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 .
This is the Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on January 26, 2026 for Application No. 18/742,100 filed on June 13, 2024, title: “System, Method And Computer-Accessible Medium For Impaired Mode Spend Protection”.
Status of the Claims
By the 01/26/2026 Amendment, claims 23, 31, 35, 37, and 40-42 have been amended, claims 26 and 34 have been cancelled, and no new claim has been added. Claims 1-22 were previously cancelled. Accordingly, claims 23-25, 27-33, and 35-42 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Priority
The application was filed on 06/13/2024 and is a CON of US Application No. 17/003,241 filed on 08/26/2020 (Patented No. 12,051,071). For the purpose of examination, the 08/26/2020 is considered to be the effective filing date.
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 23-25, 27-33, and 35-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12,051,071. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 31 of the present Application recites substantially the same limitations as claim 15 of the Patent with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Application and the Patent are directed to the same invention of implementing an impaired mode sending restrictions. The Application and the Patent have the same inventors and are commonly owned. Therefore, this double patenting rejection is deemed necessary. The differences and similarities between the Application and Patent are listed in the following table:
Application No. 18/742,100
Patent No. 12,051,071
Claim 31, A method executed by a system, wherein the system comprises a processor, an infrared light source configured to generate a first infrared light and provide the first infrared light to at least one eye of a user in an unimpaired state, an infrared camera configured to receive a reflected infrared light from the at least one eye that is based on the first infrared light to determine first information on eye movement and pupil dilation of the user in the unimpaired state, and a sleep sensor, the method comprising:
Claim 16, A method executed by a system for implementing an impaired mode spending restrictions, wherein the system comprises a processor, a sleep sensor and an infrared camera, the method comprising:
causing, by the processor, the sleep sensor to determine a first sleep pattern of a user in an unimpaired state;
causing, by the processor, the sleep sensor to determine a first sleep pattern of a user in an unimpaired state;
causing, by the processor, the infrared camera to determine first information on eye movement and pupil dilation of the user in the unimpaired state;
administering, by the processor, a cognitive test to the user to determine a first result the user obtained for the cognitive test in the unimpaired state;
applying, by the processor, a machine learning model to the first sleep pattern, the first information on eye movement and pupil dilation, and the first result the user obtained for the cognitive test;
determining, by the processor using a machine learning model based on the first information on eye movement and pupil dilation, and the first sleep pattern, a baseline value for one or more cognitive functions associated with the user in the unimpaired state;
determining, by the processor using the machine learning model, based on the first sleep pattern, the first information on eye movement and pupil dilation, and the first result the user obtained for the cognitive test, a baseline value for one or more cognitive functions associated with the user in the unimpaired state;
receiving, by the processor, information related to the at least one financial transaction;
causing, by the processor, the sleep sensor to determine a second sleep pattern of the user;
causing, by the processor, the infrared camera to determine second information on eye movement and pupil dilation of the user;
causing, by the processor, the infrared camera to determine second information on eye movement and pupil dilation of the user;
causing the sleep sensor to determine a second sleep pattern of the user;
administering, by the processor, the cognitive test to the user to determine a second result the user obtained for the cognitive test;
applying, by the processor, the machine learning model to the first sleep pattern, the first information on eye movement and pupil dilation, the first result the user obtained for the cognitive test, the second sleep pattern, the second information on eye movement and pupil dilation, and the second result the user obtained for the cognitive test;
measuring, by the processor using the machine learning model based on the second information on eye movement and pupil dilation, and the second sleep pattern, a real-time value for the one or more cognitive functions for comparison with a corresponding baseline value; and
measuring, based on the machine learning model, a real-time value for the one or more cognitive functions for comparison with the corresponding baseline value;
determining, by the processor, an impairment state of the user based on a deviation of the real-time value from the corresponding baseline value exceeding a pre-determined threshold.
determining, by the processor, an impairment state of the user based on a deviation of the real-time value from the corresponding baseline value exceeding a pre-determined threshold; and
approving or denying, by the processor, the at least one financial transaction based on the impairment state of the user.
Claim Objections
In view of Applicant’s 01/26/2026 Amendment, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive, therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/26/2026 with respect to claims 23-25, 27-33, and 35-42 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of the claims is withdrawn. An updated prior art search did not identify any art(s) that teaches each and every element of the claims at this time.
Conclusion
Claims 23-25, 27-33, and 35-42 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
Prosecution Insights