DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 23 July 2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-9 and 19 are amended.
Claims 3 and 10-18 are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9 and 19 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that the amended claims improves technology relating to biometric enrollment by defining the specific interconnected topology for biometric enrollment thus defining a single-entry point for various terminals to reach the multiple different biometric service providers in order to initiate biometric based enrollment and then, later, interactions. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP clarifies how additional elements can impose meaningful limits on a recited judicial exception:
“Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II))
Drawing attention to the emphasized section, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. In the current case, regardless of whether or not applicant’s invention improves the recited judicial exception, improving a method, algorithm, or process of a judicial exception absent of any technological modification, would be an improvement to the judicial exception (e.g. via the improvement in the efficiency of the judicial exception), but does not improve computers or technology.
Applicant argues that the enrollment of a biometric is not a sales or marketing activity and is not related to mitigating risk. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2A Prong 1 requires examiners to evaluate whether a claim recites a judicial exception as the applicant cited. The elements which examiner identified in Step 2A Prong 1 are those which describe the noted abstract idea which means that the claim recites an abstract idea. “The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim "recites" a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.” See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2). “When performing the analysis at Step 2A Prong One, it is sufficient for the examiner to provide a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and explains why it is considered a judicial exception (e.g., that the claim limitation(s) falls within one of the abstract idea groupings). Therefore, there is no requirement for the examiner to rely on evidence, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), to find that a claim recites a judicial exception. Cf. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271-72, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1214-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming district court decision that identified an abstract idea in the claims without relying on evidence); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-64, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (same); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (same).” See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III). The omitted element(s) (if any) are elements in addition to the abstract idea (i.e. they are not abstract) which require further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 in order to determine if they cause the recited abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.07(a)(II). The omitted element(s) (if any) are later enumerated under Step 2A Prong 2 as additional elements. The claims recite and/or describe a judicial exception.
Applicant argues that the pending claims provide a practical application via the unique and specific combination of operations recited, in a manner that efficiently effects the transmission (and identification) of accommodation of multiple different encryption and/or formatting as part of a solution for unifying the biometric profiles for users and associated services. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the MPEP clarifies how additional elements can impose meaningful limits on a recited judicial exception:
“Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II))
Drawing attention to the emphasized section, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. In the current case, regardless of whether or not applicant’s invention improves the recited judicial exception, improving a method, algorithm, or process of a judicial exception absent of any technological modification, would be an improvement to the judicial exception (e.g. via the improvement in the efficiency of the judicial exception), but does not improve computers or technology.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible for reasons similar to Example 42. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Example 42, the claims described medical records that were stored in a non-standard format selected by whichever hardware or software platform is in use in the medical provider’s local office. These medical records were shared among medical providers which were often-times incomplete since records in separate locations are not timely or readily-shared or cannot be consolidated due to format inconsistencies. Claim 1 recited a combination of additional elements which converted non-standardized form information to a standardized format. The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Applicant’s claims are not converting non-standardized form information to a standardized format but rather are routing/enrolling requests of data based on contained data or metadata. The instant claims are not analogous to Example 42.
Applicant argues their claims are eligible for reasons similar to McRO. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This court case is directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer or to a technology or technical field. In McRO, improvements to the then done by hand animation technology whereby each person performed hand drawn animation differently into a consistent implementation by rules on a computer. Applicant’s invention would be performed the same in person as on a computer and thus is mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer. The recitation of centralized information routing has no issue being implemented in person the same way as on a computer aside from the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. by reading metadata of the data file and/or recognizing data formatting/encryption types). The case of McRO does not apply to the applicant’s claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 the phrase “the first the biometric template” in the second identifying step should be “the first biometric template”.
In Claim 19 the phrase “which is different that the first encryption and/or formatting” should be “which is different than the first encryption and/or formatting” (emphasis added)
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-2, 4-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites two methods and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use in biometric-enabled network interactions. These are processes and an article of manufacture which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar or broader versions are found in claim(s) 1 and 19:
Claims 1 and 19:
“receiving,… ,…, a first request for an enrollment of a first biometric of a first user for biometric pay interactions at the first party, the first request including a first biometric template of the first user, which is based on a first encryption and/or formatting of the first biometric, the multiple biometric service providers including at least a first biometric service provider (BSP) and a second BSP;”
“in response to the first request: identifying,…, a first user profile for the first user based on a first user identifier included in the request;”
“in response to the request:…identifying,…, the first BSP as being associated with the first biometric template based on the first the biometric template being consistent with the first encryption and/or formatting which is specific to the first BSP;”
“in response to the request:…requesting,…, from the first BSP, a first biometric identifier for the first user, based on the first biometric template;”
Claim(s) 1:
“receiving,…,…, a second request for an enrollment of a second biometric of a second user for biometric pay interactions at the second party, the second request including a second biometric template of the second user, which is based on a second encryption and/or formatting of the second biometric, which is different than the first encryption and/or formatting:”
“in response to the second request: identifying,…, a second user profile for the second user based on a second user identifier included in the second request;”
“in response to the second request: … identifying,…, the second BSP as being associated with the second biometric template based on the second biometric template being consistent with the second encryption and/or formatting, which is specific to the second BSP;”
“requesting,…, from the second BSP, a second biometric identifier for the second user, based on the second biometric template;”
Claim(s) 19:
“when the biometric template is consistent with a second encryption and/or formatting of the biometric, which is different that the first encryption and/or formatting; identify a second BSP as being associated with the biometric template; and in response to identifying the second BSP, request, from the second BSP, a biometric identifier for the user, based on the biometric template, whereby the second BSP provides the biometric identifier;”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented”, “biometric identity switch computing device”, “a terminal”, or “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions or Fundamental Economic Principles of Practices. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes marketing or sales activities or behaviors or could reasonably describe Mitigating Risk. A Marketing or Sales Activity or Behavior is described when registering a user for biometric-enabled transactions and performing said biometric-enabled transactions. Mitigating Risk is described when registering a user for biometric-enabled transactions and performing said biometric-enabled transactions thereby mitigating risk of identity fraud. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions or Mitigating Risk but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim(s) 4-7 and 9 are directed to the following:
Claim(s) 4:
“generating,…, a first token specific to the first party, as part of the first user profile;”
Claim(s) 5:
“receiving,…, from the first terminal, a subsequent biometric template of the first user in connection with a first network interaction with the first party;”
“identifying,…, the first BSP on the subsequent biometric template being consistent with the first encryption and/or formatting;”
“requesting,…, from the first BSP, the first biometric identifier for the first user, based on the subsequent biometric template;”
“determining,…, an authorization packet for the first user based on the first biometric identifier and the first user profile;”
“transmitting,…, the authorization packet to the first terminal.”
Claim(s) 6:
“wherein the authorization packet includes one or more payment credential for the first user for use in the first network interaction with the first party.”
Claim(s) 7:
“wherein the first biometric template is based on a fingerprint or a facial image of the first user.”
Claim(s) 9:
“wherein the first user identifier includes one of a phone number associated with the first user, an email address associated with the first user, and data generated by the BIS computing device as part of a prior engagement involving the first user.”
These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claim which are directed to a judicial exception. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they are directed to abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following additional elements:
Claim(s) 1 and 19:
“…at a biometric identity switch (BIS) computing device of a centralized biometric identity switch coupled in communication with multiple biometric service providers…”
“…from a first terminal at a first party…”
“…by the BIS computing device…”
“receiving, by the BIS computing device, from the first BSP, the biometric identifier specific to a first biometric reference at the first BSP;”
“storing, by the BIS computing device, the first biometric identifier for the first user in the identified first user profile for the first user, whereby the first biometric of the first user is enrolled for use in biometric-enabled network interactions.”
Claim(s) 1:
“receiving,…, from the second BSP, the second biometric identifier specific to a second biometric reference at the second BSP;”
“storing,…, the second biometric identifier for the second user in the identified second user profile for the second user, whereby the second biometric of the second user is enrolled for use in biometric-enabled network interactions.”
Claim(s) 19:
“receive, from one of the first BSP or the second BSP, the biometric identifier specific to a biometric reference at the biometric service provider;”
“store the biometric identifier for the user in the identified user profile for the user, whereby the biometric of the user is enrolled for use in biometric-enabled network interactions.”
The computer components or other machinery (computing device, terminal, mobile device, and non-transitory computer-readable medium) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computing device, generic terminal, general mobile device and generic memory) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer or using machinery as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The receiving and storing step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generally receiving and generally storing) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The use of biometric readers and biometric reading is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Dependent claim(s) 2, 4-5, and 8 contain the following additional elements:
Claim(s) 2:
“…notifying, by the BIS computing device, the first party at the terminal that enrollment of the first biometric of the first user is complete, after storing the first biometric identifier in the first user profile.”
Claim(s) 4:
“transmitting,…, the first token to the first party, whereby the first party is permitted to identify the first user in connection with a biometric-enabled interaction based on the first token.”
Claim(s) 5:
“receiving,…, the first biometric identifier from the first BSP;”
Claim(s) 8:
“wherein the first user identifier is encrypted, and wherein the method further includes decrypting the first user identifier prior to identifying the first user profile for the first user based on the first user identifier.”
The computer components or other machinery (computing device, terminal, mobile device, wireless communication) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computing device, generic terminal and generic memory) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer or using machinery as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The notifying, transmitting, requesting, receiving, reading, and decoding step(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as simply notifying, simply transmitting, simply requesting, simply receiving, simply reading and simply decoding) such that they amount to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The use of biometric readers, biometric reading and encryption/decryption/decoding is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technologies) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The computing device mentioned above is/are disclosed in applicant’s specification (See at least paragraph [0050] of the specification). The component is described as:
“Referring to FIG. 2, the example computing device 200 includes a processor 202 and a memory 204 coupled to (and in communication with) the processor 202. The processor 202 may include one or more processing units (e.g., in a multi-core configuration, etc.). For example, the processor 202 may include, without limitation, a central processing unit (CPU), a microcontroller, a reduced instruction set computer (RISC) processor, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic device (PLD), a gate array, and/or any other circuit or processor capable of the functions described herein.”
The memory mentioned above is/are disclosed in applicant’s specification (See at least paragraph [0051] of the specification). The component is described as:
“The memory 204, as described herein, is one or more devices that permit data, instructions, etc., to be stored therein and retrieved therefrom. The memory 204 may include one or more computer-readable storage media, such as, without limitation, dynamic random access memory (DRAM), static random access memory (SRAM), read only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM), solid state devices, flash drives, CD-ROMs, thumb drives, floppy disks, tapes, hard disks, and/or any other type of volatile or nonvolatile physical or tangible computer-readable media.”
The terminal mentioned above is/are disclosed in applicant’s specification (See paragraph [0019] of the specification). The component is described as:
“While FIG. 1 illustrates the terminal 114 disposed at the merchant 104, it should be appreciated that the terminal 114 may be a fixed terminal at the merchant 104, or may be a mobile terminal at the merchant 104, or even a terminal disposed away from the merchant 104. For example, the terminal 114 may include a mobile terminal that includes a smartphone, or other portable communication device, etc.”
The wireless communication mentioned above is/are disclosed in applicant’s specification (See at least paragraph [0014] of the specification). The component is described as:
“The one or more networks may each include one or more of, without limitation, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN) (e.g., the Internet, etc.), a mobile network, a virtual network, and/or another suitable public and/or private network capable of supporting communication among two or more of the parts illustrated in FIG. 1, or any combination thereof.”
The mobile device mentioned above is/are disclosed in applicant’s specification (See at least paragraph [0026] of the specification). The component is described as:
“The mobile device 108 may include a smartphone, or tablet, or other communication device, etc., associated with the user 110. That said, the present disclosure is not limited to the mobile device 108. For example, in at least one other embodiment, the mobile device 108 may, more broadly, include a computing device, which may or may not be mobile with the user 110 (e.g., a desktop computer, a server, etc. versus a smartphone), whereby the user 110 may be able to manage his/her biometric profile with the BIS 102 via a website, etc.”
Therefore applicant’s own specification supports these components as generic computer components.
The claims do 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 elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner:
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for storing various data) Storing and retrieving information in memory, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
(for notifying/transmitting/requesting/receiving/reading various data) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
(for decoding various data) Performing repetitive calculations, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhatt et al. (US 2019/0087825 A1) discloses capturing initial biometric template information and processing said information in connection with transactions and service providers.
Poon et al. (US 2016/0180343 A1) discloses that IDs may be mapped with entities such as other services, service providers, or other externalities (i.e. a second identifier and using said second identifier to identify a service provider) when performing a transaction.
Griffin et al. (US 10,277,400 B1) discloses Griffin teaches a Biometric Electronic Signature Token (“BEST”) that may contain attributes related to the payment instructions, customer account number, payment type, merchant identifier (i.e. specific to the party) and the like. See at least column 18, lines 34-45. Griffin discloses that the token may be transmitted to the merchant for processing. See at least column 18, lines 34-45. Griffin discloses that the BEST token may be generated by the signing party computing system. See at least column 8, lines 22-36 and Fig. 2. Griffin discloses the method may be similarly performed by other systems and devices. See at least column 7, lines 4-18.
Griffin (US 11,139,964 B1) discloses storing biometric template identifiers and associated information identifiers.
Cuan et al. (US 10,791,114 B1) discloses encoding authorization identifier data in a QR code to be displayed via a mobile device to a merchant terminal and said merchant terminal scanning said code to obtain said identifier (i.e. reading and decoding).
Abouelenin et al. (US 2023/0095285 A1) discloses methods for resolving biometric mismatch.
Cao et al. (US 2022/0108322 A1) Examiner notes this is the ‘610 application referenced in the double patenting rejection) discloses biometric processing of a transaction in connection with a biometric identity switch.
Smets et al. (US 20240005328 A1) discloses secondary biometric authentication after a dispute notice at a biometric identity switch.
Cho (KR 20200072742 A) discloses creation of a biometric authentication token corresponding to the user’s biometric authentication information.
Agrawal et al. (US 2019/0019190 A1) discloses converting biometric data to a PIN specific to the biometric data.
Garg et al. (“Developing secured biometric payments model using Tokenization”) discloses tokenization utilizing biometrics.
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 ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3691
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691