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
Applicant filed a response without amendment to the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 05, 2026. Claims 1-40 were pending in the Application. No claims have been amended. No new claims have been added. No new claims have been canceled, with claims 1-20 remaining canceled. Claims 21, 29, and 37 are the independent claims, with claims 22-28 depending from claim 21; claims 30-36 depending from claim 29; and claims 38-40 depending from claim 37. Thus claims 21-40 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection without amendment, disagrees with the rejection and the characterizations made in the Office Action. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts the following:
Step 2A, Prong Two
Even assuming, arguendo, that the independent claims recite an abstract idea relating to account generation, the claims are not "directed to" that alleged abstract idea because they integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not merely recite the desired result of opening a new account. Rather, the claims recite a specific computer-implemented sequence for securely creating, provisioning, and using a newly generated account during an ongoing interaction between a first user device and a first merchant system.
The independent claims require more than simply receiving account information or approving a customer for a financial product. Taken together, these limitations define a particular technological workflow for securely coordinating newly created account data among multiple networked systems.
The claims therefore solve a practical problem arising specifically in networked digital transaction environments: after a new account is created during an ongoing merchant transaction, the account must be made available to the correct user device and merchant system without exposing sensitive account information in an unsecured or uncontrolled manner.
The claimed solution addresses that problem by requiring system-side identification of the relevant devices and merchant systems, selective encryption of sensitive account data, separate transmission of different data elements to different endpoints, and subsequent credential-based decryption of information associated with the newly created account.
This is not a generic instruction to "apply" account opening on a computer. The recited workflow depends on networked computing devices, merchant systems, encrypted credentials, and controlled data transmission between distinct computing environments.
The Office Action appears to characterize the claims at an unduly high level of abstraction. Characterizing the claims as merely directed to "new account generation" overlooks the actual claim language.
The independent claims are not directed to the business concept of account creation in isolation. They are directed to a specific implementation in which a newly created account is securely provisioned for use across a user device and merchant system during an ongoing transaction.
The encryption, endpoint identification, differentiated transmission of account/credential/transaction data, login request, and decryption steps impose meaningful limits on the alleged abstract idea and confine the claims to a particular practical implementation.
The claimed invention is also tied to an improvement in the functioning of a networked transaction system.
The claimed arrangement improves this process by enabling secure, controlled, and immediate use of a newly created account in an ongoing transaction, while reducing unnecessary exposure of sensitive account credentials to the merchant system.
under Step 2A, Prong Two, the independent claims apply any alleged abstract idea in a meaningful and practical way. The claims are therefore not directed to a judicial exception and are patent eligible.
Step 2B
Even if the Office were to maintain that the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, the claims are nevertheless patent eligible under Step 2B because the additional claim elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
The independent claims require a specific ordered combination of technological operations involving multiple interacting computing systems. This particular arrangement of operations is not a generic instruction to perform a commercial practice on a computer.
The ordered combination is significant because the claimed elements cooperate to achieve a specific technological result: secure provisioning and use of a newly generated account during an ongoing transaction across distinct computing environments.
The claims also provide an inventive concept because they address a technological problem that arises in the context of digital commerce and networked financial systems.
The claimed steps provide a specific technical mechanism for accomplishing that result through encryption of sensitive information, differentiated transmission to different endpoints, and credential-based decryption.
This ordered combination improves the operation of the transaction system itself by enabling secure, immediate use of a newly generated account.
For at least these reasons, the independent claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The claims contain an inventive concept in the specific ordered combination of operations that securely provisions a newly created account for use during an ongoing transaction. Accordingly, the independent claims are patent eligible under Step 2B.
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses 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," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20240362709 A1, para 2), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘709 A1, para 2), discloses that the invention relates generally to providing assisted channel credit application completion with customers at financial institutions resulting in an automatic integration of the payment credentials into a corresponding digital wallet, which recites an abstract idea grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” and also grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 21 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations of “in response to receiving a request for a new account from the first user device, generating, by a server and in response to the request received from the first user device, a new account and first data including (i) an account number, (ii) user login credentials, and (iii) transaction information; identifying, by the server, based on the request (i) a set of one or more user devices, wherein the set of user devices includes the first user device and (ii) a set of one or more merchant systems, wherein the set of one or more merchant systems includes the first merchant system; based on the identification of the set of user devices and the set of one or more merchant systems, encrypting, by the server, at least a portion of the first data including (i) the user login credentials and (ii) the transaction information; transmitting, by the server, (i) the encrypted user login credentials to the first user device and (ii) the transaction information to the first merchant system; receiving, by the server and from the first user device, a login request , wherein the login request includes the transmitted encrypted user login credentials, unencrypted; and providing, by the server , and based on the received unencrypted user login credentials, information associated with the created new account”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a computer-implemented method”, “a first user device and a first merchant system”, “identifying, by the server, based on the request (i) a set of one or more user devices, wherein the set of user devices includes the first user device and (ii) a set of one or more merchant systems, wherein the set of one or more merchant systems includes the first merchant system”, “encrypting, by the server, at least a portion of the first data”, and “encrypted user login credentials, unencrypted”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “new account generation with login credentials”.
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea of “new account generation with login credentials”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” and also grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”, in prong one of step 2A.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “new account generation with login credentials”. The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field but improving the method for “new account generation with login credentials”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea of “new account generation with login credentials”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in an abstract idea itself (e.g. a new account generation with login credentials concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 21 is non-statutory.
Claim 29 also recites the abstract idea of “new account generation with login credentials”, as well as the additional elements of “a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations … between a first user device and a first merchant system, the operations comprising: …”, “identifying based on the request (i) a set of one or more user devices, wherein the set of user devices includes the first user device and (ii) a set of one or more merchant systems, wherein the set of one or more merchant systems includes the first merchant system”, “encrypting at least a portion of the first data”, and “encrypted user login credentials, unencrypted”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “new account generation with login credentials”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “new account generation with login credentials” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more computers” and “one or more storage devices”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 29 is non-statutory.
Claim 37 also recites the abstract idea of “new account generation with login credentials”, as well as the additional elements of “one or more computer storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations … between a first user device and a first merchant system, the operations comprising: …”, “identifying based on the request (i) a set of one or more user devices, wherein the set of user devices includes the first user device and (ii) a set of one or more merchant systems, wherein the set of one or more merchant systems includes the first merchant system”, “encrypting at least a portion of the first data”, and “encrypted user login credentials, unencrypted”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “new account generation with login credentials”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “new account generation with login credentials” using computer technology (e.g., “a set of one or more user devices” and “one or more computer storage devices”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 37 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner reiterates the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 05, 2026, Applicant submits the following:
Sanchez fails to teach or suggest such a method, as "a computer-implemented method performed during an ongoing transaction between a first user device and a first merchant system", to which claim 21 is directed. Rather than disclosing account generation during an ongoing transaction between a user device and a merchant system, Sanchez teaches notifying a consumer mobile device of an offer to apply for a credit card associated with a merchant before any transaction has begun. In particular, Sanchez discloses triggering the offer based on an indication that the consumer has entered, or is within a predetermined distance of, a merchant location.
Sanchez fails to teach "in response to receiving a request for a new account from the first user device, generating, by a server and in response to the request received from the first user device, a new account and first data including (i) an account number, (ii) user login credentials, and (iii) transaction information" as recited in claim 21. Sanchez does not disclose this account-generation step as occurring during an ongoing transaction between the first user device and the first merchant system. To the contrary, Sanchez's FIG. 3 shows that block 324, which recites "receive request to submit credit application at the mobile device associated with the consumer" occurs before the first direct involvement of the merchant at block 338.
Sanchez also fails to teach or suggest the remaining limitations of claim 21, each of which is recited as part of the claimed method performed during the ongoing transaction between the first user device and the first merchant system.
Sanchez's disclosure is materially different from the claimed sequence. At most, Sanchez describes a pre-transaction promotional or application workflow initiated by the consumer's proximity to a merchant location. It does not disclose the claimed server-side generation, encryption, transmission, login, and account-information provisioning steps as being performed during an ongoing transaction between a first user device and a first merchant system. Therefore, Sanchez fails to disclose at least these limitations of claim 21.
Sanchez also fails to teach the individual elements "transmitting, by the server, (i) the encrypted user login credentials to the first user device and (ii) the transaction information to the first merchant system" and "receiving, by the server and from the first user device, a login request, wherein the login request includes the transmitted encrypted user login credentials, unencrypted". Sanchez does not disclose transmission of encrypted user login credentials, but discloses a stored mPIN value that may then be accessed from the secure element and compared to the entered mPIN value. In this regard, the entered mPIN value may be authenticated". Such a prompt and comparison and lack of explicit mention of encryption and decryption at the consumer mobile device suggests that the user credentials of Sanchez, such as the quoted mPIN, needs to be known by the consumer prior to the login/authentication process rather than having been securely transmitted to the device and unencrypted prior to being received by the server.
Poltorak fails to cure the deficiencies of Sanchez. Poltorak does not disclose a method that is performed during an ongoing transaction nor the transmission of encrypted user login credentials, as there are neither encrypted nor unencrypted user login credentials disclosed by Poltorak.
Applicant submits that dependent claim 25 is non-obvious at least because claim 21 is non-obvious for the above reasons. Notwithstanding claim 25's allowability based on its dependency on claim 21, Bornhofen also fails to teach the elements "encrypting, by the server, the set of terms and conditions for the new account; and transmitting, by the server, the encrypted set of terms and conditions to the first user device" because Bornhofen lacks any disclosure related to encrypting and transmitting the encrypted set of terms and conditions for the new account.
Independent claims 29 and 37 recite similar subject matter to claim 21 and are thus similarly non-obvious, and further as a result all dependent claims are also allowable. Notwithstanding their allowability based on their dependency on claim 21 and claim 29 respectively, claim 25 and claim 33 are non-obvious as Bornhofen fails to teach the elements "encrypting, by the server, the set of terms and conditions for the new account; and transmitting, by the server, the encrypted set of terms and conditions to the first user device" because Bornhofen lacks any disclosure related to encrypting and transmitting the encrypted set of terms and conditions for the new account.
Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments and is persuaded that Sanchez, Poltorak and Bornheim do not disclose, teach, and/or suggest the following:
A method, as "a computer-implemented method performed during an ongoing transaction between a first user device and a first merchant system", to which claim 21 is directed.
The limitation "in response to receiving a request for a new account from the first user device, generating, by a server and in response to the request received from the first user device, a new account and first data including (i) an account number, (ii) user login credentials, and (iii) transaction information" as recited in claim 21.
The remaining limitations of claim 21, each of which is recited as part of the claimed method performed during the ongoing transaction between the first user device and the first merchant system.
The claimed server-side generation, encryption, transmission, login, and account-information provisioning steps as being performed during an ongoing transaction between a first user device and a first merchant system.
The individual elements "transmitting, by the server, (i) the encrypted user login credentials to the first user device and (ii) the transaction information to the first merchant system" and "receiving, by the server and from the first user device, a login request, wherein the login request includes the transmitted encrypted user login credentials, unencrypted".
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for claim 21, and similarly claims 29 and 37, is rescinded. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for dependent claims 22-28, which depend from claim 21; dependent claims 30-36, which depend from claim 29; and dependent claims 38-40, which depend from claim 37, are also rescinded.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 21-28 are directed to a “method”; claims 29-36 are directed to a “system”; and claims 37-40 are directed to “one or more computer storage media”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 21 recites the abstract idea of “new account generation with login credentials”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” and also grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”, in prong one of step 2A. Claim 21 recites the method steps “in response to receiving a request for a new account from the first user device, generating, by a server and in response to the request received from the first user device, a new account and first data including (i) an account number, (ii) user login credentials, and (iii) transaction information; identifying, by the server, based on the request (i) a set of one or more user devices, wherein the set of user devices includes the first user device and (ii) a set of one or more merchant systems, wherein the set of one or more merchant systems includes the first merchant system; based on the identification of the set of user devices and the set of one or more merchant systems, encrypting, by the server, at least a portion of the first data including (i) the user login credentials and (ii) the transaction information; transmitting, by the server, (i) the encrypted user login credentials to the first user device and (ii) the transaction information to the first merchant system; receiving, by the server and from the first user device, a login request , wherein the login request includes the transmitted encrypted user login credentials, unencrypted; and providing, by the server , and based on the received unencrypted user login credentials, information associated with the created new account”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a computer-implemented method”, “a first user device and a first merchant system”, “identifying, by the server, based on the request (i) a set of one or more user devices, wherein the set of user devices includes the first user device and (ii) a set of one or more merchant systems, wherein the set of one or more merchant systems includes the first merchant system”, “encrypting, by the server, at least a portion of the first data”, and “encrypted user login credentials, unencrypted”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “new account generation with login credentials”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “new account generation with login credentials” using computer technology (e.g., “a first user device” and “a first merchant system”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 21 is non-statutory.
Claim 29 also recites the abstract idea of “new account generation with login credentials”, as well as the additional elements of “a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations … between a first user device and a first merchant system, the operations comprising: …”, “identifying based on the request (i) a set of one or more user devices, wherein the set of user devices includes the first user device and (ii) a set of one or more merchant systems, wherein the set of one or more merchant systems includes the first merchant system”, “encrypting at least a portion of the first data”, and “encrypted user login credentials, unencrypted”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “new account generation with login credentials”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “new account generation with login credentials” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more computers” and “one or more storage devices”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 29 is non-statutory.
Claim 37 also recites the abstract idea of “new account generation with login credentials”, as well as the additional elements of “one or more computer storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations … between a first user device and a first merchant system, the operations comprising: …”, “identifying based on the request (i) a set of one or more user devices, wherein the set of user devices includes the first user device and (ii) a set of one or more merchant systems, wherein the set of one or more merchant systems includes the first merchant system”, “encrypting at least a portion of the first data”, and “encrypted user login credentials, unencrypted”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “new account generation with login credentials”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “new account generation with login credentials” using computer technology (e.g., “a set of one or more user devices” and “one or more computer storage devices”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 37 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 22-28, 30-36, and 38-40 further describe the abstract idea of “new account generation with login credentials”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 21, 29, and 37, above.
Dependent claims 23-25, 27-28, 31-33, 35-36, and 39-40 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “new account generation with login credentials”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Dependent claims 22, 30, and 38 recite a new additional element of “a digital wallet”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Dependent claims 26 and 34 recite a new additional element of “a teller application”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Hence, claims 21-40 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mukherjee et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200327529 A1) – System, Method, And Computer Program Product For Providing Instant Credit To A Customer At A Point-Of-Sale
Mukherjee discloses a system, method, and computer program product for providing instant credit to a customer at a point-of-sale. The method includes receiving a transaction approval request including a full transaction amount for at least one transaction between a merchant and the customer. The method also includes communicating a credit approval request based on the transaction approval request to an issuer system. The method further includes, in response to the issuer system initially declining the credit approval request or approving less than the full transaction amount, determining, with at least one processor, customer data used to evaluate an extension of credit to the customer. The method further includes communicating the customer data to the issuer system and receiving a credit approval message from the issuer system including the full transaction amount. The method further includes communicating a transaction approval message to a merchant system including the full transaction amount.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights