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
Claims 1-20, as originally filed 02/20/2023, are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1, 10, and 17 being independent).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step (1): In the instant case, the claims are directed towards to a method for optimizing the allocation of transaction alerts which contains the steps of assigning, identifying, determining, generating, and routing. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is direct to a method, claim 1 is direct to a computer program product, and claim 1 is direct to a computer system, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes.
Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for optimizing the allocation of transaction alerts is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include: {… assigning a first entity to a risk category group based at least in part on a risk level of the first entity, wherein the risk level is based at least in part on transaction data of a transaction alert associated with the first entity, wherein the transaction alert is concerning potentially suspicious financial activities; identifying a relationship between the first entity and a second entity based at least in part on the transaction data; determining a capability of an anti-money laundering ("AML") analyst, wherein the capability comprises a skill level of the AML analyst; generating task allocation data by performing an optimization operation on an objective function, wherein the optimization operation comprises solving the objective function subject to a set of optimization constraints, wherein the set of optimization constraints comprises the risk category group, the relationship between the first entity and the second entity, and the capability of the AML analyst; routing the transaction data of the transaction alert to the AML analyst based at least in part on the task allocation data.}
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions as assigning an entity to a risk category group based on a risk level of entity and routing the transaction data of the transaction alert to the AML analyst based on the generated task allocation data.
Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements: 1) “a processor” amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component 2) “the program instructions executable by a processor” describe transmitting instructions to a computer component, and therefore also amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component {explain that additional limitations alone and in combination simply describe common elements of a computer (i.e. instruction to “apply it”)} do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use- see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e., a processor, computer readable storage media, program instructions, nodes, a network graph, a network) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification paragraph [0029]: computer, wide area network, end user device, remote server, public cloud, private cloud, processor, alert triage module, network module, remote database, etc.) as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea
Step (2B): 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 (Claims: e.g., a processor, computer readable storage media, program instructions, nodes, a network graph, a network) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea.
The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, in claims 2, 13, and 18, the step of “… further comprising generating the objective function ….” (i.e., making a task), in claims 3, 14, and 19, the step of “… wherein the objective function is a cost-based objective function, …. comprises minimizing a total cost metric subject….” (i.e., minimizing a cost), in claims 4, 15, and 20, the step of “… wherein the transaction alert is one of a plurality of transaction alerts, ...” (i.e., providing an alert), in claims 5 and 16, the step of “… wherein the assigning of the first entity to the risk category group further comprises distributing the plurality of entities among a plurality of risk category groups ...” (i.e., assigning a risk level), in claim 6, the step of “… wherein the distributing of the plurality of entities among the plurality of risk category groups is based at least in part on risk metadata ….” (i.e., using risk metadata), in claim 7, the step of “… wherein the identifying of the relationship between the first entity and the second entity further comprises generating ….” (i.e., making a graph), in claim 8, the step of “… further comprising identifying a plurality of distinct relationship-based entity groups ….” (i.e., identifying an entity group), and in claim 9, the step of “… wherein the determining of the capability of the AML analyst ….” (i.e., determining an availability) are all processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice but for the recitation of a generic computer component. Performing for optimizing allocation of transaction alerts is a most fundamental commercial process.
This is an abstract concept with nothing more and is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20, the step claimed are rejected under the same analysis and rationale as the independent claims 1, 10, and 17 above. Merely claiming the same process using an optimization operation for optimizing allocation of transaction alerts based on potentially suspicious financial activities does not change the abstract idea without an inventive concept or significantly more. Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somasundaram et al. (hereinafter Somasundaram), US Patent Number 11113694 B1 in view of Kloostra et al. (hereinafter Kloostra), US Publication Number 2009/0125369 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Somasundaram discloses the following:
A computer-implemented method comprising: (Somasundaram: column 2, lines 29-42)
Assigning (reads on “an alert with a low risk rating is typically checked only for associated transactions leading to the corresponding alert, whereas an alert with a medium/high risk rating may lead to a more comprehensive investigation including seeking additional information about the associated entity or entities”) a first entity to a risk category group based at least in part on a risk level of the first entity, wherein the risk level is based at least in part on transaction data of a transaction alert associated with the first entity, wherein the transaction alert (reads on “the alert data 32 representative of AML alert transactions of one or more entities through a financial institution”) is concerning potentially suspicious financial activities; (Somasundaram: column 6, lines 25-34: “The disposition categories may include an alert closure category and an alert escalation category. In one embodiment, category ratings of the plurality of alerts 45 are checked to determine depth of investigation. For example, an alert with a low risk rating is typically checked only for associated transactions leading to the corresponding alert, whereas an alert with a medium/high risk rating may lead to a more comprehensive investigation including seeking additional information about the associated entity or entities.”; column 9, lines 40-64: “The alert generation unit 12 is configured to generate the alert data 32 representative of AML alert transactions of one or more entities through a financial institution. The alert data 32 is stored in the storage server 16. The alert data 32 includes a plurality of alerts, transaction data, and associated entity data such as Know Your Customer (KYC) information (91)”)
identifying (reads on “the dashboard 120 includes the AML transaction details, risk evidence, transactional relationships between the parties of associated transactions”) a relationship between the first entity and a second entity based at least in part on the transaction data; (Somasundaram: column 11, lines 37-64)
Somasundaram does not explicitly disclose the following, however Kloostra further teaches:
determining (reads on “groups can be configured to work specific types of alerts based on their source such as transaction monitoring system alerts, or fraud system alerts or branch referrals”) a capability of an anti-money laundering ("AML") analyst, wherein the capability comprises a skill level of the AML analyst; (Kloostra: See fig. 3 (“Assignment Rules (eg. Skills, Resources, Experience)”) and paragraph [0036] “Groups of analysts may be configured using the administration module 210 in order to define groupings of work for alerts. For example, groups can be configured to work specific types of alerts based on their source such as transaction monitoring system alerts, or fraud system alerts or branch referrals.”, and see also [0037])
generating (reads on “The alert queue processing engine 202 may be configured to manage the import, prioritization and assignment of alerts needing review. A plurality of alert sources 302 may be configured to pass potentially suspicious customer activity notifications to the unprioritized/unassigned alert pool 304 in the alert queue processing engine 202. Rules to prioritize the order in which alerts are worked and who should be assigned to work the alerts can be configured using the administrative module 210”) task allocation data by performing an optimization operation on an objective function, wherein the optimization operation comprises solving the objective function subject to a set of optimization constraints, wherein the set of optimization constraints comprises the risk category group, the relationship between the first entity and the second entity, and the capability of the AML analyst; and (Kloostra: See fig. 3 and paragraph [0035], and also see [0042-0048])
routing (reads on “assign alerts to an alert pre-queue 308 for either a group or a specific analyst based on the configured assignment rules.”) the transaction data of the transaction alert to the AML analyst based at least in part on the task allocation data. (Kloostra: See fig. 3 and paragraph [0037], and see also Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating, by an alert generation unit, alert data representative of AML alert transactions of one or more entities through a financial institution of Somasundaram to include groups of analysts who may be configured using the administration module in order to define groupings of work for alerts based on assignment rules (e.g., skills, resources, experience), as taught by Kloostra, in order to provide less cost and more efficient way for reviewing potential suspicious customer activities. (Kloostra: See [0003-0005])
Regarding claim 2:
Somasundaram does not explicitly disclose the following, however Kloostra further teaches:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising generating (reads on “The background pre-processing routine 306 can be configured to assign alerts to an alert pre-queue 308 for either a group or a specific analyst based on the configured assignment rules. Each pre-queue may have the alerts prioritized based on the configured prioritization rules”) the objective function based at least in part on a user-specified objective. (Kloostra: See paragraph [0037])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating, by an alert generation unit, alert data representative of AML alert transactions of one or more entities through a financial institution of Somasundaram to include groups of analysts who may be configured using the administration module in order to define groupings of work for alerts based on assignment rules (e.g., skills, resources, experience), as taught by Kloostra, in order to provide less cost and more efficient way for reviewing potential suspicious customer activities. (Kloostra: See [0003-0005])
Regarding claim 3:
Somasundaram does not explicitly disclose the following, however Kloostra further teaches:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the objective function is a cost-based objective function, and wherein the optimization operation comprises minimizing a total cost metric subject to the set of constraints. (Kloostra: See paragraph [0029] “The division of responsibilities between the AML analyst 104 and the AML investigator 106 results in a two-step process for reviewing and investigating alerts. Embodiments using this two-step approach, with an analyst and investigator, lower costs of the review, provide efficiencies”), and see also [0038])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating, by an alert generation unit, alert data representative of AML alert transactions of one or more entities through a financial institution of Somasundaram to include groups of analysts who may be configured using the administration module in order to define groupings of work for alerts based on assignment rules (e.g., skills, resources, experience), as taught by Kloostra, in order to provide less cost and more efficient way for reviewing potential suspicious customer activities. (Kloostra: See [0003-0005])
Regarding claim 4:
Somasundaram discloses the following:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the transaction alert is one of a plurality of transaction alerts, and wherein the first and second entities are among a plurality of entities associated with the plurality of transaction alerts. (Somasundaram: column 6, lines 25-34: “The disposition categories may include an alert closure category and an alert escalation category. In one embodiment, category ratings of the plurality of alerts 45 are checked to determine depth of investigation. For example, an alert with a low risk rating is typically checked only for associated transactions leading to the corresponding alert, whereas an alert with a medium/high risk rating may lead to a more comprehensive investigation including seeking additional information about the associated entity or entities.”; column 9, lines 40-64: “The alert generation unit 12 is configured to generate the alert data 32 representative of AML alert transactions of one or more entities through a financial institution. The alert data 32 is stored in the storage server 16. The alert data 32 includes a plurality of alerts, transaction data, and associated entity data such as Know Your Customer (KYC) information (91)”)
Regarding claim 5:
Somasundaram discloses the following:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 4, wherein the assigning of the first entity to the risk category group further comprises distributing the plurality of entities among a plurality of risk category groups associated with respective risk levels. (Somasundaram: column 6, lines 25-34: “The disposition categories may include an alert closure category and an alert escalation category. In one embodiment, category ratings of the plurality of alerts 45 are checked to determine depth of investigation. For example, an alert with a low risk rating is typically checked only for associated transactions leading to the corresponding alert, whereas an alert with a medium/high risk rating may lead to a more comprehensive investigation including seeking additional information about the associated entity or entities.”)
Regarding claim 6:
Somasundaram does not explicitly disclose the following, however Kloostra further teaches:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 5, wherein the distributing of the plurality of entities among the plurality of risk category groups is based at least in part on risk metadata of the transaction data. (Kloostra: See paragraph [0038] “Using the administrative module 210, a user can setup optional configurable logic to group activity ( e.g. alerts) by similar attributes so they can be consolidated and reviewed together. For example, alerts for the same TIN/Customer or the Account Number can be grouped together to optimize the review process by decreasing time and cost.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating, by an alert generation unit, alert data representative of AML alert transactions of one or more entities through a financial institution of Somasundaram to include groups of analysts who may be configured using the administration module in order to define groupings of work for alerts based on assignment rules (e.g., skills, resources, experience), as taught by Kloostra, in order to provide less cost and more efficient way for reviewing potential suspicious customer activities. (Kloostra: See [0003-0005])
Regarding claim 9:
Somasundaram does not explicitly disclose the following, however Kloostra further teaches:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the determining of the capability of the AML analyst further comprises determining an availability of the AML analyst. (Kloostra: See fig. 3 (“Assignment Rules (eg. Skills, Resources, Experience)”) and paragraph [0036] “Groups of analysts may be configured using the administration module 210 in order to define groupings of work for alerts. For example, groups can be configured to work specific types of alerts based on their source such as transaction monitoring system alerts, or fraud system alerts or branch referrals.”, and see also [0037])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating, by an alert generation unit, alert data representative of AML alert transactions of one or more entities through a financial institution of Somasundaram to include groups of analysts who may be configured using the administration module in order to define groupings of work for alerts based on assignment rules (e.g., skills, resources, experience), as taught by Kloostra, in order to provide less cost and more efficient way for reviewing potential suspicious customer activities. (Kloostra: See [0003-0005])
Regarding claims 10 and 17: it is similar scope to claim 1, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 13 and 18: it is similar scope to claim 2, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 14 and 19: it is similar scope to claim 3, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15 and 20: it is similar scope to claim 4, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16: it is similar scope to claim 5, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somasundaram in view of Kloostra in further view of Guo, US Publication Number 2020/0394707 A1.
Regarding claim 7:
Somasundaram and Kloostra do not explicitly disclose the following, however Guo further teaches:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 4, wherein the identifying of the relationship between the first entity and the second entity further comprises generating a network graph comprising nodes and edges connecting pairs of the nodes, wherein the nodes are representative of respective entities of the plurality of entities, and wherein the edges are representative of relationships between the entities. (Guo: See paragraph [0046] “Money-laundering-detection system 300 can further construct a subgraph for each node cluster. The nodes in each subgraph can be the nodes sharing the same group ID, and the edges in each subgraph can represent the fund-transfer relationships among nodes in the subgraphs.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating, by an alert generation unit, alert data representative of AML alert transactions of one or more entities through a financial institution of Somasundaram to include constructing a subgraph for each node cluster and the nodes in each subgraph can be the nodes sharing the same group ID, and the edges in each subgraph can represent the fund-transfer relationships among nodes in the subgraphs, as taught by Guo, in order to make easier the detection of groups of customer accounts for potentially suspicious customer activities. (Guo: See [0022-0024])
Regarding claim 8:
Somasundaram and Kloostra do not explicitly disclose the following, however Guo further teaches:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 7, further comprising identifying a plurality of distinct relationship-based entity groups from the network graph. (Guo: See paragraph [0022] “the present invention provide a solution to the technical problems of detecting online money laundering. More specifically, the system constructs a fund transfer graph, with the nodes in the graph being the user account and the edges being the transaction relationship. The system can use a cluster-analysis technique to cluster the nodes in the fund-transfer graph into a number of groups and create a subgraph for each group of nodes.”, and see also [0036])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating, by an alert generation unit, alert data representative of AML alert transactions of one or more entities through a financial institution of Somasundaram to include constructing a subgraph for each node cluster and the nodes in each subgraph can be the nodes sharing the same group ID, and the edges in each subgraph can represent the fund-transfer relationships among nodes in the subgraphs, as taught by Guo, in order to make easier the detection of groups of customer accounts for potentially suspicious customer activities. (Guo: See [0022-0024])
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somasundaram in view of Kloostra in further view of Ferranti et al. (hereinafter Ferranti), US Publication Number 2019/0164172 A1.
Regarding claim 11:
Somasundaram and Kloostra do not explicitly disclose the following, however Ferranti further teaches:
The computer program product of claim 10, wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are transferred over a network from a remote data processing system. (Ferranti: See paragraph [0008] “computer program product comprises a computer readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions executable by a processing device to cause said processing device to receive public information source data from one or more public data servers.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating, by an alert generation unit, alert data representative of AML alert transactions of one or more entities through a financial institution of Somasundaram to include program instructions executable by a processing device to cause said processing device to receive public information source data from one or more public data servers, as taught by Ferranti, in order to provide cost tracking as resources are utilized. (Ferranti: See [0019-0023])
Regarding claim 12:
Somasundaram and Kloostra do not explicitly disclose the following, however Ferranti further teaches:
The computer program product of claim 10, wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system, further comprising: (Ferranti: See paragraph [0008] “computer program product comprises a computer readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions executable by a processing device to cause said processing device to receive public information source data from one or more public data servers.”, and see also [0019-0023])
program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request; and program instructions to generate (reads on “Metering and Pricing 82 provide cost tracking as resources are utilized within the cloud computing environment, and billing or invoicing for consumption of these resources.”) an invoice based on the metered use. (Ferranti: See paragraph [0038], and see also [0023])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating, by an alert generation unit, alert data representative of AML alert transactions of one or more entities through a financial institution of Somasundaram to include program instructions executable by a processing device to cause said processing device to receive public information source data from one or more public data servers, as taught by Ferranti, in order to provide cost tracking as resources are utilized. (Ferranti: See [0019-0023])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM, EST.
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 Donlon can be reached on (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.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694 February 28, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694