CTNF 19/297,323 CTNF 83274 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The instant application having Application No. 19/297,323 filed on 8/12/2025 is presented for examination by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application. Priority As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of Applicant's claim for priority as a CON of 18/317,689 filed on 5/15/2023 now Patent 12,405,941 B2. Drawings The Applicant's drawings filed on 8/12/2025 are acceptable for examination purpose. Claim Objections Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: As per claim 10 , the claim recites “ perform, by the computing device, the first processing job resulting in a processed form of the first data by processing the first data based on the one or more rules ” which should be written or amended as “ perform, by the computing device, the first processing job resulting in a processed form of the first data by processing the first data based on the one or more rules ; ” by adding a semicolon ( ; ) at the end of the limitation. Appropriate correction is respectfully required. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1, 10 and 19 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 19 of the US Patent Number 12,405,941 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1, 10 and 19 of the US Patent Number 12,405,941 B2 contain every element of claims 1, 10 and 19 of the instant application respectively and as such anticipate(s) claims 1, 10 and 19 of the instant application (see i.e., table below). Initially, it should be noted that the instant application and the U.S. Patent number 12,405,941 B2 have the same inventive entities. The inventor and/or assignee for the US Patent and the instant application are Timothy Haggerty, Venu Kumar Nannapaneni, Ramachandra Kancharla, Pravin Nair, and Priyank Chittaranjan Subhedar as the inventors; and Capital One Services, LLC as the assignee. Instant Application US Patent 12,405,941 B2 Claim 1 : A method comprising: receiving, by a computing device and from a first remote server, a first processing job comprising first data and one or more rules; performing, by the computing device, the first processing job resulting in a processed form of the first data, wherein the performing comprises processing the first data based on the one or more rules; based on a determination that a second remote server has not completed the first processing job: adding, by the computing device, to a local instance of a status database, an indication that the computing device has completed the first processing job; and transmitting, by the computing device and to the second remote server, an instruction to terminate the first processing job by adding, to an instance of a status database of the second remote server, the indication. Claim 1 : A method comprising: receiving, by a computing device and from a first remote server, a first processing job comprising first data and one or more validation rules; performing, by the computing device, the first processing job resulting in a processed form of the first data, wherein the performing comprises: reading the first data; validating, based on the one or more validation rules, the first data; determining, by the computing device and via a local instance of a status database of the computing device, that the second remote server has not completed the first processing job; based on the determining that the second remote server has not completed the first processing job: writing, by the computing device, to the local instance of the status database, a status of the first processing job, wherein the status indicates that the computing device as completed the first processing job; transmitting, by the computing device and to the second remote server, an instruction to terminate the first processing job by writing, to the local instance of a status database of the second remote server, the status; and writing, by the computing device, the processed form of the first data based on the performing the first processing job. Claim 10 : An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: receive, by a computing device and from a first remote server, a first processing job comprising first data and one or more rules; perform, by the computing device, the first processing job resulting in a processed form of the first data by processing the first data based on the one or more rules based on a determination that a second remote server has not completed the first processing job: adding, to a local instance of a status database, an indication that the computing device has completed the first processing job; and transmit, to the second remote server, an instruction to terminate the first processing job by adding, to an instance of a status database of the second remote server, the indication. Claim 10 : An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: receive, by a computing device and from a first remote server, a first processing job comprising first data and one or more validation rules; perform, by the computing device, the first processing job resulting in a processed form of the first data, wherein the instructions to perform further cause the apparatus to: execute one or more lambda functions; read the first data; and validate, based on the one or more validation rules, the first data; determine, via a local instance of a status database of the computing device, that the second remote server has not completed the first processing job; based on the determination that the second remote server has not completed the first processing job: write, to the local instance of the status database, a status of the first processing job, wherein the status indicates that the computing device has completed the first processing job; transmit, to the second remote server, an instruction to terminate the first processing job by writing, to the local instance of a status database of the second remote server, the status; and write, by the computing device, the processed form of the first data based on the performance of the first processing job. Claim 19 : One or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps comprising: receiving, by a computing device and from a first remote server, a first processing job comprising a process identification, first data, one or more rules, and machine-readable instructions to perform a process on the first data; performing, by the computing device, the first processing job resulting in a processed form of the first data, wherein the performing comprises processing the first data based on the one or more rules; based on a determination that a second remote server has not completed the first processing job: adding, by the computing device and to a local instance of a status database, an indication that the computing device has completed the first processing job; and transmitting, by the computing device and to the second remote server, an instruction to terminate the first processing job by adding, to an instance of a status database of the second remote server, the indication. Claim 19 : One or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps comprising: receiving, by a computing device and from a first remote server, a first processing job comprising a process identification, first data, one or more validation rules, and machine-readable instructions to perform a process on the first data; performing, by the computing device, the first processing job resulting in a processed form of the first data, wherein the performing comprises: reading the first data; validating, based on the one or more validation rules, the first data; determining, by the computing device and via a local instance of a status database of the computing device, that the second remote server has not completed the first processing job, wherein the local instance of the status database of the computing device is configured to replicate changes to the local instance of the status database of the computing device to a local instance of a status database of the second remote server; based on the determining that the second remote server has not completed the first processing job: writing, by the computing device and to the local instance of the status database, a status of the first processing job, wherein the status indicates that the computing device has completed the first processing job; transmitting, by the computing device and to the second remote server, an instruction to terminate the first processing job by writing, to the local instance of the status database of the second remote server, the status; and writing, by the computing device, the processed form of the first data based on the performing the first processing job. Claim Objections Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: As per claim 10 , the claim recites “ adding, to a local instance of a status database,… ” and “ transmit, to the second remote server,… ” which should be written or amended as “ add ing , by the computing device, to a local instance of a status database,… ” and “ transmit, by the computing device and to the second remote server,… ”. Appropriate corrections are respectfully required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As per claims 1, 10 and 19 ; the claims recite “ adding, by the computing device, to a local instance of a status database , an indication that the computing device has completed the first processing job ” which the underlined feature renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear as whether the “status database” is located on the computing device or the first remote server (e.g., according to the databases 308, 310 and 311 in the Figure 3 of the Applicant’s drawings). Note, the dependent claims are also rejected because they depend on and/or do not remedy the deficiencies inherited by their parent claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. As per claim 1 , the claim recites “ A method comprising: receiving, by a computing device and from a first remote server, a first processing job comprising first data and one or more rules; performing, by the computing device, the first processing job resulting in a processed form of the first data, wherein the performing comprises processing the first data based on the one or more rules; based on a determination that a second remote server has not completed the first processing job: adding, by the computing device, to a local instance of a status database, an indication that the computing device has completed the first processing job; and transmitting, by the computing device and to the second remote server, an instruction to terminate the first processing job by adding, to an instance of a status database of the second remote server, the indication ”. Step 1: Statutory Category Claim 1 discloses a method which is a process within the meaning of the section. Step 2A - Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited The claim recites the limitation “ determinination ” which specifically recites “ based on a determination that a second remote server has not completed the first processing job… ”. This limitation is process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “ a computing device ”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper. For example, “determinination” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper looking at information and/or characteristics of data and examining to identify or determine the desire or relevant data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A - Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application The claim recites the additional elements “ receiving… a first processing job… ”, “ performing… the first processing job… ”, “ adding… to a local instance of a status database, an indication… ”, “ transmitting… an instruction to terminate the first processing job… ” and “ adding, to an instance of a status database of the second remote server, the indication ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional steps: the “receiving” and “adding” steps mount to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and the “performing”, “transmitting” and “terminate” steps are considered as a mere instruction to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer and/or no more than an idea of a solution or outcome on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the 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, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, which include the data-gathering and the steps of “ transmitting… an instruction to terminate the first processing job… ” and “ adding, to an instance of a status database of the second remote server, the indication ” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing device to perform the “ transmitting… an instruction to terminate the first processing job… ” and “ adding, to an instance of a status database of the second remote server, the indication ” steps 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. The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. As per claim 2 , the claim recites “ The method of claim 1, further comprising: ”, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. “ receiving, by the computing device from the first remote server, a second processing job comprising second data and one or more second validation rules; ”, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. “ performing, by the computing device, the second processing job, wherein the performing comprises: reading the second data; validating, based on the one or more second validation rules, at least some of the second data; ”, these additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more. “ determining a failure of the performing of the second processing job by the computing device; and ”, this additional limitation has been discussed above with respect to the abstract idea (i.e., “Mental Processes”) and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. “ writing, by the computing device to the local instance of the status database of the computing device and based on the failure of the performing of the second processing job by the computing device, a second status of the second processing job, wherein the second status indicates the failure of performing the second processing job by the computing device ”, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As per claim 3 , the claim recites “ The method of claim 1, further comprising: ”, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. “ receiving, by the computing device from the first remote server, a second processing job comprising a second process identification, second data, one or more second validation rules, and second machine-readable instructions to perform a second process on the second data; ”, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. “ performing, by the computing device, the second processing job, wherein the performing comprises: reading the second data; validating, based on the one or more second validation rules, at least some of the second data; ”, these additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ determining, by the computing device and from the local instance of the status database of the computing device, whether the second remote server has completed the second processing job; and ”, this additional limitation has been discussed above with respect to the abstract idea (i.e., “Mental Processes”) and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. “ terminating, by the computing device and based on the determining that the second remote server has completed the second processing job, the performing of the second processing job ”, this additional limitation amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more. As per claim 4 , the claim recites “ The method of claim 1, wherein the first processing job is an extraction sub process of an extraction, transform, and load process ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more. As per claim 5 , the claim recites “ The method of claim 1, wherein determining the status of the first processing job performed by the second remote server comprises: synchronizing the local instance of the status database of the computing device and a local instance of the status database of the second remote server to determine the status of the first processing job performed by the second remote server ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional limitation “synchronizing” mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception, and the additional limitation “determine” has been discussed above with respect to the abstract idea (i.e., “Mental Processes”) and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As per claim 6 , the claim recites “ The method of claim 1, further comprising executing, by the computing device, a lambda function configured to monitor the status of the first processing job being performed by the computing device and to write the status of the first processing job being performed by the computing device to the local instance of the status database of the computing device ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional limitation “monitor” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and the additional limitation “write” mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As per claim 7 , the claim recites “ The method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises data from a single data storage ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more. As per claim 8 , the claim recites “ The method of claim 1, wherein: the first data comprises a combination of second data from a first data storage and third data from a second data storage, and a format of the second data corresponds to a format of the third data ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, these additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more. As per claim 9 , the claim recites “ The method of claim 1, wherein the determination that the second remote server has not completed the first processing job is based on the local instance of the status database of the computing device ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation has been discussed above with respect to the abstract idea (i.e., “Mental Processes”) and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As per claim 10 , the claim recites “ An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: ” have similar limitations in the claim 1. Step 1: Statutory Category Claim 10 discloses an apparatus which is a machine within the meaning of the section. Step 2A – Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited The claim recites the limitations as same as claim 1, and therefore are interpreted as an abstract idea under the same premise as claim 1. Step 2A – Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application The claim recites additional elements as same as claim 1, and therefore are interpreted as an abstract idea under the same premise as claim 1. Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept The claim recites the limitation as same as claim 1, and therefore is considered under the same premise as claim 1 as no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible. As per claims 11-13 , the claims are rejected under the same premises as the claims 2-4 respectively. As per claim 14 , the claim recites “ The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the first processing job further comprises a transform sub process of the extraction, transform, and load process ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more. As per claims 15-18 , the claims are rejected under the same premises as the claims 5 and 7-9 respectively. As per claim 19 , the claim recites “ One or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps comprising: ” limitations similar to the claim 1. Step 1: Statutory Category Claim 19 discloses one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media which is a manufacture within the meaning of the section. Step 2A – Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited The claim recites the limitations as same as claim 1, and therefore are interpreted as an abstract idea under the same premise as claim 1. Step 2A – Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application The claim recites additional elements as same as claim 1, and therefore are interpreted as an abstract idea under the same premise as claim 1. Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept The claim recites the limitation as same as claim 1, and therefore is considered under the same premise as claim 1 as no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible. As per claim 20 , the claim is rejected under the same premise as the claim 2. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection, the rejections, and a terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome the double patenting rejection as set forth in this Office action. Reasons for Allowance The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: After conducting different searches in PE2E - SEARCH, Similarity and More Like Doc Searches, Google Scholar, and ACM Digital Library, it appears that none of prior arts, singular and any order combination, discloses, teaches or fairly suggests the limitations as a whole in the independent claims 1, 10 and 19. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10,936,206 B1 by Dittia teaches handling a device in latency state in a redundant storage system includes a processor configured to process a write request to a plurality of devices associated with a redundant storage system. The processor is further configured to receive a set of indications of write successes from a set of devices included in the plurality of devices other than a first device, and send an indication of a completed write to a requestor associated with the write request based at least in part on an indication that the first device meets a set of one or more criteria associated with a latency state. The system further includes a memory coupled to the processor and configured to store the write request. US 2013/0246376 A1 by Padmanabhan et al. teaches defines one or more of initial validation rules, one or more source to target mapping instructions, one or more data filtering rules, one or more data validation rules, one or more data transformation rules, and one or more file definition rules. The initial validations are performed on one or more source files based on the initial validation rules. The initially validated source files are mapped into a staging database based on the source to target mapping instructions. The data filtering rules are applied to the mapped source files in the staging database. Validation and transformation are performed on each of the successfully filtered source files based on the data validation rules and the data transformation rules. The validated and transformed source files are loaded into a core database. One or more load ready files are generated from the loaded source files based on the target file generation filtering rules. US 2021/0034477 A1 by Pederson teaches a system sends a transaction to a database server to cause storing of data of the transaction in a cache of the database server, where the data in the cache is for inclusion in a backup of data from the database server to a remote data store (e.g., the backup may be in a cloud and may be a snapshot). The system detects a failure associated with the database server, and in response to detecting the failure, requests, from the database server or a replacement database server, transaction information of at least one transaction that was successfully applied to the remote data store, the transaction information based on the backup of data. The system causes replay one or more transactions to recover data at the database server or the replacement database server, to perform recovery of the database server or the replacement database server to a current state. US 2004/0054583 A by Nye, III et al. teaches a scheduled advertising method and system for printing marketing messages on a point of sale (POS) printer uses new POS printer capabilities with existing computer database and networking capabilities to implement a functional and economic marketing message scheduling and delivery system to retail end points. Providing dynamic marketing messaging capabilities on transaction receipts in a multi-lane retail POS environment, which includes a POS retail server and multiple host terminals with receipt printers in a multilane check-out configuration, is accomplished using various levels of scheduling services and databases which associate a schedule with each marketing message. The system operates within the existing retail POS environment, so it does not require a separate hardware system. See attached form PTOL-892. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bai D. Vu whose telephone number is (571) 270-1751. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:30. 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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at (571) 272-4078. 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. /BAI D VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163 6/13/2026 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 2 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 3 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 4 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 5 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 6 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 7 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 8 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 9 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 10 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 11 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 12 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 13 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 14 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 15 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 16 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 17 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 18 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 19 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 20 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 21 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 22 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 23 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 24 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 25 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 26 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 27 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 28 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/297,323 Page 29 Art Unit: 2163
Prosecution Insights