DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-12 and 25-26 are pending.
Claims 1, 2 and 25 were amended or newly added in the Applicant’s filing on 8/12/2025.
Claim 27 was cancelled in the Applicant’s filing on 8/12/2025.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing on 8/12/2025.
3. 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 1-12 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method and computer-readable medium causing a device to perform a method comprising:
displaying, …, a financial oculus …;
displaying, …, within a boundary of the financial oculus, a plurality of oculus visualizations corresponding to the one or more metrics, wherein;
a first oculus visualization associated with a first value is displayed within a boundary of a second oculus visualization associated with a second value;
the first value is a portion of the second value;
boundaries of the plurality of oculus visualizations do not intersect each other;
the plurality of oculus visualizations includes:
a statement oculus visualization indicating a statement value,
an activity oculus visualization indicating an activity value, and
a credit oculus visualization indicating a credit amount;
in response to receiving transaction data indicating an update of one or more of the statement value, the activity value, and the credit amount, … updating the display of the plurality of oculus visualizations relative to the boundary of the financial oculus;
displaying, … at a first amount of time before a first payment due date, a reminder for a first payment;
determining, …, that the first payment is not paid by the first payment due date;
transmitting user history to [develop] one or more … models, the user history comprising the statement value, the activity value, the credit amount, and the determination that the first payment is not paid by the first payment due date;
determining, …, a suggested payment value comprising determining a threshold based on one or more of the statement value, the activity value, and the credit amount, and further based on an output of the one or more … models;
in accordance with a determination that the threshold comprises a first threshold, displaying, …, a first suggestion oculus visualization indicating the suggested payment value within the boundary of the financial oculus;
in accordance with a determination that the threshold comprises a second threshold greater than the first threshold, displaying, …, a second suggestion oculus visualization indicating the suggested payment value within the boundary of the financial oculus, wherein an area of the second suggestion oculus is greater than an area of the first suggestion oculus;
detecting a first user input on the financial oculus …, wherein a location of the first user input on the financial oculus represents a first payment amount corresponding to the statement value, the activity value, the credit amount, or the suggested payment value;
determining, …, a first suggestion based on the first user input and the output of the one or more … models;
displaying, …, the first suggestion …;
detecting a second user input on the financial oculus …, wherein a location of the second user input on the financial oculus represents a second payment amount corresponding to the statement value, the activity value, the credit amount, or the suggested payment value, the second payment amount different than the first payment amount;
determining, …, a second suggestion based on the second user input and the output of the model;
updating, …, the displaying of the first suggestion to the second suggestion …;
determining a second amount of time before a second payment due date for displaying a reminder for a second payment, the determining the second amount of time comprising:
determining a first probability associated with a plurality of users and further associated with the first amount of time, wherein the plurality of users shares common attributes with the user, and
determining, using the output of the one or more … models, the second amount of time such that a second probability associated with the plurality of users and further associated with the second amount of time is greater than the first probability; and
displaying, … at the second amount of time before the second payment due date, the reminder for the second payment.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to process and display financial metrics, and provide suggestions pertaining to financial payments which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
These limitations, as drafted, also recite a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to process and display financial metrics, a series of steps that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions) which are mental process, a second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” is a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, also covers a series of steps instructing a person how to manage their finances which qualifies as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, a subcategory of certain methods of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Examiner notes that “budgeting” is a court-provided example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of an electronic device (Claim(s) 1 and 25), processor(s) (Claim(s) 1 and 25), a memory (Claim(s) 1 and 25), a display (Claim(s) 1 and 25), machine-learning model(s) (Claim(s) 1 and 25), a graphic user interface (Claim(s) 1 and 25), computer program(s), (Claim(s) 1 and 25), and a computer readable storage medium (Claim(s) 25).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to (i) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 2-13 and 26 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1 and 25. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
No additional computer components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generically recited computer.
As such, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
4. No Prior Art Rejection
Applicant’s amended claims have overcome the prior art of record. No further prior art has been asserted against the claimed invention.
5. Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2025 have been fully considered. Those arguments pertaining to the previously asserted §103 rejection are persuasive. Those arguments pertaining to the previously asserted §101 rejection are not persuasive and are addressed below.
§101 Rejection
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites a practical application, specifically “an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,” and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 11-14.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
Claim 1 includes features that are integrated into practical applications, which render the claim eligible. Improving financial health may be difficult for many users due to deficiencies of traditional financial applications and the overwhelming number of factors impacting financial health. (See published application, [0003]-[0008].) Claim 1 is integrated into practical applications by addressing these deficiencies and reducing difficulties experienced by users seeking to improve financial health. See Arguments, p. 11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals stated:
As an initial matter, it is true that the claims here are similar to the claims in the cases discussed above in the sense that the claims involve both a computer and the Internet. But these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – emphasis added.
In the instant case, the problem that the claimed invention is designed to overcome, improving financial health, is not a problem specifically arising from the realm of computers. This problem is a standard business problem that exists outside the realm of computers and existed before the age of computers.
Additionally, in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014), Judge Mayer stated in his concurring opinion:
In Alice, the claimed intermediated settlement technique was purportedly new and useful, but the Supreme Court nonetheless unanimously concluded that it fell outside section 101. 1134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The problem was not that the asserted claims disclosed no innovation, but that it was an entrepreneurial rather than a technological one. In effect, Alice articulated a technological arts test for patent eligibility, concluding that the asserted method and system claims were patent ineligible because they did not “improve the functioning of the computer itself” or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Id. at 2359; See also id. at 2358 (explaining that the claims in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 177-79 (209 USPQ 1) (1981) (“Diehr”), were patentable because they disclosed an “improve[ment]” to a “technological process”). In assessing patent eligibility, advances in non-technological disciplines—such as business, law, or the social sciences—simply do not count. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1758 (Fed. Cir. 2014) - emphasis added.
While the claimed invention may be improving the non-technological discipline of financial management, such improvements are directed toward improving the abstract idea. The claimed invention does not improve the computer itself, or any other technology or technical field. The claimed invention is not enhancing or adding to the functionality of the computer beyond what is routine and conventional.
Applicant notes that the claimed invention utilizes “one or more machine-learning models to refine message combinations” (see Arguments, p. 11) and further argues:
Furthermore, the use of machine-learning models is directed to a specific improvement in computer-related technology, such as data-driven optimization of user messaging. The use of machine learning to analyze user behavior and refine message content, attributes, and timing is not a conventional or routine activity in the context of financial health applications. (See published application, [0106]-[0110].) Claim 1 addresses deficiencies of traditional financial applications and the overwhelming number of factors impacting financial health, as discussed in the specification. (See published application, [0003]-[0008].) Claim 1 allows the ability to iteratively test, analyze, and refine message combinations based on the user's own data and crowdsourced data, providing a technical improvement over traditional financial applications, which rely on static or manually selected messaging. (Id.)
As another example, the claimed first and second suggestions are not merely generic financial suggestions or suggestions that can be determined using a human mind. Instead, the suggestions are implemented in an interactive, real-time user interface that dynamically suggests payment amounts based on individualized user financial behavior and machine learning- determined thresholds. (See published application, [0063]-[0079].) The machine-learning models leverage data from different sources to determine and display the suggestions in real-time to address time-sensitive financial needs, amounting to more than mere data collection and generic analysis. (Id.). See Arguments, p. 12 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The court in Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA (Fed. Cir. 2016) stated:
The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. see Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – emphasis added.
Utilization of a computer or computer technology (e.g., a machine-learning model or a user interface) is not analogous to improving a computer or computer technology. The claimed invention is not an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality. Rather, the claimed invention is applying a computer’s existing capabilities to implement a particular abstract idea. As in Electric Power Group, the focus of the claimed invention is not on an improvement in computers (e.g., machine-learning model or a user interface) as tools but on improving an abstract idea that uses computers (e.g., machine-learning model or user interface) as tools.
MPEP §2106.05(a) recites:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. – emphasis added.
However, the specification does not provide any evidence that the claimed invention results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer, an improvement to conventional technology or technological processes, or is addressing a technology-based problem.
Additionally, the specification does not provide any evidence that there is even a technical (i.e., technology-based) problem to be solved. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that existing technology (e.g., machine-learning models) was incapable of performing the claimed functions but for the claimed technical solution.
Additionally, MPEP §2106.05(f)(1) recites:
Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743 – emphasis added.
Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished.
If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). For example, if existing machine-learning models were incapable of performing the claimed method, the claims should recite the details of how this inability was overcome. However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed.
MPEP §2106.04(d) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); [and]
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Examiner asserts that the additional elements amount to merely (1) including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or alternatively, (2) merely links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Applicant further argues:
Furthermore, the use of machine-learning models is directed to a specific improvement in computer-related technology, such as data-driven optimization of user messaging. The use of machine learning to analyze user behavior and refine message content, attributes, and timing is not a conventional or routine activity in the context of financial health applications. (See published application, [0106]-[0110].) Claim 1 addresses deficiencies of traditional financial applications and the overwhelming number of factors impacting financial health, as discussed in the specification. (See published application, [0003]-[0008].) Claim 1 allows the ability to iteratively test, analyze, and refine message combinations based on the user's own data and crowdsourced data, providing a technical improvement over traditional financial applications, which rely on static or manually selected messaging. (Id.). See Arguments, p. 12 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Even if use of machine learning is not a conventional or routine activity in the context of financial health applications, use of machine learning is conventional and routine activity in the context of computer applications in general.
To satisfy Step 2B of the §101 Guidelines, computer implementation must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities” previously known in the computer industry. However, the functions performed by the computer system in the claimed invention (e.g., utilization of machine learning) are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions, even if not normally utilized in the context of financial health applications.
Applicant further argues:
Next, Applicant respectfully addresses some of the Office Action's comments relating to subject matter eligibility. The Office Action alleges that the recitation "model trained based on user history" is "outside the scope of the claimed method." (See Office Action, 4.) Without acquiescing to this characterization and for the purpose of advancing prosecution only, Applicant amends claim 1 to recite "transmitting user history to train one or more machine- learning models," in accordance with the Office Action's comments about method claim scope. See Arguments, p. 13.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed invention recites a method actively performing the method step of transmitting user history. The intended purpose of the transmitted user history is to train a machine learning model. The method, as written, does not actively perform the method step of training the machine learning model.
Examiner notes that the method, as written, also does not recite that the problem that the machine learning model is designed to solve or that the machine learning model is solving the problem.
The method, as written, recites a method actively performing the method step of determining a suggested payment value based on the output of the one or more machine learning models. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the determination is not made by the machine learning model. The output, whatever that may be, is used as a component element to determine the suggested payment amount.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is analogous to Core Wireless Licensing SARL v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Fed Cir. 2018), as the graphic user interface in the instant case has been improved. See Arguments, p. 13.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP §2106.05(a) recites:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Core Wireless was deemed an improvement to graphical user interfaces as its specification provided sufficient details to establish that the invention was providing an improvement. The specification established the technological problem and the technological solution.
That is not analogous to the instant application. At best, the specification in the instant application merely asserts that its user interface is “better” than past user interfaces. The specification in the instant application does not provide sufficient details to establish that the invention was providing an improvement to graphic user interface technology by addressing a deficiency in graphic user interface technology.
Applicant further argues:
Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have recognized that these features would allow technological improvements, such as reduced computing resource and power consumption for the electronic device performing the claimed steps. For instance, because the differences between the different financial information are displayed visually (e.g., negative space between oculus visualizations), the electronic device does not need to perform additional calculations for quantifying these differences, reducing power consumption and processing. As another example, receiving an input on the financial oculus as claimed would rid the need to enter an actual number, allowing the electronic device to forgo displaying additional GUI elements and GUIs for entering an actual number, and to forgo sensing for additional inputs, which would also reduce device power consumption and processing. Without the claimed model and oculus visualizations, determining suggestions for improving financial health may require retrieval and analysis of the history on the electronic device, requiring more navigation, power consumption, and processing. These savings are especially important for mobile electronic devices, which have limited energy and processing capabilities, and for time- sensitive financial needs. See Arguments, p. 14.
As to the indirect improvements to the technology (e.g., reduction in computing resources or power consumption) based upon performance of the claimed invention, any software can be argued to improve a computer. It can always be argued that the software runs the process more efficiently thereby reducing the demands placed upon the computer system.
In the claimed invention, the computer has not been improved. The non-technological process that the software is performing may have been improved but, according to Alice, improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. To be “directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality,” the claim “must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336-39).
The computer still operates according to its known and standard capabilities. A reduction of load on the computer does not bring about an improvement to the computer, it merely offers resources to other processes that are running on the computer.
6. Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event 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 JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached at (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 November 20, 2025