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, 3-8, 10-14, 21-22 and 24-29 are pending in this application per claim amendments and remarks filed on 12/10/2025. Claims 1, 8, 11, 21-22, 24, 26 and 29 have been amended. Claims 2, 9, 15-20 and 23 are cancelled. Claims 1, 8 and 24 are independent claims reciting system, method and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims. Claims 3-7/21, 10-14/22 and 25-29 are respective dependent claims.
This Office Action is a Final Rejection in response to the claim amendments and remarks filed by the Applicant on 10 DECEMBER 2025 for its original application of 24 FEBRUARY 2023 that is titled: “Electronic Wallet and Accommodation of Transaction Limits with a Central Bank Digital Currency”.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 21-22 and 24-29 are now being rejected herein.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant on 12/10/2025 are shown as bold and underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown, or may not be underlined when stricken through. Underlined amendments to the claims that are shown below are from previously submitted claim amendments by the Applicant.)
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 21-22 and 24-29, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1, 8 and 24 are independent system, method and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 8: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a
series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of: storing a plurality of payment tokens that respectively correspond to a plurality of funding sources, wherein at least one of the funding sources comprises a central bank digital currency (CBDC) wallet subject to a regulatory constraint on a maximum transaction amount; obtaining a payment request for a pending transaction, the pending transaction being on behalf of a merchant account, the pending transaction comprising a transaction amount; determining that no single funding source is capable of performing the pending transaction due at least in part to the regulatory constraint; identifying a currency corresponding to the payment request, wherein the currency comprises a CBDC corresponding to a CBDC wallet associated with the merchant account; wherein the wholesale CBDC wallet is authorized to conduct transactions larger than the regulatory constraint on the maximum transaction amount; and initiating in real time a third blockchain transfer from the wholesale CBDC wallet to the merchant account. In other words, the claim describes a procedure for an electronic wallet that can accommodate central bank digital currency (CBDC) for transactions conducted with merchant systems (see para [0011] of the Specification). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk; based on at least limitations to include “pending transaction” and “transaction amount” and “CBDC wallet”), and/or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; based on at least limitations to include “merchant account” and “merchant wallet”), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions; based on at least limitations to include social interactions between “user interface” and “client device”), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the devices/ mobile devices. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: causing, by the computing device, a user interface to be displayed by the client device in which a user can select at least one of the funding sources; a central bank digital currency (CBDC) wallet and the first blockchain transfer comprising a digital signature and a merchant cryptographic key; and initiating in real time, at least two blockchain transfers that satisfy the transaction amount in the currency from at least two funding sources to a wholesale CBDC wallet for a CBDC blockchain. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities. The device/s, key/s and interface/s in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. 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. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this
claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, to include the latest claim amendments, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements of: causing, by the computing device, a user interface to be displayed by the client device in which a user can select at least one of the funding sources; a central bank digital currency (CBDC) wallet and the first blockchain transfer comprising a digital signature and a merchant cryptographic key, were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these devices (processors) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, paras [0027]--[0032] of the Applicant’s own Specification describe ---
{“[0027] The computing environment203 can include one or more computing devices that include a processor, a memory, and/or a network interface. For example, the computing devices can be configured to perform computations on behalf of other computing devices or applications. As another example, such computing devices can host and/or provide content to other computing devices in response to requests for content. In some embodiments, the computing environment 203 can represent a remote computing device of a financial services provider, such as a retail bank, an issuing bank, an acquiring bank, or other suitable financial service providers.…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
[0028] Moreover, the computing environment 203 can employ a plurality of computing devices that can be arranged in one or more server banks or computer banks or other arrangements. Such computing devices can be located in a single installation or can be distributed among many different geographical locations. For example, the computing environment203 can include a plurality of computing devices that together can include a hosted computing resource, a grid computing resource or any other distributed computing arrangement. In some cases, the computing environment 203 can correspond to an elastic computing resource where the allotted capacity of processing, network, storage, or other computing-related resources can vary over time.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………....…………
[0029] Various applications or other functionality can be executed in the computing environment 203. The components executed on the computing environment 203 include a wallet service 217, a conversion service 218, and other applications, services, processes, systems, engines, or functionality not discussed in detail herein.……………………………………………..
[0030] The wallet service 217 can communicate with a wallet application 247 running on a client device 109 to facilitate the addition of funding sources or other wallets 248 to the wallet application 247. The wallet service 217 can communicate with a payment issuer in the case of a payment requiring authorization by a third party, such as a card issuer, to add a payment instrument to a wallet application 247 or to authorize payments made by a payment instrument. In some implementations, the functionality of the wallet service 217 can be implemented by the wallet application 247 on the client device 109.………………………………………
[0031] The conversion service 218 can facilitate the acceptance of payments at merchant POS systems or devices or through other payment rails. The conversion service 218 can convert currencies such as cryptocurrencies, rewards points, airline miles, foreign currency, and other types of payments to a central bank digital currency to facilitate transactions between users and merchants. Additionally, the conversion service 218 can receive authorization from the client device 109 to process a transaction at a POS device 106 from one or more funding source 114.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………
[0032] Also, various data is stored in a data store 221 that is accessible to the computing environment 203. The data store 221 can be representative of a plurality of data stores 221, which can include relational databases or non-relational databases such as object-oriented databases, hierarchical databases, hash tables or similar key-value data stores, as well as other data storage applications or data structures. Moreover, combinations of these databases, data storage applications, and/or data structures may be used together to provide a single, logical, data store. The data stored in the data store 221 is associated with the operation of the various applications or functional entities described below. This data can include the user profile 224, the merchant profile 225, the provider cryptocurrency wallet(s) 227, the provider CBDC wallet(s) 230, and potentially other data.”} ---
and indicate that the concept described by the extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, to include the latest claim amendments, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent system Claim 1 and independent non-transitory computer-readable medium Claim 24, which perform the steps similar to those of the independent method Claim 8. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 10-14/22, further narrow the independent method Claim 8 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., wherein the limit limits an amount of the CBDC that can be held in a personal wallet, and the limit is less than the transaction amount; a private key……; the limits on amount of the CBDC……; a merchant wallet for which an identifier is stored on the CBDC blockchain ……; a conversion ……; displaying a user interface …….; displaying, a user interface showing at least the transaction amount; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 8. Similarly, dependent system Claims 3-7/21 and dependent system Claims 17-20/23 also further narrow their independent Claims 1 and 15 respectively, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, the amended Claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 21-22 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and claim amendments dated 10 DECEMBER 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 21-22 and 24-29 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive and do not put these amended claims in condition for allowance. The previous Claim Objections have been withdrawn. Thus, the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 21-22 and 24-29, as described above, is being maintained herein under 35 USC 101 with some modifications in this Office Action. Examiner has retained previous responses to arguments regarding the 101 rejection in their entirety for a complete record that is readily available.
In response to the Applicant’s 12/10/2025 arguments citing similarity to Example 42, Claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Example 42, Claim 1 was found eligible for patent because {“The claim recites a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. 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.”}; Examiner notes that the instant application instead is similar to Example 42, Claim 2 which was not found eligible because {“The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of storing and updating patient information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing medical records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.”} Thus, the instant application’s claims as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of updating records in a computer environment. Therefore, the instant application’s claims are still rejected under 35 USC 101.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments of 12/10/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC 101 about “A. Claims are patent eligible under Prong One”, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, upon reviewing the Specification and the claim as whole, independent Claim 8 (exemplary) is at least directed to one of the ineligible “certain methods of organizing human activity” that include “fundamental economic principles or practices” (based on at least ‘obtaining a payment request for a pending transaction, the pending transaction being on behalf of a merchant account, the pending transaction comprising a transaction amount’), and “commercial or legal interactions” (based on at least ‘identify a currency corresponding to the payment request, wherein the currency comprises a CBDC corresponding to a CBDC wallet associated with the merchant account’), as well as “managing personal behavior or relationships” (based on at least ‘wherein the wholesale CBDC wallet is authorized to conduct transactions larger than the regulatory constraint on the maximum transaction amount’). Method Claim 8 describes a procedure for an electronic wallet that can accommodate central bank digital currency (CBDC) for transactions conducted with merchant systems (see para [0011] of the Specification). Thus, like the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice, and the concept of hedging in Bilski, the concept of “generating a set of instructions sequences based on certain criteria from a user for image transaction processing” recited in exemplary independent Claim 8 “is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Thus, it is clear that exemplary independent Claim 8 recites fundamental economic practices and/or commercial transactions that, under the Revised Guidance, fall under the category of abstract ideas related to “certain methods of organizing human activity.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, independent method Claim 8 recites an abstract idea.
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments of 12/10/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC 101 about “B. Claims are patent eligible under Prong Two”, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are 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 claims do not attempt to provide an unconventional technological solution. Using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea and the way the information is processed and displayed does not make it less abstract. The argument/s stated by the Applicant that “Amended Claim 8 recites a Technological Solution to a Technical Problem”, and Examiner disagrees and notes that the instant application provides, instead, a business solution to a business problem. 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.
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments of 12/10/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC 101 about “C. Claims are patent eligible under Step 2B”, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, Examiner notes that if the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, for Step 2B we must “look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to determine ‘whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible subject matter’ to which the claim is directed.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We look to see whether there are any “additional features” in the claims that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. In the instant application, Examiner notes that Applicant’s claims as a whole, including claim amendments of 12/10/2025, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The processor/device limitations in the instant application do not add significantly more, because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a processor/device performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract. Also, the use of a particular machine and transformation to a different state or thing are not relevant to the instant application. Examiner maintains the conclusion above under Step 2B, where it was shown “that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.”
In further response to the Applicant’s latest RCE arguments of 08/12/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC 101 under Prong One, “because the claims do not recite an abstract idea”, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, upon reviewing the Specification and the claim as whole, independent Claim 8 (exemplary) is at least directed to one of the ineligible “certain methods of organizing human activity” that include “fundamental economic principles or practices” (based on at least limitations to include “pending transaction” and “transaction amount” and “CBDC wallet”); and/or commercial or legal interactions (based on at least limitations to include “merchant account” and “merchant wallet”); and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (based on at least limitations to include social interactions between “user interface” and “client device”). Independent exemplary method claim 8 recites the limitations of: storing a plurality of payment tokens that respectively correspond to a plurality of funding sources; obtaining a payment request for a pending transaction, the pending transaction being on behalf of a merchant account, the pending transaction comprising a transaction amount; identifying a currency corresponding to the payment request; and initiating, at least two blockchain transfers that satisfy the transaction amount in the currency from at least two user CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) wallets to a wholesale CBDC wallet for a CBDC blockchain, the at least two user CBDC wallets are associated with a limit, wherein the wholesale CBDC wallet is authorized to conduct transactions larger than the limit. Together these steps simply provide a user input through an interface and generate selections based on user inputs. Thus, like the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice, and the concept of hedging in Bilski, the concept of “generating a set of instructions sequences based on certain criteria from a user for trading financial instruments” recited in exemplary independent claim 8 “is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Accordingly, it is clear that exemplary independent claim 8 recites limitations such as: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), that, under the Revised Guidance fall under the category of abstract ideas related to “certain methods of organizing human activity.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, independent Claim 8 recites an abstract idea.
In further response to the Applicant’s latest arguments of 08/12/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC 101 about “Prong Two”, “because these claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem”, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are 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 claims do not attempt to provide an unconventional technological solution. Using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea and the way the information is processed and displayed does not make it less abstract. The argument/s stated by the Applicant that {“the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application” and “One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field”}; but the Applicant has not identified the claim limitations that specifically “recite a technical solution to a technical problem”. 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.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are 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).
Examiner notes that the introduction of a computer to implement an abstract idea or mathematical principle is not a patentable application of the abstract idea. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2357- 2358, citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 594. The means are generic, and the computer implementation here is purely conventional. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-2360. The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2359. Additionally, 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 engine/s and processor/s 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.
A claim may be found to be eligible if it integrates a judicial exception into a practical application as cited by Applicant. However, Examiner notes that "claiming the improved efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).) Claiming improved data processing efficiency inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner notes that the focus of the claimed invention in the present application is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer [] a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”).
Examiner notes that the processor limitations and the claim as a whole do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a processor/device performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract.
In making the determination of if the claimed idea is significantly more, the Court gave examples, which included an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvement to the function of the computer itself; or some other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Such as in Diamond v. Diehr, the claims were found statutory in which the Arrhenius equation is used to improve a process of controlling the operation of a mold in curing rubber parts.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See at least 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video
conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is
responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/HANI M KAZIMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691