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 .
The following is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 29 January 2026.
No amendments have been filed.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues: (1) That the instant recited Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-20 “do not recite a judicial exception.” Referencing the Kim memo and reciting various claim limitations, “….Applicant notes that amended claim 1 lacks any explicit reference to even a single" commercial or legal interaction," and/or "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people." …. recites language that "cannot practically be performed in the human mind" and therefore is not a mental process. …”: (Applicant’s response, 10-12). (2) Applicant further argues that instant recited Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-20 integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant citing Specification [1, 12, 13] also states the claimed limitations “… a specific technical solution that solves specific technical problems. The present application describes a specific technical problem related to "various approaches for configuring and issuing a temporary instrument derivative to a primary account," as stated in paragraph [0008]. The Office Action fails to recognize the technical problems relating to implementing a system for configuring a temporary instrument…”(Applicant’s response, 10-14). (3) Applicant relies on MPEP 2106.05 (a) (i) statement that “improvements to computer functionality” or “improvements to any other technology or technical field” sufficiently satisfies Prong II of Step 2A. Based on this, Applicant asserts that the MPEP provides an example for a subject matter eligible” improved business process” and “…respectfully submits claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. ….specification outlines clear technical benefits, including instant provisioning and issuing of a temporary instrument which provides limited access to the primary account. By obtaining the limitations from the primary account holder, the temporary instrument can be automatically configured, issued, and revoked or deactivated with minimal effort by the primary account holder and minimal risk to an institution associated with
the account….Specification, [0010]… the specification presents an improvement to a technical field and that claim 1 reflects the improvement. Therefore, Applicant submits that claim 1 integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.” (Applicant’s response, 12-15) (4) Applicant lastly asserts that the in recited Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-20 recite significantly more than the alleged judicial exception. Applicant further states that the claim limitations do not recite “ routine, conventional activity” and as such, also “favors eligibility.” Applicant’s response, 16)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s own disclosure states that “…Disclosed are various approaches for configuring and issuing a temporary derivative to a primary account…” (Specification, [12]) which is recited in the claimed invention as noted in the previous and instant rejection below. Per (Specification [21-25]) primary instrument and temporary instrument are both described as “ can be representative of a payment instrument.” As such the invention is directed to a “commercial or legal interaction” (organizing human activity) (Applicant’s argument 1) The invention as such is directed not to a technological problem but rather a business challenge. The improvements asserted in Applicant’s arguments are not to technology but rather to address a business challenge including, for example, “ …minimal effort … and minimal risk…” . At most this is an improvement to the abstract idea using technology. Hence this is “apply-it” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) (Applicant’s argument 2-4) As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103: (1) Applicant asserts that the prior art of Bharucha does not disclose the “send an authentication request…” as recited in Claim 1 and as the subject matter of Claim 15. Applicant asserts that cited abstract does not disclose “any authentication step” only “authorizing” and “authorization is not authentication.” Applicant then references the Specification to clarify the recitation of Claim 1. Applicant further asserts that the “receive” limitation is not disclosed by Bharucha based on the failure to disclose the “send” limitation. As such Applicant argues that for these reasons the rejections of Claims 1 and 8, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12 and 14, and 15-19 should be withdrawn. (Applicant’s response,17- 22) (2) Applicant further argues that the prior art of Sobol (in combination with Bharucha) does not disclose the subject matter it is cited for noting the barcode generated in Sobol is not for the same “manner” and “purpose” as the recitation. As such, Applicant argues the subject matter of Claims 3 and 10 is not disclosed by the prior art and the rejection should be withdrawn. (Applicant’s response, 22-24) (3) Applicant also argues that that the rejections under 35 USC 103 over Cella et al. (in combination with Bharucha) of Claims 6, 13, and 20 (which depend from Claims 1, 8 and 15) should be withdrawn for their dependency on Claim 1, 8 and 15.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims as recited. Though the Specification can provide context to the claims, the claims must be interpretated using broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant’s arguments that the applied prior ( Bharucha, Sobol, Cella) art does not disclose the recited claims as described in parts of the specification/drawings/disclosure is a narrower argument than recited in the claim limitations. (Applicant’s arguments 1, 2, 3). Further, Applicant’s arguments that the abstract does not recite the “authentication” does not consider the whole citation : (See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card, Fig. 8 122 detect UI selections… [44] authenticate parties…digital certificates… authenticate identity…)—which clearly discloses the authenticating of parties. (Applicant’s arguments 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and the system of configuring and issuing a temporary instrument derivative to a primary account. In the instant case, Claims 8-14 are directed to a process. Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are directed to a system.
(2a) Prong 1: Account access authorization is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity [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)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
1. A …, comprising:
A…; and
… to at least:
…a request to designate a temporary user for a primary instrument, the request identifying temporary user data;
determine one or more provisioning rules for a temporary instrument based at least in part on the request, the temporary instrument being associated with the primary instrument;
… an authentication request to the temporary user based at least in part on the temporary user data;
… an authentication response based at least in part on the authentication request; and
issue the temporary instrument to the temporary user.
8. A method, comprising:
…, … a request to designate a temporary user for a primary instrument, the request identifying temporary user data;
determining,…, one or more provisioning rules for a temporary instrument based at least in part on the request, the temporary instrument being associated with the primary instrument;
…, …, an authentication request to the temporary user based at least in part on the temporary user data;
…, …, an authentication response based at least in part on the authentication request; and
issuing,…, the temporary instrument to the temporary user.
15. A …, comprising:
a …; and
…. to at least:
configure a temporary instrument based at least in part on an input from a primary user, the temporary instrument being associated with a primary instrument of the primary user;
authenticate a temporary user based at least in part on a configuration of the temporary instrument; and
issue the temporary instrument to the temporary user based at least in part on a successful authentication.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of determining…, ..issuing.. , configure… authenticate… issue… , do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. …receiving… sending.. receiving…) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 8-14 are directed to a process. Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are directed to a system.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (system, computing device, processor, memory , machine readable instructions ) merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (Specification [17] … one or more computing devices… processor, a memory, and/or a network interface… [29] …a processor-based system such as a computer system. Such a computer system can be embodied in the form of a personal computer (e.g., a desktop computer, a laptop computer, or similar device), a mobile computing device ( e.g., personal digital assistants, cellular telephones, smartphones, web pads, tablet computer systems, music players, portable game consoles, electronic book readers, and similar devices), media playback devices ( e.g., media streaming devices, BluRay® players, digital video disc (DVD) players, set-top boxes, and similar devices), a videogame console, or other devices with like capability. Each client device 106 can include one or more displays 143 ( e.g., 143a, 143b, etc.), such as liquid crystal displays (LCDs), gas plasma-based flat panel displays, organic light emitting diode (OLEO) displays, electrophoretic ink ("E-ink") displays, projectors, or other types of display devices. [76] general purpose hardware… ) (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g))
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (2-7, 9-14, 16-20) introduce the additional elements of: sending… receiving… (Claims 2 and 9); generating… sending… (Claims 3 and 10); generating… sending…(Claims 4 and 11); generating… sending… (Claims 5 and 12); cross-checking… (Claims 6, 13 and 20) ;determining….deactivating… (Claim 7, 14, 18); receive… generate.. apply…(Claim 16); send… receive… (Claim 17); wherein the input,… a request…(Claim 19). These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because these elements amount to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (Specification [17] … one or more computing devices… processor, a memory, and/or a network interface… [29] …a processor-based system such as a computer system. Such a computer system can be embodied in the form of a personal computer (e.g., a desktop computer, a laptop computer, or similar device), a mobile computing device ( e.g., personal digital assistants, cellular telephones, smartphones, web pads, tablet computer systems, music players, portable game consoles, electronic book readers, and similar devices), media playback devices ( e.g., media streaming devices, BluRay® players, digital video disc (DVD) players, set-top boxes, and similar devices), a videogame console, or other devices with like capability. Each client device 106 can include one or more displays 143 ( e.g., 143a, 143b, etc.), such as liquid crystal displays (LCDs), gas plasma-based flat panel displays, organic light emitting diode (OLEO) displays, electrophoretic ink ("E-ink") displays, projectors, or other types of display devices. [76] general purpose hardware… ) (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g))
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, are 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0289792 A1, Bharucha et al. hereinafter referred Bharucha.
Claims 1 and 8
Bharucha discloses a method and system, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a request to designate a temporary user for a primary instrument, the request identifying temporary user data; (See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card. Fig. 7, 100 account holder selected a payment card to be shared with recipient…. Fig. 8 120 pair with recipient device… [35] request to transfer temporary card)
determining, by the computing device, one or more provisioning rules for a temporary instrument based at least in part on the request, the temporary instrument being associated with the primary instrument; (See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card. Fig. 7, 102 spending limit...106…)
sending, by the computing device, an authentication request to the temporary user based at least in part on the temporary user data; (See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card, Fig. 8 122 detect UI selections… [44] authenticate parties…digital certificates… authenticate identity…)
receiving, by the computing device, an authentication response based at least in part on the authentication request; and(See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card….124 present credential… 126 send credential…[35] approval of request… [44] authenticate parties…digital certificates… authenticate identity…)
issuing, by the computing device, the temporary instrument to the temporary user. (See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card. Fig. 7, 102 spending limit...106… add temporary card … to application on mobile device associated with recipient… )
Claim 15
Bharucha discloses a system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and
machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least:
configure a temporary instrument based at least in part on an input from a primary user, the temporary instrument being associated with a primary instrument of the primary user; (See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card. Fig. 7, 102 spending limit...106… add temporary card … to application on mobile device associated with recipient… [23-24] spending limit or time limit (or both)… spending limit and any temporal restrictions placed by cardholders …. See also [25-27] )
authenticate a temporary user based at least in part on a configuration of the temporary instrument; and(See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card, Fig. 8 122 detect UI selections… [44] authenticate parties…digital certificates… authenticate identity…)
issue the temporary instrument to the temporary user based at least in part on a successful authentication. (See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card. Fig. 7, 102 spending limit...106… add temporary card … to application on mobile device associated with recipient… [23-24] spending limit or time limit (or both)… spending limit and any temporal restrictions placed by cardholders …. See also [25-27] )
Claims 2 and 9
Bharucha discloses the invention claims above in Claims 1 and 8.
Bharucha further discloses:
wherein determining one or more provisioning rules, further comprises:
sending, by the computing device, a request for one or more provisioning rules; and (See at least Bharucha, [23-24] spending limit or time limit (or both)… spending limit and any temporal restrictions placed by cardholders …. See also [25-27] )
receiving, by the computing device, one or more provisioning rules based at least in part on the request. (See at least Bharucha, [23-24] spending limit or time limit (or both)…spending limit and any temporal restrictions placed by cardholders…. See also [25-27])
Claims 4 and 11
Bharucha discloses the invention claims above in Claims 1 and 8.
Bharucha further discloses:
wherein the machine-readable instructions which, when executed, cause the computing device to send an authentication request (See at least Bharucha, [24] secure transfer mechanisms…) further cause the computing device to at least:
generate a temporary short-range wireless message; and (See at least Bharucha, [24] short range communication protocol….[45] proximity pairing….)
send a prompt to conduct a device-to-device tap to share the temporary short-range wireless message. (See at least Bharucha, [24] physically tap each other’s devices… [58] tap to pair.)
Claims 5 and 12
Bharucha discloses the invention claims above in Claims 1 and 8.
Bharucha further discloses:
wherein the machine-readable instructions which, when executed, cause the computing device to send an authentication request, further cause the computing device to at least:
generate an authentication link; and (See at least Bharucha, [24] secure transfer mechanisms…links or other transfer mechanisms…[36] … a link sent by the card holder to the other party via an electronic communication channel .. [45] … secure links… )
send the authentication link to the temporary user. (See at least Bharucha, [24] secure transfer mechanisms…links or other transfer mechanisms…6] … a link sent by the card holder to the other party via an electronic communication channel .. [45] … secure links… )
Claims 7, 14 and 18
Bharucha discloses the invention claims above in Claims 1, 8 and 15.
Bharucha further discloses:
determining, by the computing device, an expiration of the temporary instrument based at least in part on the one or more provisioning rules; and (See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card. Fig. 4… set expiry date… Fig. 7, 102 spending limit...106… add temporary card … to application on mobile device associated with recipient… [23-24] spending limit or time limit (or both)… spending limit and any temporal restrictions placed by cardholders …. See also [25-27] )
deactivating, by the computing device, the temporary instrument upon the expiration. (See at least Bharucha, [23] deactivated….)
Claim 16
Bharucha discloses the invention claims above in Claim 15.
Bharucha further discloses:
wherein the machine-readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to configure the temporary instrument, further cause the computing device to at least:
receive one or more provisioning rules from the primary user; (See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card. Fig. 7, 102 spending limit...106… add temporary card … to application on mobile device associated with recipient… [23-24] spending limit or time limit (or both)… spending limit and any temporal restrictions placed by cardholders …. See also [25-27] )
generate the temporary instrument; and (See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card. Fig. 7, 102 spending limit...106… add temporary card … to application on mobile device associated with recipient… [23-24] spending limit or time limit (or both)… spending limit and any temporal restrictions placed by cardholders …. See also [25-27] )
apply the one or more provisioning rules to the temporary instrument. (See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card. Fig. 7, 102 spending limit...106… add temporary card … to application on mobile device associated with recipient… [23-24] spending limit or time limit (or both)… spending limit and any temporal restrictions placed by cardholders …. See also [25-27] )
Claim 17
Bharucha discloses the invention claims above in Claim 15.
Bharucha further discloses:
wherein the machine-readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to authenticate the temporary user, further cause the computing device to at least:
send an authentication request to the temporary user; and (See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card, Fig. 8 122 detect UI selections… [44] authenticate parties…digital certificates… authenticate identity…)
receive an authentication response based at least in part on the authentication request. See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card….124 present credential… 126 send credential…[35] approval of request… [44] authenticate parties…digital certificates… authenticate identity…)
Claim 19
Bharucha discloses the invention claims above in Claim 15.
Bharucha further discloses:
wherein the input from the primary user comprises a request to designate a temporary user for the primary instrument. (See at least Bharucha, abstract, recipient .. temporary card. Fig. 7, 102 spending limit...106… add temporary card … to application on mobile device associated with recipient…)
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 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 of this title, 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 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharucha further in view of US 20150186872 A1 Sobol et al. hereinafter Sobol.
Claims 3 and 10
Bharucha discloses the invention claims above in Claims 1 and 8.
Bharucha further discloses use of multifactor authentication and confirmation codes. (See at least Bharucha, [45] any suitable communication channel… confirming codes on respective display screens…)
Bharucha does not directly disclose the following; however, Sobol teaches:
wherein sending the authentication request further comprises:
generating, by the computing device, a barcode representing the authentication request; and (See at least Sobol, [41] user authenticated….display… …indicia… barcode…. )
sending, by the computing device, a notification to a primary user associated with the primary instrument, the notification including at least the barcode. (See at least Sobol, [41] user authenticated….display… …indicia… barcode…. )
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Bharucha discloses a method and system of authorizing temporary use of accounts. Sobol is another method and system temporary virtual card including a barcode feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and system of authorizing temporary use of accounts). As such the claimed invention is obvious over - Bharucha / Sobol.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharucha further in view of US 2022/0198562 A1, Cella et al. hereinafter referred to as Cella.
Claims 6, 13 and 20
Bharucha discloses the invention claims above in Claims 1, 8 and 15
Bharucha does not directly disclose the following; however, Cella teaches:
wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least cross-check the temporary user data against a negative library. (See at least Cella, [1810] … may define a blacklist of users… [2124] ledger management system may establish….. a blacklist of untrusted parties and/or devices or a combination thereof…)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Bharucha discloses a method and system of authorizing temporary use of accounts . Cella is a method and system of a marketplace including a blacklist (i.e. negative library) of users.One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a method and system of authorizing temporary use of accounts including a blacklist (i.e. negative library) of users.). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Bharucha / Cella.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/0114733 Al – Party Payment System – discloses parent/child authorization for payment including limits based on time (i.e. temporary) and monetary [25].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights