DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This is the Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on January 08, 2026 for Application No. 18/738,362 filed on June 10, 2024, title: “System And Method For Assisting Individuals In Assessing And Improving Their Behavior Regarding Financial And Other-Than-Financial Planning Based On Their Personal Circumstances and Assisting With Implementing such Plans”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were pending. By the 01/08/2026 Response, claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended, and no claim has been cancelled or added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Priority
This application is a CON of US Application No. 17/813,525 filed on 07/19/2022 (Patented No. 12,033,129) and which is a CON of US Application No. 12/313,191 filed on 11/17/2008 (Patented No. 11,392,918). For the purpose of examination, the 11/17/2008 is considered to be the effective filing data.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of US Patent No. 12,033,129 and claims 1-2 of US Patent No. 11,392,918. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present Application recites substantially the same limitations as the claims of the Patents with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art. The Application and the Patents are directed to the same invention. Also, both the Application and the Patents have the same inventors and are commonly owned. The similarities and differences between the Application and the Patents are listed in the following tables:
Application No. 18/738,362
Patent No. 12,033,129
Claim 1, A computer-based method of configuring a resources server to provide at least one resource, the method comprising:
Claim 1, A computer-based method of configuring a resources server to provide at least one resource, the method comprising:
providing a plurality of questions, each of the plurality of questions corresponding to at least one of a plurality of planning dimensions, the plurality of planning dimensions including at least one financial planning dimension and at least one other than financial planning dimension;
receiving a response to each of the plurality of questions and demographic information from a user;
storing each response to the plurality of questions and the demographic information from the user in a computer memory, the plurality of responses being associated with the demographic information received from the user;
determining, via a hardware processor, at least one planning dimension score for each of a plurality of planning dimensions using responses received from a user to a plurality of questions corresponding to at least one of the plurality of planning dimensions;
determining, via a hardware processor coupled to the computer memory, at least one planning dimension score for each of the plurality of planning dimensions using the responses received from the user to the plurality of questions;
determining an overall score for the user, the overall score based on the planning dimension scores for each of the plurality of planning dimensions;
determining an overall score for the user, the overall score based on the planning dimension scores for each of the plurality of planning dimensions;
obtaining a comparison score, the comparison score being at least one of an overall score for the user from a previous set of responses to each of the plurality of questions or an overall score of a second user with similar demographic information as the user;
obtaining a comparison score, the comparison score being at least one of an overall score for the user from a previous set of responses to each of the plurality of questions or an overall score of a second user with similar demographic information as the user;
providing the at least one planning dimension score to the resources server to select for the user a resource from a plurality of resources for at least one of the plurality of planning dimensions;
providing at least one of the plurality of planning dimension scores to the resources server to select for the user, for at least one of the plurality of planning dimensions, a resource from a plurality of resources;
generating a to do list of actions for the user to complete to improve at least one of the at least one planning dimension score or the overall score;
generating a to do list of actions for the user to complete to improve at least one of the plurality of planning dimension scores or the overall score;
outputting the overall score, the comparison score, the to do list, and the selected resource to the user; and
outputting the overall score, the comparison score, the to do list, and the selected resources to the user; and
automatically notifying the user to update the to do list, wherein timing of the automatically notifying the user is determined and updated based on a total number of uncompleted items on the to do list.
automatically notifying the user to update the to do list, wherein timing of the automatic notifications is determined and updated based on a total number of uncompleted items on the to do list.
Application No. 18/738,362
Patent No. 12,033,129
Claim 1, A computer-based method of configuring a resources server to provide at least one resource, the method comprising:
Claim 1, A computer-based method of configuring a resources server to provide at least one resource, comprising:
providing, via a TCP/IP-compatible network interface, to each of a plurality of users a plurality of questions, each of the plurality of questions corresponding to suitability of at least one of a plurality of planning dimensions, the plurality of planning dimensions including at least one financial planning dimension and at least one other than financial planning dimension;
receiving, via the TCP/IP-compatible network interface, a response to each of the plurality of questions from each of the plurality of users comprising a primary user;
storing the plurality of responses and the demographic information from each user in a computer memory, by associating the responses and the demographic information received from a same IP address used to communicate with the TCP/IP-compatible network interface;
determining, via a hardware processor, at least one planning dimension score for each of a plurality of planning dimensions using responses received from a user to a plurality of questions corresponding to at least one of the plurality of planning dimensions;
computing, via a hardware processor coupled to the computer memory at least one planning dimension score in the plurality of planning dimension scores for each of a plurality of planning dimensions, using the responses received from the primary user to the plurality of questions, at least one of the planning dimension scores in the plurality for a first planning dimension being computed at least in part from a response used to compute, at least in part, a different one of the plurality of planning dimension scores for a second planning dimension, different from the first planning dimension; and
determining an overall score for the user, the overall score based on the planning dimension scores for each of the plurality of planning dimensions;
obtaining a comparison score, the comparison score being at least one of an overall score for the user from a previous set of responses to each of the plurality of questions or an overall score of a second user with similar demographic information as the user;
providing the at least one planning dimension score to the resources server to select for the user a resource from a plurality of resources for at least one of the plurality of planning dimensions;
providing at least a portion of the plurality of planning dimension scores to the resources server so as to cause the resources server to select for the primary user, for each of at least one of the plurality of planning dimensions, a resource from a plurality of resources for each of at least a portion of the plurality of planning dimensions by matching a type of the resource for said planning dimension to a range containing the planning dimension score for the primary user, and provide to the primary user information regarding each resource selected.
generating a to do list of actions for the user to complete to improve at least one of the at least one planning dimension score or the overall score;
outputting the overall score, the comparison score, the to do list, and the selected resource to the user; and
automatically notifying the user to update the to do list, wherein timing of the automatically notifying the user is determined and updated based on a total number of uncompleted items on the to do list.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-7 recite a computer-based method of configuring a resources server to provide at least one resource as recited in the preamble of the claims, claims 8-14 recite a system for analyzing an individual’s suitability of financial and other-than-financial planning status as recited by the preamble of the claims, and claims 15-20 recite a computer readable program code for configuring a resources server as recited by the preamble of the claims. The claims are directed to a process, machine, and manufacture which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1 recites a computer-based method of configuring a resources server to provide at least one resource, the method comprising:
determining, via a hardware processor, at least one planning dimension score for each of the plurality of planning dimension using the responses received from a user to the plurality of questions corresponding to at least one of the plurality of planning dimensions;
determining an overall score for the user, the overall score based on the planning dimension scores for each of the plurality of planning dimensions;
obtaining a comparison score, the comparison score being at least one of an overall score for the user from a previous set of responses to each of the plurality of questions or an overall score of a second user with similar demographic information as the user;
providing the at least one planning dimension score to the resources server to select for the user a resource from a plurality of resources for at least one of the plurality of planning dimensions;
generating a to do list of actions for the user to complete to improve at least one of the at least one planning dimension score or the overall score;
outputting the overall score, the comparison score, the to do list, and the selected resource to the user; and
automatically notifying the user to update the to do list, wherein timing of the automatically notifying the user is determined and updated based on a total number of uncompleted items on the to do list.
The above limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a certain method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., a system comprising processors and memories with stored instructions). More specifically, the claim recites a method for assisting users to improve their financial planning based on the determined planning dimension scores, the determined overall score, the obtained comparison score, providing the scores for the user to select a resource, generating a to do list of actions for the user to improve the planning dimension score or the overall score, outputting the comparison scores, the to do list, and the selected resource to the user, and notifying the user to update the to do list. Computer-based method for assisting users for their financial planning is a method of organizing human activity. Using a computer to assist users for their financial planning is a method of organizing human activity and is abstract idea in its nature (automate a known process).
The claimed process, such as determining data (planning dimension scores), determining more data (overall score), obtaining data (comparison score), providing data (scores and resources), generating data (a to do list of actions), outputting data (scores and selected resource), and notifying data (notification), correspond to a Method of Organizing Human Activity, specially Commercial or Legal Interactions due to the business relations (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities of behaviors; business relations. See limitations “generating a to do list of actions for the user …”, “outputting the overall score … to the user”, and “automatically notifying the user to update the to do list …”. ). Although the subject matter may be different, the claim describes a concept of using a computer system to assist a user for improving their financial planning is analogous to “creating a contractual relationship” of the buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. case law, which the court has found to be patent ineligible (see December 2016: Interim Eligibility Guidance). The mere nominal recitation of computer components (a processor and memory with the stored computer instructions) do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Therefore, the claim recites a Method of Organizing Human Activity which is an abstract idea.
Additionally, the claimed process, such as determining data (planning dimension scores), determining more data (overall score), and obtaining data (comparison score), correspond to a Mathematical Concept due to the mathematical calculations for the planning dimension score, overall score, and comparison score. Therefore, the claim also recites a Mathematical Concept due to the mathematical calculations of the scores (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Moreover, although the preamble of the claim and the first step of the claim recite “determining, via a hardware processor, …”, the rest of the steps of the claim body (such as determining, obtaining, providing, generating, outputting, and notifying) are devoid of any reference to any computer or machine. None of the rest of the steps in the claim body is clearly recited as being performed by a computer or device and per the claim scope can be performed by a person with paper and pencil or in a human mind. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim also recites a Mental Process (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites a computer system and claim 15 recites a computer program with the comparable elements and limitations as discussed in claim 1. Therefore, these claims also recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will 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 judicial exception.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 include the additional elements, such as a hard processor and memories with stored computer programmed instructions, all are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the process. Applicant’s Specification does not describe how these computer elements are different from the general computer components (see Patent Application Publication in paragraphs 54-66 and Figure 4). Therefore, Applicant’s claimed invention is merely implementing the abstract idea on a computer system (automating a known or obvious process on a computer or on the internet) which is an abstract idea. Each claim limitation of the claim has been considered individually and in combination as ordered and concluded that they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim limitations are no more than the instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a computer and a database. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of receiving/transmitting communications, processing information, querying the database) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the claims do not include the additional element(s) that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As noted in above, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of assisting users for improving their financial planning based on the determined planning dimension scores, the determined overall score, the obtained comparison score, providing the scores for the user to select a resource, generating a to do list of actions, outputting the scores, the to do list, and the selected resource, and notifying the user to update the to do list. All these generic computer functions are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry similar to those referenced by MPEP 2106.05(d) II. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible,
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend on claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, and thus include all of the limitations and features of their independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims also are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed in claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the additional elements “wherein the plurality of planning dimensions comprises: lifetime budgeting; investing; borrowing; insuring; and estate planning.” (Additional instructions about the planning dimensions. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite the additional elements “wherein each of the at least one planning dimension score correspond to at least one, but fewer than all, of the plurality of planning dimensions.” (Additional instructions about the planning dimension scores. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the additional elements “wherein the resource is selected for the at least one of the plurality of planning dimensions responsive to a response to a question of the plurality of questions corresponding to the planning dimension.” (Additional instructions on how the resources are selected. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite the additional elements “wherein the to do list is generated responsive to the response to at least one of the plurality of questions.” (Additional instructions on the to do list is generated in response to the questions. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite the additional elements “further comprising: providing the plurality of questions corresponding to at least one of a plurality of planning dimensions to the user; receiving a response to each of the plurality of questions and demographic information from the user; and storing each response to the plurality of questions and the demographic information from the user in a computer memory, the plurality of responses being associated with the demographic information received from the user.” (Additional instructions for providing the questions, receiving the responses, and storing the response in a computer memory. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 7 and 14 recite the additional elements “wherein the automatically notifying the user to update the to do list includes automatically sending an email message to the user.” (Additional instructions for the automatic notifications. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
The dependent claims do no more than providing additional instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claims and additional details/requirements for loss prevention. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include any additional elements other than those of claims 1, 8, and 15 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on a method for assisting users to improve their financial planning utilizing a general computer – implementing a known or obvious process on a computer or over the internet. The claims are not directed to a new computer system, a processor, a system memory, or a user interface, nor do they provide a method of processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claimed invention is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s claimed invention is basically “a business solution” to “a business problem” and this is substantiated by the Applicant’s Specification, in the “Background Of The Invention” section where it says:
[0004] Many individuals should evaluate the suitability of their financial and other-than-financial planning for their current and future personal circumstances, but they do not do so, or they may perform appropriate financial and other than financial planning, but they may not carry out these plans. “Other-than-financial” may include items that, though related to the user’s finances, may have a primary purpose that does not. For example, insurance planning costs the user money, but also involves planning for finances of the user’s heirs after the end of the user's life, and thus represents “other-than-financial” planning.
[0005] What is needed is a system and method for assisting an individual in evaluating the suitability of their financial and other-than-financial planning for their current and future personal circumstances, and in implementing such plans.
In conclusion, the Examiner does not find the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
In view of Applicant’s comments, the rejection is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Per pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that:
“The pending claims are directed towards systems and methods for configuring a resources server to provide at least one resource to a user and to provide a to do list to a user. The pending claims are directed towards systems and methods that generate and automatically notify users with respect to provided resources and to do lists. There is no relationship between a user or a third party that can be considered a business relation in the pending claims. For at least these reasons, the claimed systems and methods are not business relations of commercial or legal interactions and thus do not recite a judicial exception.”
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagree. As explained in the 101 analysis above (Step 2A, Prong 1), the independent claims recite a method for assisting users to improve their financial planning based on the determined planning dimension scores, the determined overall score, the obtained comparison score, providing the scores for the user to select a resource, generating a to do list of actions for the user to improve the planning dimension score or the overall score, outputting the comparison scores, the to do list, and the selected resource to the user, and notifying the user to update the to do list. The focus of the pending claims is on a method for assisting users to improve their financial planning utilizing a general computer – implementing a known or obvious process on a computer or over the internet. Computer-based method for assisting users for their financial planning is a method of organizing human activity. Using a computer to assist users for their financial planning is a method of organizing human activity and is abstract idea in its nature.
Additionally, the claimed process, such as determining data (planning dimension scores), determining more data (overall score), and obtaining data (comparison score), correspond to a Mathematical Concepts due to the mathematical calculations for the planning dimension score, overall score, and comparison score. Therefore, the claim also recites a Mathematical Concept due to the mathematical calculations of the scores (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Moreover, although the preamble of the claim and the first step of the claim recite “determining, via a hardware processor, …”, the rest of the steps of the claim body (such as determining, obtaining, providing, generating, outputting, and notifying) are devoid of any reference to any computer or machine. None of the rest of the steps in the claim body is clearly recited as being performed by a computer or device and per the claim scope can be performed by a person with paper and pencil or in a human mind. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim also recites a Mental Process (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Therefore, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant’s claimed invention is basically “a business solution” to “a business problem” and this is substantiated in paragraphs 4-5 of the Specification (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0330892). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Per pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that even if the pending claims are directed towards an abstract idea, the pending claims are still directed towards a practical application because they are directed to methods that can analyze responses to questions and determine scores and suitable resources to output to a user, and generate a to do list for a user to automatically notify the user to update the to do list.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagree. As explained in the 101 analysis above (Step 2A, Prong 2), the independent claims include the additional elements, such as a hard processor and memories with stored computer programmed instructions, all are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the process. Applicant’s Specification does not describe how these computer elements are different from the general computer components (see Patent Application Publication in paragraphs 54-66 and Figure 4). Therefore, Applicant’s claimed invention is merely implementing the abstract idea on a computer system (automating a known or obvious process on a computer or on the internet) which is an abstract idea.
The focus of the claimed invention is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. When viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not include additional element(s) that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive; hence, the rejection is withdrawn. An updated prior art search did not identify any art(s) that teaches each and every element and limitations of the claims at this time.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. 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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695