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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, and 11 have been amended. Claim 15 was previously canceled. Claims 1-14 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
In light of Applicant’s amendments to claim 5, filed 08/20/2026, claim 5 is longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As such, the amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections set forth in the Final Rejection 06/23/2026. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claim 5 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 6, filed 08/20/2026, have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection regarding claims being directed to software per se. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 6-9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 08/20/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the amended claims integrating the alleged judicial exception into a practical application on pgs. 10-12, enabling track of information without personal identifiable information is still tracking of information. At most, the claimed invention improves privacy of data, but it does not improve its security since the claim language is not related to securing the data. Furthermore, there are no particular steps or operations that can only be performed by a particular machine. The claimed invention also does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, because tracking transactions with a unique identifier is not a technology or technical field. Rather, the claimed invention is using a computer to implement the abstract idea. It is not apparent from the claim language how the improvements disclosed in the specification [0026-29] can be realized. For example, it is unclear how mapping the account to a unique identifier and tracking transactions based on the unique identifier allows for “seamless changes in unified account…without disrupting existing processes…” or “extensive configuration options.” Merely reciting the paragraphs and the claim language do not constitute substantive evidence as to why the claimed invention integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, tracking financial data and financial planning are considered abstract ideas, however, the remarks have failed to identify any additional elements that use the abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond using a computer to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the remarks cannot be persuasive. Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant's arguments, filed 08/20/2026, with respect to the prior art rejection, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the account number on pgs. 13-14, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “bank information” includes “account number.” Paragraph [0029] of Woodard U.S. 2024/0233007 is evidence that a bank account includes the account number, which is required for settlement [0025]. Since the created client entity account is used for settlement [0027-28], the bank account information used for creating the client entity account would include the account number of the bank account. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that to withdraw or deposit money into an account requires an account number. Therefore, if the account created is for the purpose of making/receiving payments, an account number would be required. As previously stated in the Final Rejection 06/23/2026, under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, the claim language can be interpreted to mean that the account number is used to create the account. In other words, “creating…with an account number” is interpreted to mean that an account number is used to create the account, which Woodard discloses in [0030]. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the “client entity account identifier” on pg. 14, the “client entity account” is the account type [0029]. Woodard discloses two account types: client entity account, which is an account for a client, and company entity account, which is an account for the company. Woodard discloses in [0030] creating a client entity account for a new client, therefore, Woodard discloses creating an account for the type of account, i.e. client entity account. The client entity account identifier uniquely identifies the client entity account [0063], and is therefore analogous to the unique identifier in the claimed invention. Furthermore, an “entity account” is the account created [0029].
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the “streaming…” limitation and booking periods on pg. 15, a booking period corresponds to a business day as claimed, therefore, one date is analogous to one booking period. As such, “dates” or a plurality of dates, as disclosed by Woodard in [0036], is analogous to a plurality of booking periods. Furthermore, the claimed invention does not claim any limitation that “handles different booking periods differently.” Therefore, this particular remark is not relevant to what is being claimed.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the unique ledger not identifying the account number on pg. 16, although the Examiner does not agree with the remarks, for purposes of compact prosecution, the rejection has been withdrawn, and a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kumawat et al. U.S. 2024/0420115 (herein as “Kumawat”).
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the type of account on pg. 16, patentable weight is now given to the type of account. Please see below for the prior art mapping. Applicant has not provided any substantive remarks regarding prior art Mullen et al. U.S. 2003/0009402. Therefore, the conclusory remark against Mullen cannot be 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-14 fall into at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. For purposes of compact prosecution, since it appears from the instant disclosure that claims 6-9 can be easily amended to fall within a statutory category, they shall be included in the eligibility analysis. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A.1:
The limitations of independent claim 1 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. Independent claims 6 and 11 recite similar distinguishing features as claim 1, therefore the following eligibility analysis shall apply to independent claims 1, 6, and 11. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
receiving, by a unified account service computer program, an account creation request from a system of record, wherein the account creation request comprises a type of account to be created, an account value, and an account available balance;
creating, by the unified account service computer program, an account for the type of account with an account number;
mapping, by the unified account service computer program, the account number to a unique identifier and storing the mapping;
streaming, by the unified account service computer program, the unique identifier and account data to a unified ledger, wherein the unified ledger is configured to create a unified ledger account on the unified ledger for the unique identifier with the account data and to set an account balance for the unified ledger account for a plurality of booking periods, wherein the unified ledger account does not identify the account number, the account type, or an account owner, and wherein each booking period corresponds to a business day, wherein the unified ledger is configured to warehouse transactions beyond the plurality of booking periods;
receiving, by a unified postings service computer program, a transaction with a transaction booking period for the account;
identifying, by the unified postings service computer program and using the mapping, the unique identifier for the account; and
routing, by the unified postings service computer program, the transaction and the unique identifier to the unified ledger, wherein the unified ledger is configured to update the account balance for the unified ledger account for the plurality of booking periods.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, A-G recite limitations that are reasonably categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claimed limitations can be grouped as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Creating an account and mapping the account to create a ledger account to track account balance(s) based on a transaction is analogous to tracking financial transactions, which is managing personal behavior.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 recite at least one abstract idea. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.2.
Step 2A.2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional element(s) not in bold above.
Claim 6 also recites similar additional elements as claim 1, and further recites “a system,” “a unified account service electronic device,” and “a unified posting service electronic device” as additional elements. Claim 11 further recites “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, including instructions thereon, which when read and executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors” as additional elements. These additional elements have all been recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computing components. Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, the claims amount to no more than mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when considerations from Step 2A.2 are re-evaluated. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount 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.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, and 12-14 elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 5 and 10 recite “the unified ledger publishes the account balance for at least one of the booking periods to an outbox” and “a consuming system is configured to receive the account balance for the unified ledger account from the outbox” as additional elements. The limitation “to consume the account balance” is interpreted to mean a transfer of funds, which is elaborating on the abstract idea identified above. Publishing the account balance and receiving the account balance are considered insignificant extra-solution activities because they amount to no more than mere data gathering and outputting. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), buySAFE. Furthermore, a “downstream consuming system comprising a consuming computer processor and executing a consuming computer program” and “a consuming system comprising a computer processor” have been recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computing components. Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, the claims amount to no more than mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application such that the abstract idea amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodard U.S. 2024/0233007 in view of Mullen et al. U.S. 2003/0009402 (herein as “Mullen”), and further in view of Kumawat et al. U.S. 2024/0420115 (herein as “Kumawat”).
Re Claim 1, Woodard teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a unified account service computer program, an account creation request from a system of record […] ([0030] – “As a company 104 acquires clients 102, its personnel may use the platform 100 to conduct client entity account creation for each of its new clients 102,” i.e. company 104 is analogous to a system of record, platform 100 is analogous to a unified account service computer program and a unified postings service computer program, [0034] – “these actions (i.e. entity account creation) may be brought about [in] other ways…the platform 100 may extend API’s that permit a debt settlement company 104 to command the platform 100 to take such actions,” i.e. command the platform 100 is analogous to the platform 100 receiving an account creation request);
creating, by the unified account service computer program, an account for the type of account with an account number ([0030] – “During client entity account creation for a new client 102, a company 104 representative may enter information identifying the new client (name, address, social security number, bank account information, and so on),” [0029] – there are two types of accounts: client entity account and company entity account, the client entity account is created for a new client, therefore, an account for the type of account is created);
mapping, by the unified account service computer program, the account number to a unique identifier and storing the mapping ([0063] – “the client’s entity account identifier 518 uniquely identifying the client entity account in the processor’s data store 314,” since the account identifier uniquely identifies the client entity account, it maps to the client 102, which includes identifying information such as bank account information, i.e. account number);
streaming, by the unified account service computer program, the unique identifier and account data to a unified ledger ([0036] – “For each client 102, company 104 and affiliate 116, the platform 100 maintains a ledger account to keep track of their respective balances,” streaming is analogous to sending/transmitting information, and maintaining a ledger account to track a respective entity’s balance suggests that the entity’s information, including identifying and transaction information, is sent/transmitted to the ledger account, the ledger accounts are collectively analogous to the unified ledger), wherein the unified ledger is configured to create a unified ledger account on the unified ledger for the unique identifier with the account data and to set an account balance for the unified ledger account for a plurality of booking periods, wherein each booking period corresponds to a business day, ([0036] – “For a given party, its ledger account includes the transactions (drafts, payments, fees, and other various debits and credits, including their dates and amounts)…and includes a balance reflecting the net effect of all such transactions,” [0037] – “A ledger account is associated with an entity account,” [0063] – “the client’s entity account identifier 518 uniquely identifying the client entity account.” The ledger account identifies the client’s entity account identifier since the ledger account is associated with the client entity account, and the client’s entity account identifier uniquely identifies said client entity account. A date is analogous to one booking period, therefore, dates, or a plurality of dates, are analogous to a plurality of booking periods. Although Woodard does not expressly disclose that each “date” is a “business day,” Woodard does suggest use of business days when setting financial deadlines [0077]. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that banks operate on business days. Therefore, modifying the “dates” in Woodard’s ledger accounts to correspond to business days would yield predictable results), wherein the unified ledger is configured to warehouse transactions beyond the plurality of booking periods ([0037] – “A ledger account is associated with an entity account, and other information, such as a client’s 102 future scheduled payments, may be associated with the aforementioned client’s 102 entity account, although not yet entered into his or her ledger account,” not yet entered is analogous to warehousing a transaction, and “future scheduled payments” is analogous to “beyond the plurality of booking periods”);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand that since a ledger account is associated with an entity account, it must also be created for the entity account that was previously created.
receiving, by a unified postings service computer program, a transaction with a transaction booking period for the account ([0031] – “The representative may enter information specifying the schedule of payments,” [0038] – the scheduled payments are associated with a client 102 and with a particular date, i.e. transaction booking period);
identifying, by the unified postings service computer program and using the mapping, the unique identifier for the account [0063] – “the client’s entity account identifier uniquely identifying the client entity account,” “a payment transaction record includes a client entity account identifier (information element 518) to identify the client’s entity account”; and
routing, by the unified postings service computer program, the transaction and the unique identifier to the unified ledger, wherein the unified ledger is configured to update the account balance for the unified ledger account for the plurality of booking periods ([0036] – “For each client 102, company 104 and affiliate 116, the platform 100 maintains a ledger account to keep track of their respective balances,” “For a given party, its ledger account includes the transactions (drafts, payments, fees, and other various debits and credits, including their dates and amounts),” routing is analogous to sending/transmitting information, and maintaining a ledger account to track a respective entity’s balance suggests that the entity and transaction information is sent/transmitted to the ledger account, [0037] – “such as a client’s 102 future scheduled payments, may be associated with the aforementioned client’s 102 entity account, although not yet entered into his or her ledger account,” this suggests that once the scheduled payment is process, the ledger account would be updated with the information).
Woodard discloses in [0096] that the computer system can comprise of software elements, such as code, and/or one or more application programs, which may comprise computer programs provided by various embodiments, and/or may be designed to implement methods, and/or configure systems, provided by other embodiments as described. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the various claim elements can be implemented by one or more computer programs.
However, Woodard does not expressly disclose
wherein the account creation request comprises a type of account to be created, an account value, and an account available balance.
Mullen discloses a financial management system. Specifically, Mullen discloses
wherein the account creation request comprises a type of account to be created, an account value, and an account available balance ([0013] – “virtual-sub accounts may be created with pre-defined attributes or user defined attributes,” [0014] – “virtual-sub accounts may also be categorized according to use,” i.e. type of account, [0022] – “creating a sub-account database defining attributes and virtual balances for a plurality of virtual sub-accounts,” i.e. account available balance, [0045] – “define the operational model parameters of said virtual sub-accounts,” [0051] – “said parameters of said sub-accounts may include real transactions associated with said single account, or virtual transactions between said sub-accounts,” i.e. account value).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Woodard’s payment platform with entity and ledger accounts with the teachings of defining account attributes and parameters during creation in Mullen. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable tracking financial information on a more detailed level to examine credits and/or debits relating to a specific category of financial activity Mullen, [0006].
However, Woodard in view of Mullen do not explicitly teach
wherein the unified ledger account does not identify the account number, the account type, or an account owner.
Kumawat discloses a method and system for identifying type of account. Specifically, Kumawat discloses
wherein the unified ledger account does not identify the account number, the account type, or an account owner ([0003] – “The anonymous nature of blockchain wallet ownership can enable individuals or entities to participate in transactions without having to provide identification,” [0026] – account type is obtained from a lookup table and “As a result, compliance with applicable regulations based on account type can be ensured without having to directly identify the user of the new blockchain wallet or obtain the full transaction account number,” thereby suggesting the blockchain wallet does not identify the account number, the account type, or an account owner).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Woodard in view of Mullen’s payment platform with entity and ledger accounts with the teachings of blockchain wallets in Kumawat. One would be motivated to make the combination to protect personal identifiable information, thereby improving user privacy.
Re Claim 2, Woodard in view of Mullen and Kumawat teach the method of claim 1, Woodard in view of Mullen and Kumawat further teach wherein the account creation request comprises an account type and an account currency for the account (Woodard, [0029] - a client entity account and a company entity account, i.e. an account type, and Woodard, [0031] -payment creation process associated with each client 102 account that defines each payment to be made to a given client’s creditor(s), i.e. currency for the account).
Re Claim 4, Woodard in view of Mullen and Kumawat teach the method of claim 2, and Woodard in view of Mullen and Kumawat further teach further comprising:
wherein the unified ledger account on the unified ledger is unchanged (Woodard, [0037] – “such as client’s 102 future scheduled payments, may be associated with aforementioned client’s 102 entity account, although not yet entered into his or her ledger account,” i.e. unchanged).
However, Woodard in view of Mullen do not explicitly teach
receiving, by the unified account service computer program, an account type change for the account; and
updating, by the unified account service computer program, the account type for the account number based on the account type change.
Kumawat discloses a method and system for identifying type of account. Specifically, Kumawat discloses
receiving, by the unified account service computer program, an account type change for the account [0024] – “correct the account type for the associated transaction account”; and
updating, by the unified account service computer program, the account type for the account number based on the account type change [0025] – “provide the…correct account type back to the processor server.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Woodard in view of Mullen’s payment platform with entity and ledger accounts with the teachings of receiving an account type change and updating the account type for the account number in Kumawat. One would be motivated to make this combination to stay up-to-date for regulatory purposes and compliance with applicable sanctions Kumawat, [0003], [0015].
Re Claim 5, Woodard in view of Mullen and Kumawat teach the method of claim 1, and Woodard in view of Mullen and Kumawat further teach wherein the unified ledger publishes the account balance for at least one of the booking periods to an outbox (Woodard, [0035] – “Via the website 124, the client 102 may view information related to his…ledger account…such as its current balance…scheduled and completed transactions, e.g. scheduled and completed drafts, fees and creditor payments” website 124 is analogous to the outbox); and
a downstream consuming system comprising a consuming computer processor and executing a consuming computer program is configured to receive the account balance for the unified ledger account from the outbox and to consume the account balance (Woodard, [0040] – “communicate with the processor’s bank 112 to instruct it to transfer funds from the aggregated custodial account 210 into a disbursement account 212, 213, 214, or 216, in an amount equal to the payment amount within the aforementioned record.” Bank 112 is analogous to a consuming system, and it receiving instructions to transfer funds is analogous to it receiving the account balance, the fund amount being analogous to the account balance, and transfer funds to a disbursement account is analogous to consume the account balance. Aforementioned record includes the record representing the due scheduled payment transaction for a client).
The outbox is not actively sending the account balance, therefore, under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, “the account balance for the unified ledger account from the outbox” is interpreted to be any amount of funds that is analogous to what can be displayed on the website 124.
Re Claims 6-7 and 9-10, they are the system claims for method claims 1-2 and 4-5, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as claims 1-2 and 4-5. Furthermore, Woodard discloses a computing system, including processor(s), designed to implement the disclosed method(s) in at least Fig. 11, [0092], [0096]. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons above.
Re Claims 11-12 and 14, they are the non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims of method claims 1-2 and 4, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as claims 1-2 and 4. Furthermore, Woodard discloses a computer-readable storage medium in [0097] and processor in [0096] to perform one or more operations in accordance with the described methods.
Claims 3, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodard U.S. 2024/0233007 in view of Mullen et al. U.S. 2003/0009402 (herein as “Mullen”), and further in view of Kumawat et al. U.S. 2024/0420115 (herein as “Kumawat”) as applied to claims 1, 6, and 11 above, and further in view of Kumar U.S. 2021/0103583.
Re Claim 3, Woodard in view of Mullen teach the method of claim 1, and Woodard in view of Mullen further teach further comprising:
wherein the unified ledger account on the unified ledger is unchanged (Woodard, [0037] – “such as client’s 102 future scheduled payments, may be associated with aforementioned client’s 102 entity account, although not yet entered into his or her ledger account,” i.e. unchanged).
However, Woodard in view of Mullen do not explicitly teach
receiving, by the unified account service computer program, a new account number for the account; and
updating, by the unified account service computer program, the mapping to replace the account number with the new account number.
Kumar discloses a cloud-based renumbering of identifiers. Specifically, Kumar discloses
receiving, by the unified account service computer program, a new account number for the account [0051] – “The change request 125 can specify a new account identifier for a G/L account”; and
updating, by the unified account service computer program, the mapping to replace the account number with the new account number [0051] – “the old account identifier associated with the G/L account is replaced with the new account identifier. Then, at 330, for the reference framework 160 interfacing with the plurality of backend tables 150, the old account identifier associated with the G/L account is also replaced with the new account identifier.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Woodard in view of Mullen and Kumawat’s payment platform with entity and ledger accounts with the teachings of receiving a new account number and updating the mapping to replace the account number with the new account number in Kumar. One would be motivated to make this combination because it would allow clients to reconfigure/update systems after deployment without discarding historical transactional data Kumar, [0098].
Re Claim 8, it is the system claim for method claim 3. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons above.
Re Claim 13, it is the non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim for method claim 3. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons above.
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 CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/CHRISTINE DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights