DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 21 November 2025.
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 were amended.
Claims 1-16 are pending in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding a lack of antecedent basis was addressed and is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding a lack of antecedent basis was addressed and is withdrawn.
Applicants’ amendments and arguments with respect to claims 1-16 filed on 21 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson et al. (U.S. 8,095,464) and further in view of Young (U.S. 11,966,911).
With respect to claim 1, Patterson teaches a system for communication within a database and data structure file environment (Patterson, Fig. 1; col. 4, line 62 – col. 5, line 43), the system comprising: a communication device (Patterson, Fig. 1, element 44; col. 6, line 14 and col. 7, lines 6-22) operated by a user (Patterson, Fig. 1, element 30; col. 5, lines 7-11); a processor and a non-transitory storage device operatively coupled for communication with the communication device; and a message application stored in the storage device, the application including executable code that, when executed, causes the processor (Patterson, col. 5, lines 44-52) to: set a message send date based upon an expiration date associated with a file of the user (Patterson, Fig. 10a, Number of Days Prior to Card Expiration Date to Send Alerts; col. 12, lines 15-16 and 20-27), the file being stored in the storage device (Patterson, col. 12, lines 34-38); when a current date corresponds to the message send date, compose a text message (Patterson, Fig. 9, element 920 and Fig. 10(b); col. 12, line 45 – col. 13, line 2) including information about a card personalization option and send the text message to the communication device (Patterson, Fig. 9, element 920 and Fig. 10(b); col. 12, line 45 – col. 13, line 2); monitor for a response to the text message from the communication device (Patterson, Figs. 5(a) and 5(b); col. 8, line 64 – col. 9, line 35) prior to a response due date (Patterson, col. 4, lines 40-53); and when the processor receives a response that includes the personalization instructions (Patterson, Figs. 5(a) and 5(b); col. 8, line 64 – col. 9, line 35) by the response due date (Patterson, col. 4, lines 40-53), generate a card (Patterson, col. 11, lines 35-37) according to the personalization instructions (Patterson, col. 9, lines 11-25 and 59-65) before the expiration date (Patterson, col. 4, lines 40-53).
Patterson does not explicitly teach the card personalization option enabling the user to provide personalization instructions related to a design of a card to be generated; and generate a card having a design according to the personalization instructions.
However, Young teaches the card personalization option enabling the user to provide personalization instructions related to a design of a card to be generated; and generate a card having a design according to the personalization instructions (Young, col. 1, lines 55-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patterson in view of Petrime in order to enable the card personalization option enabling the user to provide personalization instructions related to a design of a card to be generated; and generate a card having a design according to the personalization instructions. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable the consumer is able to view the desired and preferred content each time the consumer completes a corresponding transaction with the customized/personalized tangible card, which can give a more favorable impression to the consumer when making such transactions (Young, col. 1, line 67 – col. 2, line 4).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Patterson and Young teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the system wherein the message send date is set at a predetermined time period prior to the expiration date (Patterson, Fig. 10a, Number of Days Prior to Card Expiration Date to Send Alerts; col. 12, lines 15-16 and 20-27).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Patterson and Young teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the system wherein the processor stores the message send date in the storage device with other message send dates and compares the current date with the stored message send dates to identify corresponding ones of the stored message send dates (Patterson, Fig. 9, element 905; col. 12, lines 34-53).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Patterson and Young teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the system wherein the processor calculates the message send date and compares the calculated message send date with the current date to determine whether the current date corresponds (Patterson, Fig. 9, element 905; col. 12, lines 34-53).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Patterson and Young teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the system wherein the processor generates a card based upon a card associated with the expiration date (Patterson, col. 11, lines 35-37) when no response has been received from the communication device prior to the response due date (Patterson, Fig. 5(b); col. 9, lines 26-35).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Patterson and Young teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the system wherein the processor calculates a reminder send date based upon the response due date (Patterson, Fig. 9, element 915; col. 12, lines 34-53).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 9, Patterson teaches a method of communication within a database and data structure file environment (Patterson, Fig. 1; col. 4, line 62 – col. 5, line 43), the method comprising steps of: providing a processor and a non-transitory storage device operatively coupled for communication with a communication device of a user; storing a message application in the storage device, the application including executable code that is executed by the processor wherein the following steps are performed (Patterson, col. 5, lines 44-52); setting a message send date based upon an expiration date associated with a file of the user (Patterson, Fig. 10a, Number of Days Prior to Card Expiration Date to Send Alerts; col. 12, lines 15-16 and 20-27), the file being stored in the storage device (Patterson, col. 12, lines 34-38); when a current date corresponds to the message send date, composing a text message (Patterson, Fig. 9, element 920 and Fig. 10(b); col. 12, line 45 – col. 13, line 2) including information about a card personalization option and sending the text message to the communication device (Patterson, Fig. 9, element 920 and Fig. 10(b); col. 12, line 45 – col. 13, line 2); monitoring for a response to the text message from the communication device (Patterson, Figs. 5(a) and 5(b); col. 8, line 64 – col. 9, line 35) prior to a response due date (Patterson, col. 4, lines 40-53); and when the processor receives a response that includes the personalization instructions (Patterson, Figs. 5(a) and 5(b); col. 8, line 64 – col. 9, line 35) by the response due date (Patterson, col. 4, lines 40-53), generating a card (Patterson, col. 11, lines 35-37) according to the personalization instructions (Patterson, col. 9, lines 11-25 and 59-65) before the expiration date (Patterson, col. 4, lines 40-53).
Patterson does not explicitly teach the card personalization option enabling the user to provide personalization instructions related to a design of a card to be generated; and generating a card having a design according to the personalization instructions.
However, Young teaches the card personalization option enabling the user to provide personalization instructions related to a design of a card to be generated; and generating a card having a design according to the personalization instructions (Young, col. 1, lines 55-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patterson in view of Petrime in order to enable the card personalization option enabling the user to provide personalization instructions related to a design of a card to be generated; and generating a card having a design according to the personalization instructions according to the personalization instructions. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable the consumer is able to view the desired and preferred content each time the consumer completes a corresponding transaction with the customized/personalized tangible card, which can give a more favorable impression to the consumer when making such transactions (Young, col. 1, line 67 – col. 2, line 4).
Claims 10-13 and 16 do not teach or define any new limitations above claims 2-5 and 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson and in view of Young further in view of Petrime et al. (U.S. 7,711,618).
With respect to claim 6, Patterson teaches the invention described in claim 1, including a system for communication within a database and data structure file environment (Patterson, Fig. 1; col. 4, line 62 – col. 5, line 43), the system comprising: a communication device (Patterson, Fig. 1, element 44; col. 6, line 14 and col. 7, lines 6-22) operated by a user (Patterson, Fig. 1, element 30; col. 5, lines 7-11); a processor and a non-transitory storage device operatively coupled for communication with the communication device; and a message application stored in the storage device, the application including executable code that, when executed, causes the processor (Patterson, col. 5, lines 44-52) to: set a message send date based upon an expiration date associated with a file of the user (Patterson, Fig. 10a, Number of Days Prior to Card Expiration Date to Send Alerts; col. 12, lines 15-16 and 20-27), the file being stored in the storage device (Patterson, col. 12, lines 34-38); when a current date corresponds to the message send date, compose a text message (Patterson, Fig. 9, element 920 and Fig. 10(b); col. 12, line 45 – col. 13, line 2) including information about a card personalization option and send the text message to the communication device (Patterson, Fig. 9, element 920 and Fig. 10(b); col. 12, line 45 – col. 13, line 2); monitor for a response to the text message from the communication device (Patterson, Figs. 5(a) and 5(b); col. 8, line 64 – col. 9, line 35) prior to a response due date (Patterson, col. 4, lines 40-53); and when the processor receives a response that includes the personalization instructions (Patterson, Figs. 5(a) and 5(b); col. 8, line 64 – col. 9, line 35) by the response due date (Patterson, col. 4, lines 40-53), generate a card (Patterson, col. 11, lines 35-37) according to the personalization instructions (Patterson, col. 9, lines 11-25 and 59-65) before the expiration date (Patterson, col. 4, lines 40-53).
Patterson does not explicitly teach the card personalization option enabling the user to provide personalization instructions related to a design of a card to be generated; and generate a card having a design according to the personalization instructions.
However, Young teaches the card personalization option enabling the user to provide personalization instructions related to a design of a card to be generated; and generate a card having a design according to the personalization instructions (Young, col. 1, lines 55-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patterson in view of Petrime in order to enable the card personalization option enabling the user to provide personalization instructions related to a design of a card to be generated; and generate a card having a design according to the personalization instructions. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable the consumer is able to view the desired and preferred content each time the consumer completes a corresponding transaction with the customized/personalized tangible card, which can give a more favorable impression to the consumer when making such transactions (Young, col. 1, line 67 – col. 2, line 4).
The combination of Patterson and Young does not explicitly teach when the response does not include personalization instructions.
However, Petrime teaches the response that does not include personalization instructions (Petrime, col. 4, lines 51-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patterson and Young in view of Petrime in order to enable when the response does not include personalization instructions. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable the product-based personalization of financial instruments such as credit cards (Petrime, col. 1, lines 59-60).
Claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 6 and therefore is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson in view of Young and further in view of Panzer (U.S. 9,269,081).
With respect to claim 7, Patterson teaches the invention described in claim 1, including a system for communication within a database and data structure file environment (Patterson, Fig. 1; col. 4, line 62 – col. 5, line 43), the system comprising: a communication device (Patterson, Fig. 1, element 44; col. 6, line 14 and col. 7, lines 6-22) operated by a user (Patterson, Fig. 1, element 30; col. 5, lines 7-11); a processor and a non-transitory storage device operatively coupled for communication with the communication device; and a message application stored in the storage device, the application including executable code that, when executed, causes the processor (Patterson, col. 5, lines 44-52) to: set a message send date based upon an expiration date associated with a file of the user (Patterson, Fig. 10a, Number of Days Prior to Card Expiration Date to Send Alerts; col. 12, lines 15-16 and 20-27), the file being stored in the storage device (Patterson, col. 12, lines 34-38); when a current date corresponds to the message send date, compose a text message (Patterson, Fig. 9, element 920 and Fig. 10(b); col. 12, line 45 – col. 13, line 2) including information about a card personalization option and send the text message to the communication device (Patterson, Fig. 9, element 920 and Fig. 10(b); col. 12, line 45 – col. 13, line 2); monitor for a response to the text message from the communication device (Patterson, Figs. 5(a) and 5(b); col. 8, line 64 – col. 9, line 35) prior to a response due date (Patterson, col. 4, lines 40-53); and when the processor receives a response that includes the personalization instructions (Patterson, Figs. 5(a) and 5(b); col. 8, line 64 – col. 9, line 35) by the response due date (Patterson, col. 4, lines 40-53), generate a card (Patterson, col. 11, lines 35-37) according to the personalization instructions (Patterson, col. 9, lines 11-25 and 59-65) before the expiration date (Patterson, col. 4, lines 40-53); and by a reminder send date associated with the file (Patterson, Fig. 9, element 915; col. 12, lines 34-53).
Patterson does not explicitly teach the card personalization option enabling the user to provide personalization instructions related to a design of a card to be generated; and generate a card having a design according to the personalization instructions.
However, Young teaches the card personalization option enabling the user to provide personalization instructions related to a design of a card to be generated; and generate a card having a design according to the personalization instructions (Young, col. 1, lines 55-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patterson in view of Petrime in order to enable the card personalization option enabling the user to provide personalization instructions related to a design of a card to be generated; and generate a card having a design according to the personalization instructions. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable the consumer is able to view the desired and preferred content each time the consumer completes a corresponding transaction with the customized/personalized tangible card, which can give a more favorable impression to the consumer when making such transactions (Young, col. 1, line 67 – col. 2, line 4).
The combination of Patterson and Young does not explicitly teach the system wherein the processor resends the text message to the communication device when no response has been received.
However, Panzer teaches the system wherein the processor resends the text message to the communication device when no response has been received (Panzer, col. 28, lines 42-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patterson and Young in view of Panzer in order to enable the system wherein the processor resends the text message to the communication device when no response has been received. One would be motivated to do so in order to limit the number of times invitations can be resent so as not to pester or annoy the users who have not yet responded to the invitations that were previously sent (Panzer, col. 27, lines 1-7).
Claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 7 and therefore is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia Baturay whose telephone number is (571) 272-3981. The examiner can normally be reached at 7am – 4pm, Mondays – Thursdays, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in person, or video conferencing using a USPTO-supplied, web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax 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.
/Alicia Baturay/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
February 9, 2026