DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the claims filed 02/10/2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application 18/051705 under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged and granted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/10/2025 has been received, considered as indicated, and placed on record in the file.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of self-evident clauses. The first sentence of the Abstract reads "Aspects provided may allow for a user to block charges from an entity without having to contact the entity”. The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," and in this case “Aspects provided”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 of detecting an evaluation period, providing a user with the option to block charges after the evaluation period ends, identifying an entity based on the incoming data, and blocking further activity with the entity based on identification information in the incoming data without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v.CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241.
Analysis
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 1 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a system, and independent claim 10 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a computer readable medium storing instruction to perform functions/steps and independent claim 16 all claims which depend from it are directed toward a computing device. As such, all claims fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1, Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 1 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A computer implemented method comprising: determining, by a machine learning model executing on a server and based on receiving a pre-authorization request to an electronic payment method associated with a user, that the pre-authorization request corresponds to a trial for a service associated with an entity; causing, based on a determination that the trial for the service is about to expire, an option to block charges from the entity to the electronic payment method to be displayed on a device associated with the user; receiving, from the device associated with the user, an indication to block charges from the entity; storing, by the server, the indication to block charges from the entity on a blocked list associated with the electronic payment method; receiving, from the entity, a first incoming charge to the electronic payment method; and based on the stored indication to block charges, blocking the first incoming charge from the entity from being applied to the electronic payment method”.
Claim 10 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform steps comprising: determining, by a machine learning model executing on a server and based on receiving a pre-authorization request to an electronic payment method associated with a user, that the pre-authorization request corresponds to a trial for a service associated with an entity; causing, based on a determination that the trial for the service is about to expire, an option to block charges from the entity to the electronic payment method to be displayed on a device associated with the user; receiving, from the device associated with the user, an indication to block charges from the entity; storing, by the server, the indication to block charges from the entity on a blocked list associated with the electronic payment method; receiving, from the entity, a first incoming charge to the electronic payment method; and based on the stored indication to block charges, blocking the first incoming charge from the entity from being applied to the electronic payment method”.
Claim 16 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to: determine, by a machine learning model executing on a server and based on receiving a pre-authorization request to an electronic payment method associated with a user, that the pre-authorization request corresponds to a trial for a service associated with an entity; cause, based on a determination that the trial for the service is about to expire, an option to block charges from the entity to the electronic payment method to be displayed on a device associated with the user; receive, from the device associated with the user, an indication to block charges from the entity; store, by the server, the indication to block charges from the entity on a blocked list associated with the electronic payment method; receive, from the entity, a first incoming charge to the electronic payment method; and based on the stored indication to block charges, block the first incoming charge from the entity from being applied to the electronic payment method”.
Those claim limits in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements.
The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Detecting an evaluation period, providing a user with the option to block charges after the evaluation period ends, identifying an entity based on the incoming data, and blocking further activity with the entity based on identification information in the incoming data is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223—24. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
In particular, the claims contain the following additional elements: a computer; a machine learning model; a server; electronic; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media; one or more processors; a computing device; memory. However, the specification description of the additional elements a computer ([0030-0032] [0034]); a machine learning model ([0071] The service provider identification model, similar to machine learning model 127 in FIG. 1, may use multiple methods to isolate the service provider identifier from the incoming charge data, including, but not limited to, regex processing, parsing of specific fields, lookup of service provider ID numbers, and more [0079] [0087] [0096]); a server ([Figure 1, element 105] [0045]); electronic (a programmed computer [0034]); one or more non-transitory computer-readable media ([0034]); one or more processors ([0032]); a computing device ([Figure 1] [0022]); memory ([0032] [0034]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 2, 5-11, 14-17, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 9, 18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12254454. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following analysis:
As per to claim 1:U.S. Patent No. 12254454 teaches A computer implemented method (claim 1) comprising: determining, by a machine learning model executing on a server and based on receiving a pre-authorization request to an electronic payment method associated with a user, that the pre-authorization request corresponds to a trial for a service associated with an entity (claim 1, 2nd limitation); causing, based on a determination that the trial for the service is about to expire, an option to block charges from the entity to the electronic payment method to be displayed on a device associated with the user (claim 1, 6th limitation); receiving, from the device associated with the user, an indication to block charges from the entity (claim 1, 7th limitation); storing, by the server, the indication to block charges from the entity on a blocked list associated with the electronic payment method (claim 1, 9th limitation); receiving, from the entity, a first incoming charge to the electronic payment method (claim 1, 8th limitation “…blocking an incoming charge…”); and based on the stored indication to block charges, blocking the first incoming charge from the entity from being applied to the electronic payment method (claim 1, 9th limitation).
As per to claim 2: U.S. Patent No. 12254454 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determination that the trial is about to expire is based on the machine learning model predicting a length (duration) of the trial (claim 1, 5th limitation).
As per to claim 5: U.S. Patent No. 12254454 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein blocking the first incoming charge further comprises: determining, by the machine learning model and based on the first incoming charge, that the first incoming charge is from the entity, wherein the machine learning model is configured to identify the entity based on prior incoming charges from the entity (claim 1, 3rd limitation); and based on a determination that the first incoming charge is from the entity, preventing the first incoming charge from being applied to the electronic payment method (claim 1, 9th limitation, last line).
As per to claim 6: U.S. Patent No. 12254454 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein blocking the first incoming charge further comprises: determining, by the machine learning model, that the first incoming charge corresponds to the service that the machine learning model determined that the user signed up for (claim 1, 2nd limitation); and blocking the first incoming charge (claim 1, 8th limitation).
As per to claim 7: U.S. Patent No. 12254454 teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving a second incoming charge from the entity; determining, by the machine learning model, that the second incoming charge does not correspond to the service that the machine learning model determined that the user signed up for; and allowing the second incoming charge to be applied to the electronic payment method (claims 2 and 9).
As per to claim 8: U.S. Patent No. 12254454 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the pre-authorization request corresponds to a trial for a service associated with an entity further comprises: identifying, by the machine learning model and based on the pre-authorization request, the entity; and determining, by the machine learning model and based on the pre-authorization request and the entity, that the pre-authorization request is for a trial (claim 1, 3rd limitation).
As per to claim 9: U.S. Patent No. 12254454 teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the pre-authorization request comprises an entity identifier, and wherein identifying the entity further comprises: comparing, by the machine learning model, the entity identifier in the pre-authorization request to known entity identifiers ([claim 2]).
As per to claim 10: U.S. Patent No. 12254454 teaches One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform steps comprising ([claim 20]).
The remaining limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 1.
As per claim 11,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 2.
As per claim 14,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 5.
As per claim 15,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 8.
As per claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 12254454 teaches A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions ([claim 18]).
The remaining limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 1.
As per claim 17,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 2.
As per claim 20,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samitt (U.S. Patent No. 10482467) in view of Chaturvedi (PGPub Document No. 20210406896).
As per claim 1, Samitt teaches a computer implemented method ([column 2, line 58 - column 3, line 10] [claim 11]) comprising: determining based on receiving a pre-authorization request to an electronic payment method associated with a user, that the pre-authorization request corresponds to a trial for a service associated with an entity (merchant) ([column 11, lines 43-55] “…a merchant may initiate a transaction authorization request to charge a user's payment account based on saved or stored payment account information. For example, user 110 may provide payment account information associated with payment card 114 (e.g., credit card number, expiration date, billing address, account holder name, "card verification value (CVV)" number, etc.) to a merchant ( e.g., a sports club) to start a free trial of a service (e.g., gym membership). The merchant may then save the payment account information in their system. Toward the end of the trial period or after the end of the trial period, the merchant may charge membership fees using the stored payment account information…” ); causing, based on a determination that the trial for the service is about to expire, an option to block charges from the entity to the electronic payment method to be displayed on a device associated with the user ([column 11, lines 55-63] “…User 110 may wish to discontinue the membership. For example, user 110 may inform the merchant to cancel the membership and stop any pending or future payment. For various reasons, the merchant may continue charging user ll0's payment account using the stored payment account information. After each charge is made, user 110 may dispute the charge by communicating with the financial service provider, e.g., the card issuer.…” [column 12, lines 7-12] “Systems and methods disclosed in this application may preventively block future or subsequent unauthorized charges from a particular merchant based on certain criteria. 10 In other words, embodiments disclosed herein provide "before-the-fact" preventive methods to relieve user 110 from undergoing repeated dispute procedures…” [column 12, lines 35-67] “…user 110 may file the dispute request through an online portal, for example, a website of the financial service provider or a mobile application …” [column 17, lines 6-9]); receiving, from the device associated with the user, an indication to block charges from the entity; storing, by the server, the indication to block charges from the entity on a blocked list associated with the electronic payment method; receiving, from the entity, a first incoming charge to the electronic payment method; and based on the stored indication to block charges, blocking the first incoming charge from the entity from being applied to the electronic payment method ([Figure 3] [column 12, line 35 - column 13, line 17] “FIG. 3 is a flowchart of an exemplary process 300 for blocking charges from a merchant to a payment account of a user, such as user 110, consistent with disclosed embodiments. In step 310, FSP system 130 may receive a dispute request from user 110 to dispute a charge to user 110's payment account applied or charged by a merchant, such as the merchant associated with merchant system 120 … In step 320, FSP system 130 may, in response to the dispute request, determine whether to block subsequent charges initiated by the merchant to user 110's payment account based on a history of charging activities of the merchant In some embodiments, the merchant information may be input to FSP system 130 when, for example, the dispute is filed by user 110 through calling a customer service number of the financial service provider and communicating with a customer service representative. In this case, the customer service representative may input the merchant information into FSP system 130 …” [0010] “Memory 230 may further include client data 234, which may include information about individual clients of the financial service provider. For example, client data 234 may include client account information, credit or debit card information, history of purchase and/or payment transactions, financial statements, and block-charge lists consistent with the disclosed embodiments. Client data 234 may include a data record associating a user account with one or more merchants according to the block-charge lists…”).
Sammitt does not teach a machine learning model executing on a server is used to identify an entity associated with a payment of a service as described in Specification (see at least [0027] [0055]).
Chaturvedi teaches a machine learning model (machine learning-trained classifier) executing on a server (transaction processing server) is used to identify an entity (merchant) associated with a payment (recurrent payment) of a service ([Figure 5, elements 502 and 504] [0113-0115] [Figure 6, elements 602 and 606] [0121-0122] [0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the machine learning-trained classifier model as found in the Chaturvedi with the system of Samitt in order to increase the success rate of authenticating transactions and improve the transaction success rate for merchants that are integrated with the billing product, including different types of transactions, such as a recurrent transaction and pre-authorized transactions. 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.
As per claim 2,
Samitt does not teach the claim limits.
Chaturvedi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determination that the trial is about to expire is based on the machine learning model predicting a length of the trial (see at least [0020] “…transaction periodicity forecasting using the machine learning-trained classifier…”).
As per claim 3,
Samitt teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: notifying the user that the trial has been detected; causing an option to configure a future notification date to be displayed on the device associated with the user; and receiving, from the device associated with the user, the future notification date, wherein the determination that the trial is about to expire is based on the future notification date ([column 14, lines 27-64] ([column 17, lines 6-48]).
As per claim 4,
Samitt teaches the method of claim 1, wherein causing the option to block charges to be displayed further comprises: sending, to the device associated with the user, a notification to the user that the trial is about to expire ([column 11, lines 55-63] “…User 110 may wish to discontinue the membership. For example, user 110 may inform the merchant to cancel the membership and stop any pending or future payment. For various reasons, the merchant may continue charging user ll0's payment account using the stored payment account information. After each charge is made, user 110 may dispute the charge by communicating with the financial service provider, e.g., the card issuer.…” [column 12, lines 7-12] “Systems and methods disclosed in this application may preventively block future or subsequent unauthorized charges from a particular merchant based on certain criteria. 10 In other words, embodiments disclosed herein provide "before-the-fact" preventive methods to relieve user 110 from undergoing repeated dispute procedures…” [column 12, lines 35-67] “…user 110 may file the dispute request through an online portal, for example, a website of the financial service provider or a mobile application …” [column 17, lines 6-9]).
As per claim 5,
Samitt teaches the method of claim 1, wherein blocking the first incoming charge further comprises: based on a determination that the first incoming charge is from the entity, preventing the first incoming charge from being applied to the electronic payment method ([Figure 4, elements 420 and 440] [column 15, lines 16-54]).
Samitt does not teach the remaining claim limits.
Chaturvedi teaches determining, based on the first incoming charge, that the first incoming charge is from the entity, wherein the machine learning model is configured to identify the entity based on prior incoming charges from the entity ([Figure 5, elements 502 and 504] [0113-0115] [Figure 6, elements 602 and 606] [0121-0122] [0124]).
As per claim 6,
Samitt teaches the method of claim 1, wherein blocking the first incoming charge further comprises: blocking the first incoming charge ([Figure 4, elements 420 and 440] [column 15, lines 16-54]).
Samitt does not teach the remaining claim limits.
Chaturvedi teaches determining, by the machine learning model, that the first incoming charge corresponds to the service that the machine learning model determined that the user signed up for ([Figure 5, elements 502 and 504] [0113-0115] [Figure 6, elements 602 and 606] [0121-0122] [0124]);
As per claim 7,
Samitt teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving a second incoming charge from the entity; and allowing the second incoming charge to be applied to the electronic payment method ([Figure 4, elements 420 and 426] [column 15, lines 16-54]).
Samitt does not teach the remaining claim limits.
Chaturvedi teaches determining, by the machine learning model, that the second incoming charge does not correspond to the service that the machine learning model determined that the user signed up for ([Figure 5, elements 502 and 504] [0113-0115] [Figure 6, elements 602 and 606] [0121-0122] [0124]);
As per claim 8,
The remaining limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claims 1 and 2.
As per claim 9,
Samitt teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the pre-authorization request comprises an entity identifier, and wherein identifying the entity further comprises: comparing, the entity identifier in the pre-authorization request to known entity identifiers (block-charge list) ([Figure 3] [column 12, line 35 - column 13, line 17] “FIG. 3 is a flowchart of an exemplary process 300 for blocking charges from a merchant to a payment account of a user, such as user 110, consistent with disclosed embodiments. In step 310, FSP system 130 may receive a dispute request from user 110 to dispute a charge to user 110's payment account applied or charged by a merchant, such as the merchant associated with merchant system 120 … In step 320, FSP system 130 may, in response to the dispute request, determine whether to block subsequent charges initiated by the merchant to user 110's payment account based on a history of charging activities of the merchant In some embodiments, the merchant information may be input to FSP system 130 when, for example, the dispute is filed by user 110 through calling a customer service number of the financial service provider and communicating with a customer service representative. In this case, the customer service representative may input the merchant information into FSP system 130 …” [0010] “Memory 230 may further include client data 234, which may include information about individual clients of the financial service provider. For example, client data 234 may include client account information, credit or debit card information, history of purchase and/or payment transactions, financial statements, and block-charge lists consistent with the disclosed embodiments. Client data 234 may include a data record associating a user account with one or more merchants according to the block-charge lists…”).
Samitt does not teach the remaining claim limits.
Chaturvedi teaches the machine learning model ([Figure 5, elements 502 and 504] [0113-0115] [Figure 6, elements 602
and 606] [0121-0122] [0124])
As per claim 10, Samitt teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform steps ([column 2, lines 13-17] [column 9, lines 33-49] [claim 20]).
The remaining limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 1.
As per claim 11,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 2.
As per claim 12,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 3.
As per claim 13,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 4.
As per claim 14,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 5.
As per claim 15,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 8.
As per claim 16, Samitt teaches a computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions ([Figure 2, element 200] [column 8, line 33 - column 11, line 33] [claim 1]).
The remaining limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 1.
As per claim 17,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 2.
As per claim 18,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 3.
As per claim 19,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 4.
As per claim 20,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
02/19/2026