just waved above the reader] the NFC reader of the ATM [designated location on the ATM]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the systems and methods of contactless ATM transactions using taps of a mobile device against an user interactive device [ATM] as disclosed by Yang with the methods and systems for performing pre-staged transactions using NFC technology where the mobile device is tapped on a NFC reader of the ATM in order to impose additional control features on pre-staged ATM withdrawals by requiring more precise interaction.
Regarding Claim 14, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 13 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Yang discloses the following:
wherein the remote computing device runs a banking back-office system which manages account transactions performed by the digital banking systems app and the ATM. (See Yang Col. 9, lines 23-50)
Regarding Claim 15, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 13 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Yang discloses the following:
wherein, after the NFC connection between the mobile device and the ATM is used to establish another, non-NFC, communication channel between the mobile device and the ATM, where the other communication channel includes peer-to-peer WiFi or Bluetooth. (See Yang Col. 6, lines 16-52)
Regarding Claim 16, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 13 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Yang discloses the following:
wherein dispensing cash is only performed by the ATM when the user is physically present at the ATM as witnessed by the NFC connection to the mobile device. (See Yang Col. 17, lines 26-41 – based on the payloads delivered by NFC taps from the user mobile device to the ATM, user can successfully receive their withdrawal in the amount desired and distributed in the currency denomination designated)
Regarding Claim 17, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 13 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Yang discloses the following:
wherein the parameters include an amount of a cash withdrawal, a specification of a client account with sufficient funds to cover the amount of the cash withdrawal, and validation that the identity of the user of the mobile device corresponds with the client account. (See Yang Col. 5, lines 35-48, Col. 7, lines 41-51, Col. 10, lines 39-66; Col. 14, lines 9-30 & 42-52; Col. 17, lines 26-41)
Regarding Claim 18, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 17 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Yang discloses the following:
wherein the digital banking systems app includes features for the user to prepare for the cash withdrawal when the user is remote from the ATM, where the features include defining the amount of the cash withdrawal and providing directions to the ATM. (See Yang Col. 7, line 52 – Col. 8, line, 65; Col. 10, lines 39-66 – pre-staging at a particular ATM location)
Regarding Claim 19, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 17 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Yang discloses the following:
wherein one or more of the parameters is entered directly into the ATM by the user, or is communicated to the ATM by the mobile device using a communication channel other than the NFC connectivity. (See Yang Col. 7, line 52 – Col. 8, line, 65; Col. 9, line 59-Col. 10, line 66)
Regarding Claim 20, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 13 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Yang discloses the following:
wherein validating an identity of a user of the mobile device includes using a validation method selected from a group comprising; entering a personal identification number (PIN) into either the mobile device or the ATM by the user, performing a facial recognition of the user by the mobile device, and performing a biometric scan of the user by the ATM. (See Yang Col.5, lines 35-48, Col. 7, lines 41-51, Col. 14,lines 9-30 – PIN, biometric scan, facial feature analysis)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 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 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 February 15, 2026