DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 4/29/2024. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The abstract is objected to under 37 CFR 1.72 because it refers to merits of the application, ie, “The method also provides vendors, during the commercial transaction, with additional reassurance in deciding whether or not to accept a means of payment from their customers” and exceeds 150 words. Please see MPEP § 608.01(b). Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to for failing to include a CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS section. Please see 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Referring to MPEP 2161(I), an original claim may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
Claims 1 and 2 recite an “image recognition algorithm”. Claim 1 recites an “algorithm based on a lookup table containing bank codes and contact information”. Claim 3 recites an “algorithm, based on a lookup table containing the codes of the banks and contact information”. Claim 5 recites “an algorithm makes it possible to display, on the screen of a mobile telephone or a computer, instructions readable by the user, a percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident of a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange associated with light traffic”. None of algorithms recited in the claims are described in the specification with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. Besides one mention of a “score algorithm” on page 4, it appears that algorithms are not discussed in the specification at all.
Claim 4 is rejected due to its dependence on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The operations of the method must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative method. The claims must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patents cited.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A Section 101 analysis is below.
Step 1 – are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The methods of claim 1 is within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong one – do the claims recite a judicial exception, which is an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method for automatically displaying on the screen of a mobile phone or computer a percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident, by a predictive scoring model based on several characteristics extracted from a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange, which are subject of instantaneous communication between the server of the processing center and the server of the bank, and thus allowing a merchant to decide whether or not to accept a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange during a sales transaction depending on the color of the light traffic associated with the probability percentage calculated by the model, and including the following steps:
● Display on the screen of a mobile phone or computer user-readable instructions for capturing an image of a Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange with a mobile phone or with a reader check or scanner connected to a computer.
● Extract the following parameters using an image recognition algorithm: - The bank account number - The number of the Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange - The amount of the Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange then store these extracted parameters on the processing center server.
● Send from the processing center server the extracted parameters from a Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange to the bank server using an algorithm based on a lookup table containing bank codes and contact information, allowing secure communication to be automatically established with the appropriate bank.
● Receive as response from the bank server, and retain, the following new parameters, which characterize the solvency of the issuer of a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange: a- Is the bank account open or closed? b- Is the Check or the Standardized Bill of Exchange subject to a loss or theft report? c- Is the Check or the Standardized Bill of Exchange subject to opposition? d- Has the drawee registered incidents of unpaid Checks or Standardized Bills of Exchange that have not yet been settled? e- Is the bank account balance + (eventually the cash facility) greater than or equal to the amount of the Check or the Standardized Bill of Exchange?
● Automatically calculate by a predictive scoring model, once the answers for the three new parameters above are as follows: a- YES b- NON c- NON a percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident based on the parameters listed below, recorded in the processing center server database, and for which a relative contribution is attributed to each parameter: - History of incidents of unpaid Checks and Standardized Bills of Exchange. - Availability or not of funds in the drawee's bank account - Amount of the Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange belongs to one of the six ranges of incident payment identified by the Central Bank. - Business sector of the beneficiary of the Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange. - Monthly seasonality of incidents of unpaid Checks and Standardized Bills of Exchange.
● Display on the screen of a mobile phone or computer user-readable instructions related to the percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident, automatically calculated by a predictive scoring model, associated with traffic light displaying one of the three colors: Red, Orange, Green depending on the percentage of probability of occurrence calculated, to thus enable a merchant to decide whether or not to accept a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange during a sales transaction based on traffic light color.
● Store the percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident, calculated automatically by a predictive scoring model in a database on the processing center server together with the parameters extracted from a Check or Payment Letter Standardized Exchange and the new parameters received from the bank's server and which characterize the solvency of the issuer of a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange.
Referring to the limitations above, independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106. Specifically, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, as drafted claim 1 only recites the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk by providing a payment incidence probability percentage for a merchant to decide whether or not to accept a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange during a sales transaction.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Although the claims have been placed in the fundamental economic practices or principles subgrouping of the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A), the claims also fall in the commercial or legal interactions subgrouping discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) lists mitigating settlement risk and a transaction performance guaranty as examples of commercial or legal interactions. Here, verifying a check is a commercial or legal interactions.
Step 2A, prong two – do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Integration of the judicial exception into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Regarding claim 1, this claim only recites the additional elements of a computer, mobile phone, screen, servers, reader check, scanner, image recognition algorithm, algorithm based on a lookup table, predictive scoring model and database to perform displaying a percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident, by a predictive scoring model based on several characteristics extracted from a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange, which are subject of instantaneous communication between the processing center and the bank, and thus allowing a merchant to decide whether or not to accept a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange during a sales transaction depending on the color of the light traffic associated with the probability percentage calculated by the model, and including the following steps: capturing an image of a Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange, Extract the following parameters using an image recognition algorithm: - The bank account number - The number of the Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange - The amount of the Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange then store these extracted parameters on the processing center; Send from the processing center the extracted parameters from a Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange to the bank using bank codes and contact information, allowing communication to be established with the appropriate bank; Receive as response from the bank, and retain, the following new parameters, which characterize the solvency of the issuer of a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange: a- Is the bank account open or closed? b- Is the Check or the Standardized Bill of Exchange subject to a loss or theft report? c- Is the Check or the Standardized Bill of Exchange subject to opposition? d- Has the drawee registered incidents of unpaid Checks or Standardized Bills of Exchange that have not yet been settled? e- Is the bank account balance + (eventually the cash facility) greater than or equal to the amount of the Check or the Standardized Bill of Exchange?; Automatically calculate, once the answers for the three new parameters above are as follows: a- YES b- NON c- NON a percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident based on the parameters listed below, recorded in the processing center, and for which a relative contribution is attributed to each parameter: - History of incidents of unpaid Checks and Standardized Bills of Exchange. - Availability or not of funds in the drawee's bank account - Amount of the Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange belongs to one of the six ranges of incident payment identified by the Central Bank. - Business sector of the beneficiary of the Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange. - Monthly seasonality of incidents of unpaid Checks and Standardized Bills of Exchange. Display the percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident, automatically calculated by a predictive scoring model, associated with traffic light displaying one of the three colors: Red, Orange, Green depending on the percentage of probability of occurrence calculated, to thus enable a merchant to decide whether or not to accept a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange during a sales transaction based on traffic light color. Store the percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident, calculated automatically by a predictive scoring model in the processing center together with the parameters extracted from a Check or Payment Letter Standardized Exchange and the new parameters received from the bank and which characterize the solvency of the issuer of a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) discussing when the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished this does not show integration into a practical application. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application. It is further noted that the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer components themselves or a technological solution to a technological problem.
Step 2B – do the claims recited additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 1, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer, mobile phone, screen, servers, reader check, scanner, image recognition algorithm, algorithm based on a lookup table, predictive scoring model and database to perform displaying a percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident, by a predictive scoring model based on several characteristics extracted from a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange, which are subject of instantaneous communication between the processing center and the bank, and thus allowing a merchant to decide whether or not to accept a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange during a sales transaction depending on the color of the light traffic associated with the probability percentage calculated by the model, and including the following steps: capturing an image of a Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange, Extract the following parameters using an image recognition algorithm: - The bank account number - The number of the Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange - The amount of the Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange then store these extracted parameters on the processing center; Send from the processing center the extracted parameters from a Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange to the bank using bank codes and contact information, allowing communication to be established with the appropriate bank; Receive as response from the bank, and retain, the following new parameters, which characterize the solvency of the issuer of a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange: a- Is the bank account open or closed? b- Is the Check or the Standardized Bill of Exchange subject to a loss or theft report? c- Is the Check or the Standardized Bill of Exchange subject to opposition? d- Has the drawee registered incidents of unpaid Checks or Standardized Bills of Exchange that have not yet been settled? e- Is the bank account balance + (eventually the cash facility) greater than or equal to the amount of the Check or the Standardized Bill of Exchange?; Automatically calculate, once the answers for the three new parameters above are as follows: a- YES b- NON c- NON a percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident based on the parameters listed below, recorded in the processing center, and for which a relative contribution is attributed to each parameter: - History of incidents of unpaid Checks and Standardized Bills of Exchange. - Availability or not of funds in the drawee's bank account - Amount of the Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange belongs to one of the six ranges of incident payment identified by the Central Bank. - Business sector of the beneficiary of the Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange. - Monthly seasonality of incidents of unpaid Checks and Standardized Bills of Exchange. Display the percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident, automatically calculated by a predictive scoring model, associated with traffic light displaying one of the three colors: Red, Orange, Green depending on the percentage of probability of occurrence calculated, to thus enable a merchant to decide whether or not to accept a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange during a sales transaction based on traffic light color. Store the percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident, calculated automatically by a predictive scoring model in the processing center together with the parameters extracted from a Check or Payment Letter Standardized Exchange and the new parameters received from the bank and which characterize the solvency of the issuer of a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The computer components implementing the abstract idea appear to be generic in view of at least Applicant’s specification, pages 6 and 7. Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In view of the above analysis, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-5 do not cure the deficiencies in their respective base claims, and are also not patent eligible. Specifically, claims 2-5 merely refine the abstract idea (2A1) by invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (2A2, 2B). Regarding the further additional elements in the dependent claims including the image recognition algorithm (claim 2), algorithm, servers (claim 3), predictive rating model (claim 4), algorithm (claim 5), please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application or provide significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frew (US 2012/0177281) in view of Steger (US 5,594,226).
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for automatically displaying on the screen of a mobile phone or computer a percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident, by a predictive scoring model based on several characteristics extracted from a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange, which are subject of instantaneous communication between the server of the processing center and the server of the bank, and thus allowing a merchant to decide whether or not to accept a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange during a sales transaction depending on the color of the light traffic associated with the probability percentage calculated by the model, and including the following steps: (Frew, Fig. 4, [0051], method 400 for mobile communication device-based check verification)
● Display on the screen of a mobile phone or computer user-readable instructions for capturing an image of a Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange with a mobile phone or with a reader check or scanner connected to a computer. (Frew, Fig. 4, [0053], event 410, seller 20 captures image of check on mobile communication device 40)
● Extract the following parameters using an image recognition algorithm: - The bank account number - The number of the Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange - The amount of the Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange then store these extracted parameters on the processing center server. (Frew, Fig. 4, [0053], extract data from check including amount, account number, serial number; [0042], check data extraction routine)
● Send from the processing center server the extracted parameters from a Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange to the bank server using an algorithm based on a lookup table containing bank codes and contact information, allowing secure communication to be automatically established with the appropriate bank. (Frew, Fig. 4, [0054], [0055], check validity is determined via wireless network communication with check verification entities including financial institutions from mobile communication device 40. Frew does not specifically disclose a lookup table containing bank codes and contact information. Steger, Fig. 3, 5:1-5:17, discloses a lookup table containing bank codes and contact information used for check verification. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the communication of Frew to include the lookup table containing bank codes and contact information as in Steger so that a check may be verified with a financial institution as discussed in Steger, 1:54-1:67, and Frew, [0010]. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to include the features as taught in Steger in Frew since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, both are in the field of check verification and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination to be predictable.)
● Receive as response from the bank server, and retain, the following new parameters, which characterize the solvency of the issuer of a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange: a- Is the bank account open or closed? b- Is the Check or the Standardized Bill of Exchange subject to a loss or theft report? c- Is the Check or the Standardized Bill of Exchange subject to opposition? d- Has the drawee registered incidents of unpaid Checks or Standardized Bills of Exchange that have not yet been settled? e- Is the bank account balance + (eventually the cash facility) greater than or equal to the amount of the Check or the Standardized Bill of Exchange? (Frew, Fig. 4, [0054], check validity; [0043], fraud indicators)
● Automatically calculate by a predictive scoring model, once the answers for the three new parameters above are as follows: a- YES b- NON c- NON a percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident based on the parameters listed below, recorded in the processing center server database, and for which a relative contribution is attributed to each parameter: - History of incidents of unpaid Checks and Standardized Bills of Exchange. - Availability or not of funds in the drawee's bank account - Amount of the Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange belongs to one of the six ranges of incident payment identified by the Central Bank. - Business sector of the beneficiary of the Check or Standardized Bill of Exchange. - Monthly seasonality of incidents of unpaid Checks and Standardized Bills of Exchange. (Frew, Fig. 4, [0056], comprehensive validity score; [0043], fraud indicators)
● Display on the screen of a mobile phone or computer user-readable instructions related to the percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident, automatically calculated by a predictive scoring model, associated with traffic light displaying one of the three colors: Red, Orange, Green depending on the percentage of probability of occurrence calculated, to thus enable a merchant to decide whether or not to accept a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange during a sales transaction based on traffic light color. (Frew, Fig. 4, [0057], at event 440 the score may be converted into a validity indication and presented on the mobile communication device 40, states of the likelihood of validity may be color coded in green, yellow, red)
● Store the percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident, calculated automatically by a predictive scoring model in a database on the processing center server together with the parameters extracted from a Check or Payment Letter Standardized Exchange and the new parameters received from the bank's server and which characterize the solvency of the issuer of a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange. (Frew, [0039], [0040], memory, storage; [0054], fraud database)
Claim 2 recites:
A method of claim 1, wherein the method further is characterized in that the processing center comprises an image recognition algorithm allowing to extract the following parameters: the bank account number; The Number of a Check or the Number of a Standardized Bill of Exchange; The Amount of a Check or on a Standardized Bill of Exchange and to keep these extracted parameters for use in future processing relating to the sales transaction for which payment was made using a Check or a Bill of Exchange Standardized. (Frew, Fig. 4, [0059], [0060], deposit option, check image and associated data is deposited)
Claim 3 recites:
A method of claim 1, wherein the method further is characterized in that an algorithm, based on a lookup table containing the codes of the banks and contact information, allowing to automatically establish secure communication between the server of the center of processing and the server of the bank of the issuer of a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange. (Frew, Fig. 1, [0043], validity processing routine 130 routine is configured to communicate the check image 100 and necessary information to one or more third party check verification services. As noted above, Frew does not specifically disclose a lookup table containing the codes of the banks and contact information. Steger, Fig. 3, 5:1-5:17, discloses a lookup table containing bank codes and contact information used for check verification. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the communication of Frew to include the lookup table containing bank codes and contact information as in Steger so that a check may be verified with a financial institution as discussed in Steger, 1:54-1:67, and Frew, [0010].)
Claim 4 recites:
A method of claim 1, wherein the method further is characterized in that a predictive rating model based on both the new parameters, received from the bank's server, which characterize the solvency of the issuer of a Check or Letter of Standardized Exchange and on the other parameters recorded in the processing center server database and for which a relative contribution is attributed to each parameter, automatically calculates a percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident. (Frew, [0048], [0055]-[0057], validity score)
Claim 5 recites:
A method of claim 1, wherein the method further is characterized in that an algorithm makes it possible to display, on the screen of a mobile telephone or a computer, instructions readable by the user, a percentage probability of occurrence of a payment incident of a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange associated with light traffic presenting one of the three colors: Red, Orange, Green depending on the percentage of probability of occurrence of a calculated payment incident automatically by a predictive scoring model to allow a merchant to decide whether or not to accept a Check or a Standardized Bill of Exchange during a commercial transaction based on the color of light traffic. (Frew, Fig. 4, [0057], red, yellow, green)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: US 20240281812; US 11900755; US 11694168; US 20230066235; US 20220044252; US 10552810; US 20180189870; US 20160379185; US 20160379184; US 9449312; US 9740900; US 20150120516; US 20150120548; US 20150120564; US 8944234; US 20150012442; US 20140372266; US 20140351129; WO 2014152667; US 8688579; US 20140032406; EP 1072995; US 8165381; US 20110276468; US 5679940; US 5175682; and US 4109238.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Harper whose telephone number is (571)272-5481. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Calvin Hewitt II can be reached on (571) 272-6709. 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.
/GREGORY HARPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3692