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 19 August 2025.
Claims 1 and 13 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Examiner Note
Due to the extensive family tree, Examiner requests that any amendment to the claims submitted be accompanied with an indication of the earliest possible date for which said amendment has support from either the applicant’s specification or any of its provisionals and the location of said support within its corresponding document.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - §103
The claims have been amended to address the objection(s)/rejection(s) presented in the prior Office Action. Accordingly, Examiner withdraws the corresponding objection(s)/rejection(s).
Claim Rejections - §112
The claims have NOT been amended to address the objection(s)/rejection(s) presented in the prior Office Action. Accordingly, Examiner retains the corresponding objection(s)/rejection(s).
Claim Rejections - §101
Applicant argues that the recitation of processors distinguishes the claims from activities that could be performed in the human mind or by a person unaided by technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015)” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of generic computing components in the instant application to increase the speed or efficiency of the recited judicial exception does not afford the claim eligibility.
Step 2A Prong 1
Applicant argues that the recitation of a processor and the physical application of vehicular control distinguishes the claims from activities that could be performed in the human mind or by a person unaided by technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner first notes that the claims do not recite “vehicular control”. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With respect to the usage of a processor, Examiner incorporates the above section’s argument regarding usage of a processor herein.
Step 2A Prong 2
Applicant argues that the claims recite an ordered combination of elements that is sufficient for patent eligibility. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for an ordered combination of additional elements to provide more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional, the additional elements must, in combination with other limitations of the claim(s), provide additional functionality that is not present when considering the elements individually. Examiner notes that the additional elements do not in combination provide for additional functionality.
Applicant argues that the combination of claimed elements recite a technical improvement in computerized recording. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner identified the focus of the invention, and determined that it is directed to an abstract idea and the use of conventional “off the shelf” computer components to implement the abstract idea. Furthermore, Examiner relies on what the courts have recognized, or those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, as elements that describe well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields. For example, receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)). In this case, the use of devices and networks is described at a high level of generality, or as an insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot be considered as an improvement to network/computer technology.
Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and database technology. The Courts have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application” of an abstract idea. buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353, 1355; see, e.g., Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348–49; Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48. The recitation of data storage does not transform the claims into an eligible invention.
Applicant argues that the Examiner did not provide evidence that shows the combination of elements represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate 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; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d)” (See MPEP 2106.05(II)).
In both the prior and instant Office Action, the conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two are equally applied in Step 2B which further re-evaluates additional elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity and evaluates these elements as per MPEP §2106.05(d) to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Said elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity are evaluated as well-understood, routine, and conventional as per the evidentiary requirements detailed in MPEP §2106.07(a)(III) utilizing option (B) via citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Thus, there are no further elements to evaluate under Step 2B. Most considerations relating to any additional elements were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two and thus do not require further re-evaluation in Step 2B.
Applicant argues that the claims address long-standing problems of database security and efficient database communication by reciting a particular detailed computing solution that greatly improves vehicle safety. As noted above the claims do not recite vehicles or vehicle safety. As such applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a technological solution of using computer instructions to actively improve computerized recording under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, Examiner identified the focus of the invention, and determined that it is directed to an abstract idea and the use of conventional “off the shelf” computer components to implement the abstract idea. Furthermore, Examiner relies on what the courts have recognized, or those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, as elements that describe well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields. For example, receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)). In this case, the use of devices and networks is described at a high level of generality, or as an insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot be considered as an improvement to network/computer technology.
Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and database technology. The Courts have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application” of an abstract idea. buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353, 1355; see, e.g., Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348–49; Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48. The recitation of data storage does not transform the claims into an eligible invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the number labels and letters in Fig 1 are too small and much of the text and numbers in Figs. 3A-3G are too small and blurry. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes claims 1 and 13 differ in that the “wherein the blockchain…” limitation includes the phrase “at least one financial institution including…” in the third list item in Claim 13 whereas Claim 1 does not include this phrase. Given that the rest of Claim 13 is substantially similar to Claim 1, Examiner would appreciate clarification if this difference was intended or not. Additionally, given that all financial institutions are also processing entities under the terms’ broadest reasonable interpretations this renders the first list item in Claim 13 as wholly encompassing the third list item in the same limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The independent claims recite limitations describing the transfer of fiat currency in relation to various embodiments of token transfer. While this is normally acceptable the limitations(s) require the prior step which recites “issuing a command, in response to the authorization message, causing one of: (i) the transmission of a predetermined amount of tokens from the digital wallet of the FNP to the FFI, (ii) the transmission of a predetermined amount of tokens from the digital wallet of the FNP to the SNP, and then from the digital wallet of the SNP to the digital wallet of the SFI in exchange for fiat; and (iii) the transmission of a predetermined amount of tokens from the digital wallet of the FNP to the SFI;” these fiat currency transfer limitations is/are indefinite with respect to the issuing a command step, as they are dependent on one or more elements being included that do not need to be included. It is indefinite as to the purpose of these element(s) of the claim(s) as they may never be required if the alternatives are included instead. If applicant intends to require only at least one of the elements then they are recommended to amend the child limitations to positively recite choosing or including the specific element(s). If the applicant intends to require all of the elements examiner recommends they amend the parent limitation to positively recite requiring all the elements. Examiner will interpret the claims as the former for purposes of examination.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase "e.g., bank, card network" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Examiner will ignore this parenthetical for purposes of examination.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase " bank, card network, etc." renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "etc."), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Examiner will ignore this parenthetical for purposes of examination.
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, the parentheticals “(whether known to the FNP or not)” and “(or after the transaction is approved)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the preferential embodiments outlined by the limitation(s) in the parentheticals are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Examiner will ignore this parentheticals for purposes of examination. Examiner recommends positively reciting such embodiments without parentheticals if they intend to claim such features.
Any remaining claims not expounded upon are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected claim.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a system and method for intelligent payment card solutions. These are a machine and process which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1 and 13:
Claims 1 and 13:
“receiving,…, a processing request for validating a token based payment from a first network participant ("FNP") to a second network participant ("SNP"), a first digital wallet of the first network participant being associated with an account held at a first financial institution ("FFI") of which the FNP is an account holding member, a second digital wallet of the second network participant associated with an account held at a second financial institution ("SFI") of which the SNP is an account holding member, the FFI and SFI being one or more of the same bank or different banks;”
“transmitting, from the computing system and in response to receiving the processing request resulting from an attempted use of a token based payment card ("TBPC"), an authorization request to the FFI for authorizing a token transfer;”
“receiving, at the computing system and as a result of the authorization request, an authorization message from the FFI;”
“issuing a command, in response to the authorization message, causing one of: (i) the transmission of a predetermined amount of tokens from the digital wallet of the FNP to the FFI, (ii) the transmission of a predetermined amount of tokens from the digital wallet of the FNP to the SNP, and then from the digital wallet of the SNP to the digital wallet of the SFI in exchange for fiat; and (iii) the transmission of a predetermined amount of tokens from the digital wallet of the FNP to the SFI;”
“transmitting, in response to the FFI receiving the predetermined amount of tokens from the FNP, a command causing a transfer of fiat currency corresponding to the predetermined amount of tokens from the FFI to an account of the SNP held at the SFI;”
“transmitting, in response to the SNP receiving the predetermined amount of tokens from the FNP and the SFI receiving the predetermined amount of tokens from the SNP, a command causing a transfer of fiat currency corresponding to the predetermined amount of tokens from the SFI to an account of the SNP held at the SFI;”
“transmitting, in response to the SFI receiving the predetermined amount of tokens from the FNP, a command causing a transfer of fiat currency corresponding to the predetermined amount of tokens from the SFI to an account of the SNP held at the SFI;”
“recording,…, an updated amount of credit tokens and fiat currency following the exchanging of the amount of credit tokens;”
“wherein the blockchain is hosted by one or more of: (i) a single financial institution including one of the FFI and the SFI, (ii) a consortium of financial institutions including one or more of the FFI and the SFI, (iii) one or more of a card network and a processing entity that is not a card network, (iv) a public entity associated with a central bank, and (v) public blockchain network;”
“wherein the TBPC is issued by one of: (i) the FFI, (ii) a participating financial institution (e.g., bank, card network, etc.) in partnership with the FFI, (iii) a pool of participating financial institutions in partnership with the FFI, or (iv) a card network that is not otherwise a participating financial institution in partnership with the FFI;”
“wherein, the TBPC is a TBPC previously issued to the FNP by the FFI to permit the FNP to access to an amount of credit tokens associated with a credit line extended to the FNP by the FFI (whether known to the FNP or not) the credit tokens having been previously (or after transaction is approved) minted by the FFI and deposited into the first digital wallet for use in connection with the TBPC;”
“wherein the processing request and the authorization request comprise one or more details of the TBPC.”
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 “one or more processors”, “one or more memory devices storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations of:”, or “a computing system”, nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Marketing or Sales Activities or Behaviors. A Marketing or Sales Activity is described when performing processes that exchange token currency between two entities. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of 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 13:
“…at a computing system comprising a node of a blockchain…”
“…from the computing system…”
“…at the computing system…”
“…at the blockchain…”
“recording, at the blockchain, biometric information, the biometric information comprising any two selected from the group of: fingerprint information, retinal information, facial feature information, and voice information;”
“populating, at an interface of a node, an overview of transactions that have occurred within a predetermined amount of time, wherein the overview comprises an amount, a wallet address, a transaction status, a date of creation and update, and an identification of goods or services associated with the transaction;”
“removing, from the interface, the wallet address by repopulating, at the interface or a different interface, a modified overview of the transactions, wherein the modified overview of the transactions excludes the wallet address;”
Claim 1:
“one or more processors;”
“one or more memory devices storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations of:”
The computer components (processors, computing system, and memory devices) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor, generic computing system, and generic storage) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The recording, populating, and repopulating step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generally recording, generally populating, generally repopulating) 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 present 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 blockchain and an interface 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 independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
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 (if any) 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 present 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 recording various data) Storing and retrieving information in memory, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
(for populating/repopulating various data) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-12 and 14-23 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grassadonia et al. (US 20190034888 A1) discloses financial cryptocurrency credit card accounts of a customer and merchant being associated with an issuing bank and acquiring bank and communications may be sent between said entities to facilitate fiat currency transfer to the merchant.
Musiala, Jr. (US 11,010,729 B2) teaches that a trustee bank may have an interface that enables minting of cryptocurrency units.
Kolls et al. (US 2021/0142317 A1) discloses a virtual payment card that does not have a label corresponding to one or more of an issuing financial institution or a card network. Kolls additionally teaches determining a stolen status of a user’s mobile device which embodies a mobile wallet and deactivating the stolen payment card after being notified (i.e. restricting transfer upon determining said status)
Miryala et al. (WO 2019/108304 A1) discloses an electronic wallet embodied with a distributed ledger.
Das et al. (“Blockchain-Enabled Distributed Payment Card Tokenization System”) discloses payment card tokenization for a crypto wallet.
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 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