DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final office action on the merits in application number 18/801,137. This action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments dated 6/22/26. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17 and 19-20 were amended and no claims were cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 USC 112a:
Applicant asserts on pages 9-10 that their amendments overcome the 35 USC 112a rejection regarding “acknowledgement”. Examiner agrees and withdraws the rejection but notes that Applicant’s amendments have created a new rejection relating to at least the word “automatically”, as discussed in the 35 USC 112a rejection, infra.
Regarding 35 USC 101:
Applicant asserts on pages 11-12 that it is a “technical problem” that “known payment processing systems are limited as they are unable to automatically authenticate a user if an initial transaction is erroneously declined, thereby increasing network traffic of the legacy payment processing systems and reducing efficiency of those systems by increasing the number of messages exchanged and processed over the network of these systems”. Applicant asserts that newly claimed automatic authentication language in amended independent claims 1, 8 and 15 is an “additional technical element” that “enable(s) the claimed system to improve the processing performance of payment processing systems” under Step 2A, prong 2. Applicant further asserts on pages 12-13 that the newly claimed automatic authentication language in amended independent claims 1, 8 and 15 is “significantly more”.
In response, as discussed in the 35 USC 112a rejection, infra, the claim language relating to automatic authentication is not supported in the specification and is new matter. Further, as discussed in the 35 USC 101 rejection, infra, Applicant recites acquiring information relating to a rejected payment by a customer during a transaction at a retail point of sale (POS) and performing secondary user authentication by requesting and receiving additional identification information from the customer. These elements represent an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the subcategory of Commercial or Legal Interactions because it is a common commercial practice for a retailer/issuer/payment network to request secondary user authentication. In addition to the abstract idea Applicant also recites general purpose hardware and software such as server/processor/memory, payment processing network, user cell phone, POS and issuer computing device that are all recited at a very high level with no technical detail of any special features or technologies. Applicant does not recite any limiting additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, they just recite general purpose computer hardware used in its ordinary capacity and Applicant’s claims amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(a) details the requirements of an Improvement to the Functioning of Computer or to any other Technology or Technical field. Applicant needs to recite a particular technical solution to a technical problem and not just claim the idea of a solution or outcome. Applicant’s disclosure needs to provide specific technical detail of how automatic authentication is implemented which they currently do not do.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding 35 USC 103:
Applicant asserts on pages 14-16 that the rejection is overcome because the art of record does not teach automatic authentication as claimed in the newly amended claims. Examiner agrees and withdraws this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112a
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The previous rejection of Claims 1-20 for new matter in Claims 1, 8 and 15 for the term “acknowledgement” is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. A new rejection, as discussed below, of Claims 1-20 for new matter in Claims 1, 8 and 15 for the term “automatically” is now made as a result of Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 (and similarly Claims 1 and 15) recite the newly added phrase “in response to detecting the decline message, automatically accessing a storage device of a user computing device associated with the accountholder to retrieve authentication data to authenticate the accountholder as authorized to initiate the first transaction; (Examiner emphasis). Applicant does not appear to use the term “automatically” or any equivalent term in their specification in the context of a communication from the authentication server to the user’s cell phone and, further, does not appear to teach nor imply that the authentication server automatically (ie without human input) accesses the user’s cellphone and retrieves authentication information. Applicant further does not appear to teach nor imply that providing additional authentication information to the user device is contingent on the authentication computer’s prior receipt of a response from the user device (i.e. does not teach “in response to”).
Applicant recites in their specification at ([0091-0092] “Accountholder computing device receives 724 a decline message as well. In one embodiment, the decline message includes details for the accountholder regarding the reason for the decline… In addition to the decline message, authentication computing device 706 transmits, to accountholder computing device 702, an additional authentication data request message, requesting the accountholder to provide additional authentication data in order to reattempt the transaction with authorization rules being relaxed at the issuer. The accountholder re-initiates the transaction at 726, this time also providing additional authentication data to authentication computing device 706”). All embodiments taught by Applicant in their specification appear to ask the user in a message to provide additional information and not “automatically” access the memory of the phone directly or without the user’s involvement. Applicant recites [0102] “The additional authentication data request message is configured to display a message on accountholder computing device 802 such as “Sorry, your transaction will be declined due to authorization failure. Would you like to provide additional authentication data to complete the transaction? Y/N”. As discussed in the 35 USC 103 rejection, infra, based on Applicant’s specification and also Figure 7, Examiner holds that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of Applicant’s currently claimed “(cause a message to be displayed on a user device requesting a retry of the first transaction); in response to receiving an acknowledgement from the user device to retry the first transaction, (request additional authentication data from a user to authenticate the user as the accountholder)” in view of Applicant’s specification is that there is communication from the authentication server to the user device requesting that the user to retry the transaction and requesting the user to provide additional authentication data.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 112a for new matter. Further, dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112a for new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s offer to file a terminal disclaimer in the Remarks dated 6/22/26 on page 9 but notes that this has not yet been filed. For clarity, Examiner maintains the Double Patenting rejection from the Office Action dated 3/20/2026 in this Office Action and notes that Applicant’s present amendments have not overcome the rejection.
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, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 (and similarly Claims 1 and 15) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046 in view of Claim 14 (and similarly Claim 7) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to display information on the display of a user cell phone with predictable results when a computer is communicating with user through the user’s cell phone.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 (and similarly Claims 1 and 15) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046 and, by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1,8 and 15, are also rejected over claim 8 (and similarly Claims 1 and 15) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046 in view of Claim 14 (and similarly Claim 7) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to display information on the display of a user cell phone with predictable results when a computer is communicating with user through the user’s cell phone.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 (and similarly Claims 1 and 15) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046 and, by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1,8 and 15, are also rejected over claim 8 (and similarly Claims 1 and 15) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046 in view of Claim 14 (and similarly Claim 7) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to display information on the display of a user cell phone with predictable results when a computer is communicating with user through the user’s cell phone.
Claims 4, 11 and 17 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 (and similarly Claims 1 and 15) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046 in view of Claim 12 (and similarly Claims 5 and 18) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to communicate the result of the process (the approval of the transaction) to all interested parties with predictable results. Claims 4, 11 and 17 are also rejected, by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 8 and 15, are rejected over claim 8 (and similarly Claims 1 and 15) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046 in view of Claim 14 (and similarly Claim 7) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to display information on the display of a user cell phone with predictable results when a computer is communicating with user through the user’s cell phone.
Claims 5, 12 and 18 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 (and similarly Claims 1 and 15) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046 and, by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1,8 and 15, are also rejected over claim 8 (and similarly Claims 1 and 15) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046 in view of Claim 14 (and similarly Claim 7) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to display information on the display of a user cell phone with predictable results when a computer is communicating with user through the user’s cell phone.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 (and similarly Claims 1 and 15) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046 and, by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1,8 and 15, are also rejected over claim 8 (and similarly Claims 1 and 15) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046 in view of Claim 14 (and similarly Claim 7) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to display information on the display of a user cell phone with predictable results when a computer is communicating with user through the user’s cell phone.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 12 (and similarly Claims 5 and 18) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to communicate the result of the process (the approval of the transaction) to all interested parties with predictable results. Claims 7, 14 and 20 are also rejected, by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 8 and 15, are rejected over claim 8 (and similarly Claims 1 and 15) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046 in view of Claim 14 (and similarly Claim 7) of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,046. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to display information on the display of a user cell phone with predictable results when a computer is communicating with user through the user’s cell phone.
Claims 1-20 are thus rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting.
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.
Examiner is using the “step” annotation from the flowchart of MPEP 2106 (III), and MPEP 2106.04 and MPEP 2106.05 for clarity.
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:
Independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-7 recite a method (process), independent Claim 8 and dependent claims 9-14 recite a system (machine) and independent Claim 15 and dependent claims 16-20 recite a medium (manufacture), thereby Claims 1-20 fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1:
Independent Claim 8 is used as exemplary but Independent Claims 1 and 15 are similar.
(currently amended) A computer system for reducing network traffic in a payment processing network, the computer system comprising: a memory; and a server system comprising at least one processor in communication with the memory and the payment processing network, the at least one processor configured to: detect a decline message processed over the payment processing network, wherein the decline message indicates that a first transaction initiated by an accountholder at a merchant was declined for failure to satisfy at least one authorization rule; in response to detecting the decline message, automatically access a storage device of a user computing device associated with the accountholder to retrieve authentication data to authenticate the accountholder as authorized to initiate the first transaction; authenticate the accountholder by comparing the retrieved authentication data to previously stored authentication data in the memory; enhance an authorization message associated with the first transaction by inserting a rules relaxation identifier for retrying the first transaction, wherein the rules relaxation identifier is configured to request that authorization rules be relaxed for the retried first transaction in response to authenticating the accountholder; and receive an approval message for the retried first transaction, the approval message denoting relaxation of one or more of the authorization rules and acceptance of the retried first transaction by an issuer associated with the accountholder, wherein the approval message is transmitted to at least one user device to complete the retried first transaction.
Examiner has bolded the elements that are part of the abstract idea.
These elements recite acquiring information relating to a rejected payment by a customer during a transaction at a retail POS and performing a secondary user authentication by requesting and receiving additional identification information from the customer. These elements represent an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the subcategory of Commercial or Legal interactions because it is a common commercial practice for a retailer/issuer/payment network to request secondary user authentication – this is similar to a cashier asking for a customer’s driver’s license with a credit card payment.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 thus recite an abstract idea. Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively. Accordingly Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2:
In addition to the abstract idea discussed above, Claim 1 also recites the following additional elements:
memory – Applicant describes memory in their specification at [0045] by listing various memory technologies and stating that they are examples and “are not limiting”. Applicant does not provide a detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies of memory thus the claimed memory is general purpose memory.
a server system/processor – Applicant describes server system/processor in their specification at [0071] and [0073] by listing various server and processor technologies and examples. Applicant does not provide a detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies of servers or processors thus the claimed server system/processor are general purpose computer devices.
payment processing network – Applicant describes payment processing network in their specification at [0076] and does not provide a detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies of a payment processing network thus the claimed payment processing network is a general purpose payment processing network.
user computer device - Applicant does not disclose the term “user computer device” in their specification but in a related context describes a personal computing device / accountholder computing device in their specification and defines this in [0103] as a mobile phone device. Applicant does not provide a detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies of a user device thus the claimed user device is a general purpose cell phone.
point of sale device - Claims 4, 7, 11, 14, 17 and 20 also recite the additional element point of sale device. This element is described in Applicant’s specification in at least [0061] with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies of a point of sale device, thus the claimed point of sale device is a general purpose point of sale device.
issuer computing device – Claims 6, 13 and 19 also recite the additional element of issuer computing device. This element is described in Applicant’s specification in at least [0061] with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies of an issuer computing device, thus the claimed issuer computing device is a general purpose issuer computing device.
MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”.
As discussed, the additional elements memory, server system/processor, payment processing network, user computing device, point of sale device and issuer computing device are broadly claimed and used in their ordinary capacity with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or technologies and, thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1- 20 are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed above, Applicant claims the abstract idea of acquiring information relating to a rejected payment by a customer during a transaction at a retail POS and performing a secondary user authentication by requesting and receiving additional identification information from the customer.. As discussed above, Applicant also recites the additional elements of: memory, server system/processor, payment processing network, user computing device, point of sale device and issuer computing device
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A, the claimed memory, server system/processor, payment processing network, user computing device, point of sale device and issuer computing device are hardware or software constructs recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer systems. MPEP 2106.05(f) states that merely adding a general purpose computer or computer components to an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more, thus memory, server system/processor, payment processing network, user device, point of sale device and issuer computing device are not significantly more.
The additional elements alone or in combination do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technological field. The additional elements alone or in combination do not apply the judicial exception to a particular (non-general purpose) machine. The additional elements alone or in combination do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Applicant does not claim or teach in their specification any special purpose hardware or improvements thereof. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims 2, 9 and 16 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively, and further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the content of a message. Dependent Claims 3 and 10 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1 and 8, respectively, and further limit the abstract idea by further describing data. Dependent Claims 4, 11 and 17 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively, and further limit the abstract idea by further describing data. Dependent Claims 5, 12 and 18 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively, and further limit the abstract idea by further describing data. Dependent Claims 6, 13 and 19 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively, and further limit the abstract idea by further describing data. Dependent Claims 7, 14 and 20 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively, and further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the content of a message.
Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
After a diligent search, Examiner is unable to find prior art that teaches the combination of elements, either alone or in combination with other prior art without leading to improper hindsight reasoning. The rejection under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn.
The closest prior art is:
U.S. Patent 8,401,904 (Simakov) teaches a system to authenticate a user at a point of sale by using a separate out-of-band authentication by sending an SMS to the user’s cell phone. Simakov does not teach the newly added in response to detecting the decline message, automatically access a storage device of a user computing device associated with the accountholder to retrieve authentication data to authenticate the accountholder as authorized to initiate the first transaction. (see citations in Office Action dated 3/20/26).
U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0317025 (Wong) teaches a server that sends an SMS message to a user cell phone to request additional authentication data and authenticating a user after receiving a confirmation. (see citations in Office Action dated 3/20/26). Wong does not teach the newly added in response to detecting the decline message, automatically access a storage device of a user computing device associated with the accountholder to retrieve authentication data to authenticate the accountholder as authorized to initiate the first transaction.
U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0251910 (Dimmick2) teaches transmit the approval message to the user device (see at least [0068]). Dimmick2 does not teach the newly added in response to detecting the decline message, automatically access a storage device of a user computing device associated with the accountholder to retrieve authentication data to authenticate the accountholder as authorized to initiate the first transaction.
U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0161586 (Bailey) teaches determining a current location of a user’s cell phone and selecting an authentication process based on the detected location ([abstract]). Bailey teaches that the system accesses authentication on the user cell phone without human input based on the detected location (see at least [0024]). Examiner holds that, in the context of Applicant’s claims as currently recited, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date would not combine this reference with Simakov without improper hindsight reasoning.
U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0038446 (Joshi) teaches using a digital certificate to authenticate a cell phone as belonging to a particular individual without the input of a human. (see at least [0019] “the client dialer application 119 may be configured to identify a phone number of an incoming caller device (e.g., third party device 106) to the client device 102, establish an out-of-band control channel, and request and receive, via the out-of-band control channel, a digital certificate 128 for the phone number from the incoming caller device”). Examiner holds that, in the context of Applicant’s claims as currently recited, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date would not combine this reference with Simakov without improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
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 KIMBERLY S BURSUM whose telephone number is (571)272-8213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Florian (Ryan) m Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/KIMBERLY S. BURSUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights