DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on May 14, 2026.
Claims 7 and 11 were cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 16-17, and 19-20 were amended.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the recited physical ATMs are specialized machines. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) states, “It is noted that while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility...if a claim fails the Alice/Mayo test (i.e., is directed to an exception at step 2A and does not amount to significantly more than the exception in Step 2B), then the claim is ineligible even if it passes the M-or-T test.” (MPEP 2106.05(b)). The MPEP further states, “…additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.” (MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)). Applicant’s claimed invention failed the Alice/Mayo test, so the recited physical ATMs could not make the claimed invention patent eligible even if the ATMs were considered particular machines. Applicant’s claimed invention uses the ATMs merely as a tool to perform an existing process and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention presents an improvement to storage utilization, which is a practical application of technology. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention is directed towards solving a business problem: achieving the seamless transition of account from an old status to a new status. It is not directed towards improving storage utilization. Data storage technology has not been improved or even modified by the claimed invention because the claimed invention does not address data storage technology. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art did not teach or suggest “capturing, by the processor, the consent of the authorizing user for authorizing graduation of the graduation eligible account, wherein the consent of the authorizing user is provided at a second ATM equipped with one or more sensors configured to capture biometric information of the authorizing user” as generally recited in amended claim 1. Examiner disagrees. The Ortiz reference teaches or suggests “capturing, by the processor, the consent of the authorizing user for authorizing graduation of the graduation eligible account, wherein the consent of the authorizing user is provided at a second ATM equipped with one or more sensors configured to capture biometric information of the authorizing user” (Ortiz: pgh 91). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art did not teach or suggest “terminating, by the processor access to the graduated account by the authorizing user upon completion of the converting without deleting the graduation eligible account and without creating another account for the graduation eligible account in the network database” features of amended claim 1. Examiner disagrees. The Terry reference teaches or suggests “terminating, by the processor access to the graduated account by the authorizing user upon completion of the converting without deleting the graduation eligible account and without creating another account for the graduation eligible account in the network database” (Terry: pgh 59). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 19 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 1 and product Claim 20. Claim 19 recites the following limitations:
[a centralized account management device (CAMD) including a processor];
[one or more databases connected to the CAMD over a network via one or more application programming interfaces (APIs)]; and
[a memory operatively connected to the processor via a communication interface, the memory storing computer readable instructions, when executed, causes the processor to perform:]
scanning, [one or more databases,] for identifying a potential account for graduation based on a date of birth (DOB) data of an account holder, wherein the scanning in performed in response to usage of [a first automated teller machine (ATM) equipped with one or more sensors configured to capture biometric information of the account holder];
performing one or more prequalification checks on the potential account for graduation for determining whether the potential account is a graduation eligible account;
identifying an authorizing user for the graduation eligible account;
notifying, [via a digital communication service,] the authorizing user of graduation eligibility of the graduation eligible account and requesting to receive consent from the authorizing user;
capturing the consent of the authorizing user for authorizing graduation of the graduation eligible account, wherein the consent of the authorizing user is provided [at a second ATM equipped with one or more sensors configured to capture biometric information of the authorizing user];
converting the graduation eligible account into a graduated account, wherein the graduated account is a modification of the graduation eligible account that is existing [in a network database]; and
terminating access to the graduated account by the authorizing user upon completion of the converting without deleting the graduation eligible account and without creating another account for the graduation eligible account [in the network database].
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The centralized account management device, ATM, processor, memory, one or more databases, and digital communication service in Claim 19 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim(s) 1 and 20 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a centralized account management device, an ATM, a processor, a memory, one or more databases, and a digital communication service. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims
Dependent claim 2 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 3 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 4 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 5 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 6 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The processor of dependent claim 8 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The processor of dependent claim 9 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 5 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 10 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 12 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The processor of dependent claim 13 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 14 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 15 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The finger print reader of dependent claim 16 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The image sensor and microphone of dependent claim 17 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 18 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20 are not patent eligible.
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.
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry (US 2024/0394683) in view of Ortiz (2003/0163710).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 19, and 20:
Terry teaches:
scanning, one or more databases, for identifying a potential account for graduation based on a date of birth (DOB) data of an account holder…; (Terry: pgh 43, “The minor’s birthday, and therefore age, may be utilized to determine the eligibility of the minor for opening the minor account and what restrictions and/or permissions may to the minor account based on the minor’s age.”)
performing one or more prequalification checks on the potential account for graduation for determining whether the potential account is a graduation eligible account; (Terry: 50, “…the account control system may implement a high control rule plan if the minor is at least 17 years of age, has had the account at the provider for at least 1 year, and has a history of keeping an average daily balance of funds in the account in excess of a $500 threshold…”)
identifying an authorizing user for the graduation eligible account; (Terry: pgh 21, “…the customer accounts may include any number of customer accounts associated with a guardian…and customer accounts associated with a minor…”)
notifying, via a digital communication service, the authorizing user of graduation eligibility of the graduation eligible account and requesting to receive consent from the authorizing user; (Terry: pgh 60, “…the second user device associated with the guardian indicate that the minor’s saving account has transitions to an adult account.”)
capturing the consent of the authorizing user for authorizing graduation of the graduation eligible account…; (Terry: pgh 22, “…the guardian profile may include one or more guardian preferences which may be stored in the guardian profile as guardian restrictions and permissions.”)
converting the graduation eligible account into a graduated account, wherein the graduated account is a modification of the graduation eligible account that is existing in a network database; and (Terry: pgh 17, “The account control system may allow the restrictions and/or permissions to change based on the age of the minor associated with the first account which may provide a…smoother transition between an account for the minor and an adult account.”; pgh 53, “Once the minor reaches adulthood, the minor account completes the transition process by transforming from a minor account to an adult account.”)
terminating access to the graduated account by the authorizing user upon completion of the converting without deleting the graduation eligible account and without creating another account for the graduation eligible account in the network database. (Terry: pgh 59, “…the adult account may remove any guardian restrictions and/or permissions previously used to manage the minor account.”)
Terry does not teach, however, Ortiz teaches:
…wherein the scanning in performed in response to usage of a first automated teller machine (ATM) equipped with one or more sensors configured to capture biometric information of the account holder (Ortiz: pgh 91, “Biometric attributes can be previously stored within a memory location contained within the smart card for later retrieved (e.g., read or scanned by an electronic system at a point of sale or ATM) for user authentication or verification purposes using biometric methods taught herein.”)
…wherein the consent of the authorizing user is provided at a second ATM equipped with one or more sensors configured to capture biometric information of the authorizing user (Ortiz: pgh 96, “The electronic system can be, for example, an ATM machine equipped with a biometric scanner.”)
a centralized account management device (CAMD) including a processor; and (Ortiz: pgh 62, “…electronic system can be configured as a remote computer network…”)
one or more databases connected to the CAMD over a network via one or more application programming interfaces (APIs); and (Ortiz: pgh 66, “Network can also be implemented as a wireless network through which wireless devices…can communicate with other devices and other systems.”)
a memory operatively connected to the processor via a communication interface, the memory storing computer readable instructions, when executed, causes the processor to perform: (Ortiz: pgh 96, “Again, retrieval can be from a server, electronic system memory, or portable device memory…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Terry to include the teachings of Ortiz to “…enable the use of biometric data for authenticating user identity…” (Ortiz: pgh 24).
Regarding claim(s) 2:
The combination of Terry/Ortiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Terry further teaches:
wherein the scanning is performed in accordance with a predetermined frequency. (Terry: pgh 43, “The account control system may determine the age of the minor by comparing a current date with the minor’s birthdate.”)
Regarding claim(s) 3:
The combination of Terry/Ortiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Terry further teaches:
wherein the potential account for graduation is identified based on a current date and the DOB of the account holder of the potential account. (Terry: pgh 43, “The minor’s birthday, and therefore age, may be utilized to determine the eligibility of the minor for opening the minor account and what restrictions and/or permissions may to the minor account based on the minor’s age.”)
Regarding claim(s) 4:
The combination of Terry/Ortiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Terry further teaches:
wherein the scanning for identifying the potential account for graduation is performed in response to an ATM transaction or one or more actions on a mobile application conducted by the account holder. (Terry: pgh 15, “Accordingly, the system and methods disclosed herein automatically and dynamically update the control of a first account based on identifying information associated with the first account (e.g., age of a user of the first account), historical trends of the first account (e.g., how long the account has been opened, transaction history of the first account, etc.), and one or more predetermined account restrictions and/or permissions used to control the first account.”; pgh 33, “The user devices may be one or more mobile devices…”)
Regarding claim(s) 5:
The combination of Terry/Ortiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Terry further teaches:
wherein the authorizing user is set as an owner of the graduation eligible account, while the account holder is set as an authorized operator of the graduation eligible account. (Terry: pgh 22, “In some embodiments, a single guardian profile may be linked to multiple minor profiles so that the guardian preferences in the single guardian profile may be used to manage the multiple minor profiles.”)
Regarding claim(s) 6:
The combination of Terry/Ortiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Terry further teaches:
wherein the authorizing user is a legal guardian of the account holder. (Terry: pgh 20, “…the provider controls may include a restriction that a minor may not open an account without permission from the minor’s parent or guardian.”)
Regarding claim(s) 8:
The combination of Terry/Ortiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Terry further teaches:
notifying, by the processor, the account holder of a performance of the notifying of the authorizing user. (Terry: pgh 28, “The user management circuit may perform certain notification operations including transmitting a notification to a guardian or minor when funds have been deposited to the minor account and when funds have been withdrawn from the minor account.”)
Regarding claim(s) 9:
The combination of Terry/Ortiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Terry further teaches:
saving, in permanence and by the processor in the network database, captured consent of the authorizing user. (Terry: pgh 22, “…the guardian profile may include one or more guardian preferences which may be stored in the guardian profile as guardian restrictions and permissions.”)
Regarding claim(s) 10:
The combination of Terry/Ortiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Terry further teaches:
wherein the converting further comprises: changing the account holder to be set as the owner; and (Terry: pgh 59, “The adult account provides the minor…full access and permission to control the account.”)
terminating relationship of the authorizing user from the graduation eligible account. (Terry: pgh 59, “…the adult account may remove any guardian restrictions and/or permissions previously used to manage the minor account.”)
Regarding claim(s) 12:
The combination of Terry/Ortiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Terry further teaches:
wherein the graduation eligible account removes at least one restriction from the graduation eligible account. (Terry: pgh 59, “The adult account provides the minor (who is now an adult) full access and permission to control the account. More specifically, the adult account may remove any guardian restrictions…”)
Regarding claim(s) 13:
The combination of Terry/Ortiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Terry further teaches:
wherein the converting further comprises: terminating, by the processor, a management application tied to the graduation eligible account. (Terry: pgh 39, “…the provider controls may include that the minor may make a deposit, check the balance of the minor account…and make account withdrawals in an unlimited capacity while the guardian may no longer have any access rights or any ability to transact or monitor the account.”)
Regarding claim(s) 14:
The combination of Terry/Ortiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Terry further teaches:
wherein the one or more prequalification checks includes checking of a presence of a predetermined amount of deposit. (Terry: 50, “…the account control system may implement a high control rule plan if the minor is at least 17 years of age, has had the account at the provider for at least 1 year, and has a history of keeping an average daily balance of funds in the account in excess of a $500 threshold…”)
Regarding claim(s) 16:
The combination of Terry/Ortiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ortiz further teaches:
wherein the one or more sensors of the first ATM or the second ATM include a finger print reader. (Ortiz: pgh 104, “User interface can also be integrated with a fingerprint scanner that captures fingerprints as biometric data from users.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Terry to include the teachings of Ortiz to “…enable the use of biometric data for authenticating user identity…” (Ortiz: pgh 24).
Regarding claim(s) 17:
The combination of Terry/Ortiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ortiz further teaches:
wherein one or more sensors of the first ATM or the second ATM include an image sensor and a microphone. (Ortiz: pgh 104, “User interface can communicate with or be integrated with an electronic system, such as an ATM machine or point of sale. User interface can be integrated with a microphone that can receive a voiceprint from a user.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Terry to include the teachings of Ortiz to “…enable the use of biometric data for authenticating user identity…” (Ortiz: pgh 24).
Regarding claim(s) 18:
The combination of Terry/Ortiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Terry further teaches:
wherein the graduation eligible account is a restricted account that was created prior to the account holder reaching a predetermined age. (Terry: pgh 17, “The account control system is configured to create and manage a minor account based on the minor’s age and other factors.”)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry/Ortiz in view of Wasserman (US 2006/0161486).
Regarding claim(s) 15:
The combination of Terry/Ortiz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wasserman further teaches:
wherein the one or more prequalification checks includes checking of a duration of residency. (Wasserman: pgh 27, “Factors such as…the length of time of the consumer’s residency and employment…may be taken into consideration.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Terry/Ortiz to include the teachings of Wasserman “…to create an entirely new, consumer friendly financial product…” (Wasserman: pgh 3).
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Sampas (US 2013/0081119) discloses a mobile device-based authentication.
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 of a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00 pm - 8:00 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, Michael W Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
July 20, 2026
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights