DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 29 and 39 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 claim(s) contains 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.
In regards to Claims 29 and 39, the limitations of pertaining to, in summary, determine/determining the fiat currency value of the account based on the one or more non-fiat currency points and the first value is 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.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to Claims 29 and 39, it is unclear in regards to how the fiat currency value of the account can be determined based on the one or more non-fiat currency points and the first value. The first value, as best understood, represents the initial value of the account and the one or more non-fiat currency points are derived from the first value (awarded due to selection of the first value). It is unclear regarding when the determination step occurs since the independent claims suggest that the fiat account value is the first value and it is not clear in regards to how the one or more non-fiat currency points can determine a fiat currency value of the account if it is non-fiat currency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A system, comprising: one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, the one or more processors configured to: receive, from a user device of a user associated with an account, a selection of a first value for the account, wherein the first value represents a fiat currency having a fiat currency value; provide, for presentation on the user device, an indication of one or more non-fiat currency points derived from the first value; receive a request to initiate a play of a game using at least a portion of the one or more non-fiat currency points; execute the play of the game via one or more network communications with the user device; determine, based on the one or more network communications, an outcome of the play of the game; and update the account based on the outcome of the play such that a net sum of a fiat currency value of the account is equal to or greater than the fiat currency value of the fiat currency value of the first value.” (Claim 21); and “A method, comprising: receiving, by one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, from a user device of a user associated with an account, a selection of a first value for the account, wherein the first value represents a fiat currency having a fiat currency value; providing, by the one or more processors, for presentation on the user device, an indication of one or more non-fiat currency points derived from the first value; receiving, by the one or more processors, a request to initiate a play of a game using at least a portion of the one or more non-fiat currency points; executing, by the one or more processors, the play of the game via one or more network communications with the user device; determining, by the one or more processors, based on the one or more network communications, an outcome of the play of the game; and updating, by the one or more processors, the account based on the outcome of the play such that a net sum of a fiat currency value of the account is equal to or greater than the fiat currency value of the first value.” (Claim 31). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity, particularly, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for selecting a first value (fiat currency value) for an account, allowing a user to play a game from non-fiat currency points derived from the first value, executing the game, determining an outcome of the game, and updating the fiat value of the account based on an outcome of the game). Receiving from a user associated with an account, a selection of a first value for the account, wherein the first value represents a fiat currency having a fiat currency value; providing an indication of one or more non-fiat currency points derived from the first value; receiving a request to initiate a play of a game using at least a portion of the one or more non-fiat currency points; executing the play of the game; determining an outcome of the play of the game; and updating the account based on the outcome of the play such that a net sum of a fiat currency value of the account is equal to or greater than the fiat currency value of the first value pertain to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) pertaining to organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components (“system”, “processor”, “memory”, “user device”, “network communication” and/or “electronic resource”) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of a “system”, “processor”, “memory”, “user device”, “network communication” and/or “electronic resource” are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the system and/or method to which a computer performs/implements the system and/or method. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Furthermore, the applicant discloses that the “system of embodiments of the present invention may comprise computing devices, servers, and communications networks to facilitate the functions and features described herein. The computing devices and servers may comprise any number and combination of processors, controllers, integrated circuits, programmable logic devices, or other data and signal processing devices for carrying out the functions described herein, and may additionally comprise one or more memory storage devices, transmitters, receivers, and/or communication busses for communicating with the various devices of the system” (¶ 22); “The computer program, method, and system of embodiments of the invention may be implemented in hardware, software, firmware, or combinations thereof using system 10, shown in FIG. 2, which broadly comprises server devices 12, computing devices 14, and a communications network 16. The server devices 12 may include computing devices that provide access to one or more general computing resources, such as Internet services, electronic mail services, data transfer services, and the like” (¶ 24); “The server devices 12 and computing devices 14 may include any device, component, or equipment with a processing element and associated memory elements. The processing element may implement operating systems and may be capable of executing the computer program, which is also generally known as instructions, commands, software code, executables, applications, apps, and the like. The processing element may include processors, microprocessors, microcontrollers, field programmable gate arrays, and the like, or combinations thereof. The memory elements may be capable of storing or retaining the computer program and may also store data, typically binary data, including text, databases, graphics, audio, video, combinations thereof, and the like. The memory elements may also be known as a “computer-readable medium” or “computer-readable storage medium” and may include random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), flash drive memory, floppy disks, hard disk drives, optical storage media such as compact discs (CDs or CDROMs), digital video disc (DVD), Blu-Ray™, and the like, or combinations thereof. In addition to these memory elements, the server devices 12 may further include file stores comprising a plurality of hard disk drives, network attached storage, or a separate storage network” (¶ 25); “The computing devices 14 may specifically include mobile communication devices (including wireless devices), work stations, desktop computers, laptop computers, palmtop computers, tablet computers, portable digital assistants (PDA), smart phones, scanners, cash registers, cash drawers, printers, and the like, or combinations thereof. Various embodiments of the computing device 14 may also include voice communication devices, such as cell phones or landline phones. In embodiments, the computing device 14 will have an electronic display, such as a cathode ray tube, liquid crystal display, plasma, or touch screen that is operable to display visual graphics, images, text, etc.” (¶ 26); and “The communications network 16 may be wired or wireless and may include servers, routers, switches, wireless receivers and transmitters, and the like, as well as electrically conductive cables or optical cables. The communications network 16 may also include local, metro, or wide area networks, as well as the Internet, or other cloud networks. Furthermore, the communications network 16 may include cellular or mobile phone networks, as well as landline phone networks, public switched telephone networks, fiber optic networks, or the like.” (¶ 28). Such disclosure suggests that any hardware and/or software required by the claims are no more than generic components operating in their ordinary capacity.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 22-30 and 32-40 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21, 25, 28, 30-31, 35, 38, and 40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mosites (US 2011/0312423) in view of Sukeda (US 2002/0112236) in view of Lutnick (US 2011/0059784).
Claims 21 and 31: Mosites teaches a system (Figs. 3-5), comprising: one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, the one or more processors (¶ 77-89) configured to (method steps): receive, from a user device (330)(¶ 16-19) of a user associated with an account, a selection of a first value for the account (selection of an item for purchase associated with a first cost/value), wherein the first value represents a fiat currency having a fiat currency value (¶ 17-19, Fig. 1); provide, for presentation on the user device, an indication of one or more non-fiat currency points derived from the first value (Fig. 2, ¶ 15, 21, 28, 31, 35-36, 40); receive a request to initiate a play of a game; execute the play of the game via one or more network communications with the user device; determine, based on the one or more network communications, an outcome of the play of the game (¶ 2, 5-6, 13-14, 16-19, 21, 28, 31, 35-36, 40, 50-51);
Mosites teaches the above, but lacks explicitly teaching initiating a play of a game using at least a portion of the one or more non-fiat currency points. Mosites at least teaches that one or more non-fiat currency points can be used for play within a game (¶ 17-19, 21, 28, 31, 35) and that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 89). Furthermore, an analogous art of Sukeda teaches a similar type system, wherein a user is rewarded non-fiat currency points for selection of a first value, wherein the user requests to initiate play of a game using at least a portion of the one or more non-fiat currency points (¶ 25, 58-65, 70, 74-77, 79). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the game system of Mosites with the initiating game play means of Sukeda because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means initiating play of a game in which at least Mosites is intended (see above). Such a modification provides a more entertaining gaming experience, by providing incentive or encourages further game play through the use of obtaining various game-play credits without directly spending money to the play the games while accurately maintaining or managing the user's account. Thereby, making the game system more entertaining to the user due to the appearance of cost-free gaming.
Mosites in view of Sukeda teaches the above, but lacks explicitly teaching updating the account based on the outcome of the play such that a net sum of a fiat currency value of the account is equal to or greater than the fiat currency value of the fiat currency value of the first value. Mosites at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Lutnick teaches updating the account (¶ 65-68, 73, 75, 77, 94, 232, 258, 318, 364-367, 392, 424-425) based on the outcome of the play such that a net sum of a fiat currency value of the account is equal to or greater than the fiat currency value of the fiat currency value of the first value (¶ 114-123 (¶ 117 (player can win the item purchased or win a jackpot whose value is much larger than the value of the item), ¶ 125 (based on the outcome of the game the player can achieve a fiat currency value equal to the fiat currency value of the first value of the item/product), ¶ 130, ¶ 136 (user purchases an item of the first value of the item/product via the users account)). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention to have modified the system of Mosites in view of Sukeda with the updating/outcome means of Lutnick because such a modification would encourage or entice the user to engage in gameplay due to the possibility of receiving the purchased item/product for free or receiving currency equal to or greater than the value of the purchased item/product. Such a modification encourages users to engage in the merchant/game experience.
Claims 25 and 35: Mosites teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: provide an electronic resource to the user device; and receive the selection of the first value for the account in response to an interaction with the electronic resource (Figs. 2-3, ¶ 15-19, 21, 28, 31, 35-36, 40, emphasis on ¶ 16-19).
Claims 28 and 38: Additionally, Sukeda teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to debit or credit the account based on the one or more non-fiat currency points and the outcome (¶ 74-77).
Claims 30 and 40: Mosites teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to maintain a plurality of games (such as games played by multiple players and different times) configured to accept the one or more non-fiat currency points (¶ 16, 36).
Claims 22 and 32 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mosites (US 2011/0312423) in view of Sukeda (US 2002/0112236) in view of Lutnick (US 2011/0059784), and in further view of Diez (US 2006/0080702).
Claims 22 and 32: Mosites in view of Sukeda in view of Lutnick teaches the above, in addition to wherein the one or more processors are further configured to provide a set of games for presentation at the user device (¶ 16, 36), but lacks explicitly teaching receiving, from the user device, a selection of the game. Mosites at least teaches allowing the user to play multiple games via the user device (¶ 16, 36) and that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Lemay teaches one or more processors are further configured to receive, from a user device, a selection of the game (¶ 50, 66, 123, 150). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system/method of Mosites in view of Sukeda in view of Lutnick with the game selection means of Diez because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of allowing a user to play multiple games in which at least Mosites is intended (see above). Such a modification making the system more user-friendly be allowing the user to play a preferred game over other possible games.
Claims 23-24, 26-27, 33-34, and 36-37 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mosites (US 2011/0312423) in view of Sukeda (US 2002/0112236) in view of Lutnick (US 2011/0059784), and in further view of Boyd (US 2004/0193489).
Claims 23 and 33: Mosites in view of Sukeda in view of Lutnick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a request for additional points from the user device; and update the one or more non-fiat currency points based on the request for additional points. Mosites at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above); that the system comprises online electronic resources such as websites for the purchase of goods and/or products (see at least Fig. 1); and that other incentives can be provided to the user based on a requests for additional points (¶ 43). Furthermore, an analogous art of Boyd teaches it is well known in the art to provide online system, wherein one or more processors of the system (¶ 89-117) are further configured to: receive a request for additional points from the user device; and update the one or more non-fiat currency points based on the request for additional points (¶ 9, 13, 19-20, 52, 86, 123, 130, 137, 158, 175-176, 178-179, 207, 210, 216, 399, 402, 444, 447). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system and method of Mosites in view of Sukeda in view of Lutnick with the additional points means of Boyd to provide further incentives to the consumer or user. Such a modification would improve sells and entice potential buyers.
Claims 24 and 34: Mosites in view of Sukeda in view of Lutnick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a number of the one or more non-fiat currency points according to a predetermined ratio. Mosites at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and providing a number of the one or more non-fiat currency points to the user in response to purchase of goods/items (Fig. 2, ¶ 15, 21, 28, 31, 35-36, 40). Furthermore, an analogous art of Boyd teaches it is well known in the art to provide online system, wherein one or more processors of the system (¶ 89-117) are further configured to: determine a number of the one or more non-fiat currency points according to a predetermined ratio (¶ 9, 13, 19-20, 52, 86, 123, 130, 136-137, 158, 175-176, 178-179, 207, 210, 216, 399, 402, 444, 447, emphasis on ¶ 136). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system and method of Mosites in view of Sukeda in view of Lutnick with the predetermined ration means of Boyd because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing a number of one or more non-fiat currency points to a user in response the purchase of a item/product in which at least Mosites is intended. Such a modification gives the merchant control over how the merchant awards the purchaser with points.
Claims 26 and 36: Mosites in view of Sukeda in view of Lutnick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the user device, information to update the account based on at least one second interaction with the electronic resource. Mosites at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above); that the system comprises online electronic resources such as merchant websites for the purchase of goods and/or products (see at least Fig. 1); and that other incentives can be provided to the user based on a requests for additional points (¶ 43). Furthermore, an analogous art of Boyd teaches it is well known in the art to provide online system, wherein one or more processors of the system (¶ 89-117) are further configured to: receive, from the user device, information to update the account based on at least one second interaction with the electronic resource (¶ 9, 13, 19-20, 52, 86, 123, 130, 137, 158, 175-176, 178-179, 207, 210, 216, 399, 402, 444, 447, emphasis on ¶ 137 (a clickable ad is placed on the website (electronic resource), wherein upon receipt of information (a second interaction - indication of the user clicking on and viewing the ad) the users account is updated to reflect non-fiat currency awarded to the user for the interaction)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system and method of Mosites in view of Sukeda in view of Lutnick with the additional points means of Boyd to provide further incentives to the consumer or user. Such a modification would improve sells and entice potential buyers.
Claims 27 and 37: Mosites in view of Sukeda in view of Lutnick teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: provide an interactive link on the electronic resource; and update the account to include additional non-fiat currency points in response to an interaction with the interactive link. Mosites at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above); that the system comprises online electronic resources such as merchant websites for the purchase of goods and/or products (see at least Fig. 1); and that other incentives can be provided to the user based on a requests for additional points (¶ 43). Furthermore, an analogous art of Boyd teaches it is well known in the art to provide online system, wherein one or more processors of the system (¶ 89-117) are further configured to: provide an interactive link on the electronic resource; and update the account to include additional non-fiat currency points in response to an interaction with the interactive link (¶ 9, 13, 19-20, 52, 86, 123, 130, 137, 158, 175-176, 178-179, 207, 210, 216, 399, 402, 444, 447, emphasis on ¶ 137 (a clickable ad or interactive link is placed on the website (electronic resource), wherein interaction with the interactive link the user(s) account is updated to reflect non-fiat currency awarded to the user for the interaction)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system and method of Mosites in view of Sukeda in view of Lutnick with the additional points means of Boyd to provide further incentives to the consumer or user. Such a modification would improve sells and entice potential buyers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights