DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 were amended and/or newly added in the Applicant’s filing(s) on 4/30/2026.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing(s) on 4/30/2026.
3. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if,” “may,” “might,” “can,” and “could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. See MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternative interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and/or boldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
examining a respective color value and a respective intensity value of each individual pixel at a same location with each of the first image of the check and the second image of the check.
Examiner notes that the specification provides no definition or guidance pertaining to interpretation of “intensity value.”
Claims 10 and 19 have similar issues.
Claim 8 recites a method comprising:
displaying, by the at least one processor via an interface that is accessible by a financial institution, the generated check similarity score and at least one reason associated with the generated check similarity score; and
receiving, by the at least one processor, a feedback from the financial institution in response to the displayed check similarity score.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed, not method steps that may or may not be performed. Reciting a system element in a method claim is configured to perform a method step (i.e., an interface that is accessible by a financial institution) does not mean that the method step is actually performed (i.e., a financial institution is accessing the interface).
Additionally, every interface is accessible (i.e., has the potential or capability of being accessed) by a financial institution.
Additionally claim elements (i.e., at least one reason) pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited (i.e., the computer neither generates the reason nor utilizes the reason, the computer merely displays the reason). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claim 17 has similar issues.
Claim 9 recites a method comprising providing, by the at least one processor, the received feedback to a trained model to improve future check evaluations related to the check similarity score.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., providing feedback to a trained model), not method steps possibly performed in the future (i.e., training or improving the trained model). Claiming method steps in the future tense can be interpreted as the method steps possibly performed in the future are outside the scope of the claimed method.
Additionally, the intended use or purpose of the data must result in a structural and/or functional difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose (i.e., to improve future check evaluations), then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II), citing Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Claim 18 has similar claim interpretation issues, as Claim 18 does not recite that the system is configured to retrain a trained model or is executing instructions to retrain a trained model.
4. 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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system configured to perform a method and/or computer-readable medium containing instructions, when executed, causes a computer to perform a method comprising:
receiving, …, a first image of a check;
extracting, …, a first set of parameters associated with the first image of the check;
storing, …, the first set of parameters …;
receiving, …, a second image of the check subsequent to a deposit of the check, via at least one deposit channel;
extracting, …, a second set of parameters associated with the second image of the check;
comparing, …, the first set of parameters with the second set of parameters to determine an overlap between the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters;
generating, …, a check similarity score based on the determined overlap between the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters;
determining, …, an authenticity of the check based on a comparison of the generated check similarity score with a predefined threshold validity score;
wherein the comparing of the first set of parameters with the second set of parameters comprises:
examining a respective color value and a respective intensity value of each individual … at a same location with each of the first image of the check and the second image of the check;
dividing each of the first image of the check and the second image of the check into non-overlapping blocks … ;
for each block, measuring a respective mean intensity, a respective standard deviation, and a respective covariance; and
using a structural similarity index with respect to each respective standard deviation, and each respective covariance to compare each respective block of the first image of the check with a corresponding respective block of the second image of the check.
These limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a series of steps instructing how to determine the authenticity of a check which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Examiner notes that preventing the processing of counterfeit checks is mitigation of financial risk and that the mitigation of financial risk is a court-provided example of a fundamental economic practice. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A), citing Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. (2014).
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a processor (Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19), a database (Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19), pixel(s) (Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19), a memory (Claim(s) 10), and a communication interface (Claim(s) 10).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 2-9, 11-18, and 20 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Dependent Claim(s) recite additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of an interface (Claim(s) 8 and 17).
In each case, the additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality such that these additional element(s) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
5. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10, 12-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Franklin (US PG Pub. 2025/0292227) in view of Su (US PG Pub. 2014/0233829).
Regarding Claim 1, Franklin discloses a method for determining an authenticity of a check, the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, a first image of a check (previously deposited checks). (see para. 26);
extracting, by the at least one processor, a first set of parameters (check characteristics) associated with the first image of the check (previously deposited checks). (see para. 26);
storing, by the at least one processor, the first set of characteristics (check characteristics) in a database. (see para. 98);
receiving, by the at least one processor, a second image of the check (image of deposited check) subsequent to a deposit of the check, via at least one deposit channel. (see para. 1 and 26);
extracting, by the at least one processor, a second set of parameters (check characteristics) associated with the second image of the check image (image of deposited check). (see para. 1 and 26);
comparing, by the at least one processor, the first set of parameters with the second set of parameters to determine an overlap (match) between the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters. (see para. 136-137 and 145);
generating, by the at least one processor, a check similarity score (confidence score) based on the determined overlap (match) between the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters. (see para. 23 and 115);
determining, by the at least one processor, an authenticity of the check based on a comparison of the generated check similarity score with a predefined threshold validity score (threshold). (see para. 115-118);
wherein the comparing of the first set of parameters with the second set of parameters comprises:
examining a respective color value (RGB code) and a respective intensity value (HEX color code) of each individual pixel at a same location with each of the first image of the check and the second image of the check. (see para. 91-95)
dividing each of the first image of the check and the second image of the check into non-overlapping blocks of pixels (pixel-by-pixel or sections). (see para. 53 and 60);
using a structural similarity index with respect to each respective standard deviation, to compare the first image of the check with a corresponding respective block of the second image of the check. (see para. 112-113).
Franklin does not explicitly teach a method comprising for each block, measuring a respective mean intensity (assumedly, a mean of the intensity value) or a respective standard deviation.
Franklin discloses a method comprising measuring a respective mean and a respective standard deviation of a check characteristic. (see para. 112-113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franklin to incorporate calculation of a respective mean and standard deviation of data, as disclosed by Franklin, as statistical analysis of data is standard and conventional.
Franklin does not teach a method comprising for each block, measuring a respective covariance; or using each respective covariance to compare each respective block of the first image of the check with the corresponding respective block of the second image of the check.
Su discloses a method comprising for each block (region of pixels), measuring a respective covariance. (see abstract; para. 36 and 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franklin to incorporate a covariance measurement, as disclosed by Su, thereby providing an additional statistical metric by which to analyze the check.
Regarding Claim 3, Franklin discloses a method wherein the first set of parameters is extracted by applying at least one image processing to the first image of the check, and wherein the second set of parameters is extracted by applying the at least one image processing algorithm to the second image of the check. (see para. 26).
Regarding Claim 4, Franklin discloses a method wherein each of the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters comprises at least one from among a name of a payer, a name of a payee, a name of an issuing bank, branch details, an account number of the payer (account number), a magnetic ink character recognition (MICR) code, a date, a signature (signature), a check number, and an amount (check amount). (see para. 23).
Regarding Claim 5, Franklin discloses a method wherein the generating of the check similarity score is further based on a result of a pixel-by-pixel comparison (pixel-by-pixel analysis) between the first image of the check and the second generated check similarity score. (see para. 53).
Regarding Claim 6, Franklin discloses a method wherein the authenticity of the check is determined as a valid check in an event the generated check similarity score is at least equal or greater than the predefined threshold validity score (meets the threshold percentage). (see para. 117-118).
Regarding Claim 7, Franklin does not explicitly teach a method wherein the authenticity of the check is determined as a fraudulent check in an event the generated check similarity score is less than the predefined threshold validity score, although Franklin does disclose a method wherein the authenticity of the check is determined as a valid check in an event the generated check similarity score is at least equal or greater than the predefined threshold validity score. (see para. 117-118).
As such, if a score equal or to a greater than a predefined threshold validity score demonstrates authenticity, then the converse is also true – a score less than a predefined threshold validity score demonstrates a lack of authenticity.
Regarding Claims 10-16 and 19-20, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin and Su, as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view over Srinivasarangan (US PG Pub. 2022/0335395).
Regarding Claim 2, Franklin does explicitly teach a method wherein the first image of the check is received from a payer of the check and the second image of the check is received from a financial institution associated with processing of the deposited check.
Srinivasarangan discloses a method wherein the first image of the check is received from a payer (sender) of the check and the second image of the check is received from a financial institution (memory of AR check processing engine) associated with processing of the deposited check. (see fig. 1-3; para. 80-96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franklin and Su to incorporate any provider of the required check images, as disclosed by Srinivasarangan, so the system had the check images to process.
Regarding Claims 11, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin and Su, as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Balayan (US PG Pub. 2022/0114595).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Franklin does not teach a method comprising displaying, by the at least one processor via an interface that is accessible by a financial institution, the generated check similarity score and at least one reason associated with the generated check similarity score; receiving, by the at least one processor, a feedback from the financial institution in response to the displayed check similarity score; or providing, by the at least one processor, the received feedback to a trained model to improve future check evaluations related to the check similarity score.
Balayan discloses a method comprising:
displaying, by the at least one processor via an interface that is accessible by a financial institution, the generated check similarity score (fraud label) and at least one reason (semantic concept) associated with the generated check similarity score (fraud label). (see para. 34);
receiving, by the at least one processor, a feedback (expert feedback) from the financial institution in response to the displayed check similarity score (fraud label). (see para. 34); and
providing, by the at least one processor, the received feedback (expert feedback) to a trained model (machine learning model) to improve future check evaluations (fraud detection tasks) related to the check similarity score (fraud label). (see para. 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franklin and Su to incorporate feedback into a model, as disclosed by Balayan, thereby improving the model via an iterative refinement process.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
6. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered. Some arguments have been rendered moot based upon new references utilized in the current rejection. However, some arguments remain relevant, as they apply to a reference and/or rejection still utilized in the current rejection. Such arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and are addressed below.
§101 Rejection
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites a practical application, specifically “an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,” and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 13.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
Similarly as in the above-cited Decision [of Ex Parte Desjardins], Applicant respectfully submits that in the instant application, the features recited in each of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 have the effect of improving an accuracy of a comparison between two images of a check by virtue of the recited types of statistical measurements that are obtained. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that as amended herein, when considered as a whole, each of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 integrates an abstract idea into a practical application. See Arguments, p. 13.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals stated:
As an initial matter, it is true that the claims here are similar to the claims in the cases discussed above in the sense that the claims involve both a computer and the Internet. But these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – emphasis added.
In the instant case, the problem that the claimed invention is designed to overcome, improved accuracy of a comparison between two images a check, is not a problem specifically arising from the realm of computers. This problem is a standard business problem for financial institutions that exists outside the realm of computers and existed before the age of computers.
Second, MPEP §2106.05(a) recites:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. – emphasis added.
The specification does not provide any evidence that there is a technical problem (i.e., a technology-based problem) to be solved. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that existing and conventional technology was not capable of performing the claimed process but for the claimed technology-based solution.
Additionally, the specification does not provide any evidence that the claimed invention results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to conventional technology or technological processes. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that the functionality of a computer or conventional technology has been improved, or their technological capabilities have been expanded beyond their existing capabilities.
Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is analogous to Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA (Fed. Cir. 2016) wherein the court stated:
The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. see Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – emphasis added.
The claimed invention is not an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality. Rather, the claimed invention is applying a computer’s existing capabilities to implement a particular abstract idea. As in Electric Power Group, the focus of the claimed invention is not on an improvement in computers as tools but on improving an abstract idea (i.e., comparison of bank checks) that uses computers as tools.
MPEP §2106.04(d) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Examiner asserts that the additional elements amount to merely (1) including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or alternatively, (2) merely links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
7. 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 JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached at (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 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 August 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights