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
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed12/26/2025. Claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “claimed method addresses a specific technical problem encountered when an account management system receives interaction information from a third-party system in the form of unstructured, human-interpretable data. Such data, while understandable to human operators, cannot be directly processed by conventional authorization systems to control credentials or enforce temporal access boundaries. The claim recites a particular technical solution in which the unstructured data is parsed to automatically identify commencement and completion times for a trigger event, enabling the account management system to operate on those parameters without requiring human intervention. This parsing step transforms the incoming unstructured information into structured, machine-usable data that the system can use to drive automated activation and deactivation of authorization identifiers, thereby bridging the gap between human- oriented event descriptions and machine-executable access control logic. By enabling the system to autonomously interpret and respond to data that originates in a human-readable format from a third-party source, the claimed method improves the functioning of the account management technology itself. The resulting capability to precisely time and enforce credential activation based on parsed event boundaries allows secure, synchronized interaction authorization across multiple systems without manual translation or intervention. This constitutes a meaningful application that advances the technical field by solving inefficiencies and operability issues inherent in conventional systems that cannot themselves interpret unstructured event data for automated credential management”, (see remarks pg. 2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for activating a card for start/end of an event, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as the individual utilizing a database can collect and transmit data and make comparisons to activate a particular card upon request from another user. The computing elements such as “system, client device and data structure of claim 1; computer-readable medium, computer system, system, client device, data structure of claim 8; computer system, processor, computer-readable medium, system, client device, data structure of claim 15” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Also, with respect to technological improvement "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments filed 12/26/2025 are moot in light of the newly cited Allen.
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. The claim recites method for activating a card for start/end of an event.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “receiving, from a first third-party at an account management ,interaction information for associated with a user of the account management, wherein the interaction information comprises unstructured data describing a trigger event associated with the user; parsing the unstructured data of the received interaction information to identify a commencement time of the trigger event and a completion time of the trigger event; in response to identifying the commencement time and the completion time of the trigger event, issuing an authorization identifier for use by the user during the trigger event, wherein the authorization identifier is issued in a deactivated state; activating, by the account management, the authorization identifier at the commencement time of the trigger event, and wherein activating the authorization identifier comprises associating the authorization identifier with the user in a ; receiving, from a second third-party , an identification of an interaction authorization request from the user, wherein the interaction authorization request comprises the authorization identifier; determining, by the account management , that the interaction authorization request complies with authorization rules associated with the authorization identifier; responsive to determining that the interaction authorization request complies with the authorization rules, transmitting an authorization of the interaction authorization request to the second third-party ; deactivating, by the account management , the authorization identifier at the completion time of the trigger event, wherein deactivating the authorization identifier comprises removing the association of the authorization identifier with the user in the ; and generating interaction logs associated with the authorization identifier, wherein the interaction logs lists a plurality of interactions that comprise an interaction associated with the interaction authorization request, and wherein the interaction logs associate the user with the interaction associated with the interaction authorization request” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (system, client device and data structure of claim 1; computer-readable medium, computer system, system, client device, data structure of claim 8; computer system, processor, computer-readable medium, system, client device, data structure of claim 15) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (system, client device and data structure of claim 1; computer-readable medium, computer system, system, client device, data structure of claim 8; computer system, processor, computer-readable medium, system, client device, data structure of claim 15). The system, client device and data structure of claim 1; computer-readable medium, computer system, system, client device, data structure of claim 8; computer system, processor, computer-readable medium, system, client device, data structure of claim 15, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the system in claims 5-7, 12-14, 19-20; client device in claims 2, 9, 16; data structure of claim 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18; computer-readable medium in claims 9-14; computer system, system, client device, data structure of claim 8; computer system in claims 16-20, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 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 1-2, 7-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0290184 - hereinafter Shapiro) in view of Cohen et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0058214 - hereinafter Cohen) in view of Otillar et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0276578 - hereinafter Otillar) in view of Allen et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20160342900 - hereinafter Allen).
Re. claim 1, Shapiro teaches:
receiving, from a first third-party system at an account management system, interaction information for a client device associated with a user of the account management system, wherein the interaction information comprises unstructured data describing a trigger event associated with the user; [(See at least Shapiro [0064] In one implementation, the method 200 includes an act of identifying a transaction (ACT 220). For example, the VSPC server can identify a transaction corresponding to the VSPC card (ACT 220). The identified transaction (ACT 220) can indicate that a user has presented the VSP card at a point of sale terminal in an attempt to purchase a good or service. In this example, the VSP card can be linked with the purchasing card, and the point of sale terminal communicates with the purchasing card issuer via the acquirer or issuer network to request approval for the transaction and to charge the transaction to the purchasing card. The VSPC server can identify the transaction (ACT 220) by receiving a communication from the point of sale terminal or from the purchasing card issuer. The transaction can be identified (ACT 220) by receiving the request for approval for the transaction from the point of sale terminal, from the purchasing card issuer, by receiving a response from the purchasing card issuer to the point of sale terminal, or by receiving a separate transmission at the VSPC server from the point of sale terminal or from the purchasing card issuer.]
determining, by the account management system, that the interaction authorization request complies with authorization rules associated with the authorization identifier; (See at least Shapiro [0053] The restriction criteria can indicate, for example, that use of the VSP cards is limited to travel expenses, (e.g., a subject matter restriction) or food purchases (e.g., a service restriction). In some implementations, the VSPC server 120 can receive from an authorized user an adjustment to the restriction criteria particular to one of the VSP cards. For example, one employee may be travelling for business, and the restriction criteria of the VSP card assigned to that employee can be adjusted to add a time restriction that authorizes additional or different transactions during the time period of the business trip. [0065] In some implementations, the method 200 includes an act of determining that the transaction satisfies the restriction criteria (ACT 225). For example, the VSPC server can compare the transaction and the circumstances under which the transaction was made (e.g., the time, location, monetary value, merchant, or time period since the most recent previous transaction) with the restriction criteria. When the transaction satisfies the restriction criteria, the VSPC server can determine that the restriction criterion is satisfied (ACT 225).
responsive to determining that the interaction authorization request complies with the authorization rules, transmitting an authorization of the interaction authorization request to the second third-party system; (See at least Shapiro [0053] [0066] Responsive to a determination that the restriction criteria is satisfied (ACT 225) the method 200 can include an act of authorizing the transaction (ACT 230). For example, the VSPC server can communicate an authorization notification to the point of sale terminal or to the purchasing card issuer indicating that the VSP card is eligible to make the transaction on behalf of the purchasing card. In some implementations, the VSPC server can authorize the transaction (ACT 230) based on characteristics of the purchasing card, such as the billing cycle, interest rate, or benefits or awards associated with use of the purchasing card.)
Shapiro doesn’t teach, Cohen teaches:
in response to identifying the commencement time and the completion time of the trigger event, issuing an authorization identifier for use by the user during the trigger event, wherein the authorization identifier is issued in a deactivated state; (See at least Cohen [0196] For example, the customized card could be set to be valid for a certain limited number of dates or until a certain date. For example, if an employee is going on a business trip for two days (or some other amount of time), the card could be set to be valid on only those two days. Thus, the employee is authorized to use the card for charges on only that time that the employee is away on the business trip, but not for any other time. Thus, in accordance with these embodiments, the card can have a user customized range of dates or series of dates. In one embodiment, this is a range of dates with a commencement date and expiration date. (This is useful, for example, if an employee is going on a business trip, one or more cards could be issued which are valid for the dates of the trip, with the card not being valid before the trip starts or after the trip ends).
activating, by the account management system, the authorization identifier at the commencement time of the trigger event, and wherein activating the authorization identifier comprises associating the authorization identifier with the user in a data structure; (See at least Cohen [0196] In another embodiment, the card becomes valid at any specific time (even a time of day) and ceases to be valid at any other specific time. Likewise, the card could become valid for a series of ranges of dates, even dates which are non consecutive or non-contiguous. For example, it could be valid for a specific day or series of date in March (for a first business trip), become deactivated once that trip is over, can be reactivated for a specific day or dates in June (for a second business trip), be deactivated once that trip is over, and so forth.
generating interaction logs associated with the authorization identifier, wherein the interaction logs lists a plurality of interactions that comprise an interaction associated with the interaction authorization request, and wherein the interaction logs associate the user with the interaction associated with the interaction authorization request. (See at least Cohen [0259] In accordance with the invention, a method and apparatus is further provided for improving account transactions. Such transactions include any transaction which a user can conduct with a vendor. They include, for example, the notifications of account activity or charges provided to consumers on monthly credit or card statements, debit card statements, bank statements (including mortgage statements), car payment statements, utility statements (e.g., gas, electric, telephone, etc.), and any other statements provided to a consumer. They likewise include any transaction at a brick and mortar store, or any transaction between any two entities, particularly on the Internet. Thus, any financial transactions which an entity can engage in can be monitored, recorded (including authentication and date-stamping if desired), and/or facilitated (e.g., via concurrent or post-transaction or pre-transaction payment over the Internet) with the methods and apparatus of the present invention. These transactions can refer to any accounts payable or accounts receivable of a user, or accounts paid or received by any entity.
deactivating, by the account management system, the authorization identifier at the completion time of the trigger event, wherein deactivating the authorization identifier comprises removing the association of the authorization identifier with the user in the data structure; and (See at least Cohen [0196] In another embodiment, the card becomes valid at any specific time (even a time of day) and ceases to be valid at any other specific time. Likewise, the card could become valid for a series of ranges of dates, even dates which are non consecutive or non-contiguous. For example, it could be valid for a specific day or series of date in March (for a first business trip), become deactivated once that trip is over, can be reactivated for a specific day or dates in June (for a second business trip), be deactivated once that trip is over, and so forth. (NOTE: deactivating the account making the card cease.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the virtual special purchasing card of Shapiro with the electronic commerce system as taught by Cohen in order to customize or program financial cards by the user such that they are only suitable or usable for particular uses and time frames. (Cohen [0195])
Shapiro doesn’t teach, Otillar teaches:
parsing the received interaction information to identify a commencement time of the trigger event and a completion time of the trigger event; (See at least Otillar [0040]; [0043] and [0053]: [0040] In another embodiment, the item is a hotel booking and the information includes the check-in and check-out date and/or time, the type of room or suite (e.g., standard, queen, king, or luxury), the cost of the booking, and the third party providing the lodging. [0043] In other words, the criteria include inclusion rules and/or exclusion rules that indicate which types of actions should be included or excluded from the filtered set. Further, the criteria may include static and/or dynamic rules. For instance, the date range may be dynamic and change from a two-week range to a three-week range. As another example, the geographical location or a date of travel may be static, e.g., cannot be modified for a user's trip. The online system 100 may receive the rules from a third party system 120, e.g., the same third party that also provides content items or information for generating content items. Thus, the online system 100 can select and deliver content items to a target audience of users based on the preferences of the third party system 120. In some embodiments, content items with travel related information are specific to a geographical location and/or time, e.g., a planned date, departure time from an origin location, and arrival time at a destination location. For instance, a user searches for and views content items describing flights to Hawaii departing at various times of a given day (e.g., 8 AM, 10 AM, 12 PM, and 2 PM). Based on these actions of the user, the online system 100 determines that the user is likely intending to travel to Hawaii on the given day, and has not decided yet on a particular time for the flight. [0053] FIG. 3A is a diagram of a calendar 300 of a user's actions according to one embodiment. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3A, the calendar 300 shows the days of the month of October 2016 and indicates on which days Sheryl performed actions on the online system 100 or a third party system 120. In particular, Sheryl performed actions 305, 310, 315, 320, 325, and 330 on October 3, October 13, October 17, October 22, October 23, and October 24, respectively. The calendar 300 also shows a target date in bold lines and a date range in dotted lines. In particular, the target date is October 27 and the date range is the two weeks preceding the target date (October 13 through 26). The target date may be associated with a trip such as a flight. The date range may be referred to as the “lead time” or “booking window” because the date range indicates the time leading up to the target date when a user may book a flight or hotel for a trip starting on the target date. Accordingly, a third party providing travel related products or services (e.g., transportation via vehicles such as automobiles or airplanes, or lodging such as a hotel or motel) may be interested in providing content items describing the products or services for display to users during the corresponding lead time.
receiving, from a second third-party system, an identification of an interaction authorization request from the user, wherein the interaction authorization request comprises the authorization identifier; (See at least Otillar [0024] The online system 100 also receives information (e.g., describing flight or hotel reservations that a user made to plan for a trip or user searches for flights or hotels) from third party systems 120. Based on the received information, the online system 100 can use one or more machine learning models to predict a user's intention to take a trip and to predict other actions associated with the trip that may be performed by the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the virtual special purchasing card of Shapiro in view of Cohen with the providing travel related content to modify travel itineraries taught by Otillar in order to generate and apply rules to determine whether a user should be included in a target audience before there is an opportunity to present a content item to the user. (Otillar [0045]).
Shapiro doesn’t teach, Allen teaches:
parsing the unstructured data […]; [Allen; ¶74].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Allen in the system of Shapiro, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 2, Shapiro in view of Cohen in view of Otillar in view of Allen teach method of claim 1.
Shapiro teaches:
wherein issuing further comprises transmitting information to the client device of the user describing the authorization identifier. (See at least Shapiro [0013] In one implementation, a virtual specific purchasing card ("VSP card") can be provided to a user. The VSP card can be a physical card, such as a plastic or laminated card having information encoded thereon, such as a VSP card number.)
Re. claim 7, Shapiro in view of Cohen in view of Otillar in view of Allen teach method of claim 1.
Shapiro teaches:
further comprising, before transmitting the authorization of the interaction authorization request, determining, by the account management system, that the interaction authorization request originates at a location associated with the trigger event. (See at least Shapiro [0026] The user can add time, location, value, use, or other rules or restrictions on the use of the VSP card. When the VSP card is presented, the purchase can be authorized when the transaction complies with the restrictions of the VSP card, and can be declined when the transaction violates the restrictions.)
Re. claim 8,
Medium of claim 8 substantially mirrors the method of claim 1.
Re. claim 9,
Medium of claim 9 substantially mirrors the method of claim 2.
Re. claim 14,
Medium of claim 14 substantially mirrors the method of claim 7.
Re. claim 15,
System of claim 15 substantially mirrors the method of claim 1.
Re. claim 16,
System of claim 16 substantially mirrors the method of claim 2.
Claims 3-6, 10-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro in view of Cohen in view of Otillar in view of Allen in view of Steinlicht et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0011399 - hereinafter Steinlicht).
Re. claim 3, Shapiro in view of Cohen in view of Otillar in view of Allen teach method of claim 1.
Shapiro doesn’t teach, Steinlicht teaches:
wherein activating further comprises modifying a data structure associating the authorization identifier with the user and with the trigger event, the modification indicating that the authorization identifier is active and authorizing interactions in accordance with authorization rules associated with the authorization identifier. [Steinlicht; [0033-0034] In some embodiments, the activation or deactivation state of an account is independent of any particular transaction. This may be the case where, as discussed above, funds are transferred away from the funding account for the card to a separate account. In other embodiments, the activation or deactivation state of an account is particular to a pending transaction].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify virtual special purchasing card of Shapiro, Cohen and Otillar with the rule -based locking and unlocking of payment accounts taught by Steinlicht in order allow a user to define rules for circumstances when their payment vehicle will not, or should not, be used. (Steinlicht (abstract)).
Re. claim 4, Shapiro in view of Cohen in view of Otillar in view of Allen teach method of claim 1.
Shapiro doesn’t teach, Steinlicht teaches:
wherein deactivating further comprises modifying a data structure associating the authorization identifier with the user and with the trigger event, the modification indicating that the authorization identifier is deactivated and interactions are not authorized. [Steinlicht; [0033-0034] and [0037]: [0033] In some embodiments, the activation or deactivation state of an account is independent of any particular transaction. This may be the case where, as discussed above, funds are transferred away from the funding account for the card to a separate account. In other embodiments, the activation or deactivation state of an account is particular to a pending transaction. And [0037] The embodiment depicts in FIG. 3 divides rules into scheduled rules 302 and triggered rules 304. Broadly speaking, scheduled rules are those which depend only on the passage of time rather than an external event. Thus, in the example given above, the user who wishes to disable an account from 5 pm through 9 am each day could accomplish this in one embodiment using two scheduled rules, one to disable the account each day at 5 pm and one to enable it each day at 9 am. In an alternate embodiment, a single rule indicating both the start and end for the period of time for which the account is to be disabled could instead be specified.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify virtual special purchasing card of Shapiro, Cohen and Otillar with the rule -based locking and unlocking of payment accounts taught by Steinlicht in order allow a user to define rules for circumstances when their payment vehicle will not, or should not, be used. (Steinlicht (abstract)).
Re. claim 5, Shapiro in view of Cohen in view of Otillar in view of Allen teach method of claim 1.
Shapiro doesn’t teach, Steinlicht teaches:
further comprising: receiving, after the activating of the authorization identifier and before the deactivation of the authorization identifier, the interaction authorization request from the second third-party system for an interaction; determining that the interaction authorization request occurs after the activating of the authorization identifier and before the deactivation of the authorization identifier; and authorizing the interaction of the interaction authorization request. [Steinlicht; [0054] Decision 408 determines whether the transaction received at step 404 in in compliance with the user's defined rule set, based on the results of the evaluation at step 406. If decision 408 indicates that the transaction received at step 404 complied with the users specified rules, processing proceeds to step 410, where processing of the transaction proceeds as normal. In some embodiments, the merchant point of sale is sent a transaction approval message. In other embodiments, there may be additional processing required (e.g., checking an account balance) before the transaction can be approved].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify virtual special purchasing card of Shapiro, Cohen and Otillar with the rule -based locking and unlocking of payment accounts taught by Steinlicht in order allow a user to define rules for circumstances when their payment vehicle will not, or should not, be used. (Steinlicht (abstract)).
Re. claim 6, Shapiro in view of Cohen in view of Otillar in view of Allen in view of Steinlicht teach method of claim 5.
Shapiro doesn’t teach, Steinlicht teaches:
further comprising: receiving, after the deactivation of the authorization identifier, an identification of a second interaction authorization request from a third third-party system; determining that the second interaction authorization request occurs after the deactivation of the authorization identifier; and declining the interaction authorization request. [Steinlicht; [0055] If decision 408 instead indicated that the transaction received at step 404 should be declined, processing proceeds to step 412, where a rejection of the transaction is sent to the merchant point-of-sale… In some embodiments, the user is also notified that a transaction has been rejected because the account has been locked in accordance with their rules].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify virtual special purchasing card of Shapiro, Cohen and Otillar with the rule -based locking and unlocking of payment accounts taught by Steinlicht in order allow a user to define rules for circumstances when their payment vehicle will not, or should not, be used. (Steinlicht (abstract)).
Re. claim 10,
Medium of claim 10 substantially mirrors the method of claim 3.
Re. claim 11,
Medium of claim 11 substantially mirrors the method of claim 4.
Re. claim 12,
Medium of claim 12 substantially mirrors the method of claim 5.
Re. claim 13,
Medium of claim 13 substantially mirrors the method of claim 6.
Re. claim 17,
System of claim 17 substantially mirrors the method of claim 3.
Re. claim 18,
System of claim 18 substantially mirrors the method of claim 4.
Re. claim 19,
System of claim 19 substantially mirrors the method of claim 5.
Re. claim 20,
System of claim 20 substantially mirrors the method of claim 6.
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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628