Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
1. This communication is in response to the Request for Continued Examination of Application No. 18/188,801 filed on 9/4/2025.
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
3. For the purpose of applying prior art, PreGrant Publications will be referred to
using a four digit number within square brackets, e. g. [0001].
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
4. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 C.F.R.- §1.114
5. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR §1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR §1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR §1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR §1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR §1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/4/2025 has been entered.
Response to Applicant’s Comments/Remarks
6. Applicant’s response, filed on 8/6/2025, has fully been considered.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant contends that 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20 was improper for Applicant claims are directed toward improving merchant software installed on a user’s personal electronic device and improves the operation of a user’s electronic device by providing a streamlined and secure way for a user to pay a merchant.
Examiner’s Response to Argument #1:
Applicant’s argument that 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20 was improper for Applicant claims are directed toward improving merchant software installed on a user’s personal electronic device and improves the operation of a user’s electronic device by providing a streamlined and secure way for a user to pay a merchant has fully been considered, but is not persuasive.
On page 10, of Applicant’s 8/6/2025 response, Applicant asserts, “…directed to improving merchant software installed on a user’s personal electronic device as described in the specification….” Then on page 11, of Applicant’s 8/6/2025 response, Applicant asserts, “…disclose an improvement to the operation of a user electronic device.” Therefore, it is unclear which specifically the Applicant is asserting to being improved (e.g., the merchant software or the operation of a user’s electronic device).
Reviewing the four corners of Applicant’s Specification for evidence of such “improvement” Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0043]Referring to Figure 1, a system for integrating pay by bank services is disclosed according to an embodiment. System 100 may include user electronic device 110, which may be any suitable electronic device including computers (e.g., workstations, desktops, laptops, notebooks, tablets, etc.), smart devices (e.g., smart phones, smart watches, etc.), Internet of Things (IoT) appliances, etc. User electronic device 110 may execute one or more computer programs or applications, including bank application (“app”) 112 and merchant app 114.
[0044]Merchant app 114 may interface with merchant computer program 122, which may provide online shopping services with a merchant. Merchant computer program may be executed by merchant backend 120, which may be a server (e.g., physical and/or cloud-based), computer, etc. Merchant computer program 122 may maintain, for each user, merchant account or wallet 124. Merchant account or wallet 124 may store provisioned payment instruments, such as credit cards, debit cards, etc., and may also store information for a demand deposit account (e.g., a checking account), a savings account, etc.
[0045]Merchant computer program 122 may also interface with merchant financial institution computer program 132 that may be executed by merchant financial institution backend 130. Merchant financial institution backend 130 may be a server, computer, etc.
[0046]In one embodiment, merchant computer program 122 may interface with merchant financial institution computer program 132 over any suitable communication network (e.g., the Internet).
[0047]User electronic device 110 may also execute bank app 112. Bank app 112 may be provided by a user financial institution and may interface with user financial institution computer program 150. This may provide a mechanism for user identity verification. For example, merchant app 114 may interface with bank app 112 to verify the user’s identity.
Applicant’s Specification is silent any type of evidence that demonstrates Applicant’s claim of improvement.
Taking Applicant’s claim elements separately, the functions performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using computers to perform Applicant’s claimed functions are one of the most basic function(s) of a computer. These function(s) are functions that can be achieved by a general-purpose computer without special programing. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce an unexpected result.
It must be determined if the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, however, Applicant’s Specification (including the claim language) makes clear that the claims focus on an abstract idea, and not on any improvement to computer technology and/or functionality.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effect in the improvement in any other technology or technical field. Applicant’s claim limitations do not describe any particular improvement in the manner of a computer functions. None of Applicant’s limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Applicant’s claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in claim 1 provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of “processing secure transactions,” without significantly more.
The Federal Circuit has held similar concepts abstract. Thus, for example, the Federal Circuit has held that abstract idea includes the concepts of collecting data, analyzing the data, and displaying the results of the collection and analysis, including when limited to particular content.
The Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, nor does the Applicant direct the Examiner to any indication, that the operations recited in claim 1 require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any assertedly inventive programing, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions.
The Examiner finds no indication in the Specification that the claimed invention effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Additionally, the Examiner fails to find anything of record that attributes an improvement in technology andor a technical field to the claimed invention or that otherwise indicates that the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a “practical application,” as that phrase is used in the MPEP 2106.
Applicant has offered no persuasive argument or technical reasoning to demonstrate that the “processing secure transactions” recited in claim 1 involves more than well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities, i.e., generic computer functions. CF. In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Simply programing a general-purpose computer or generic circuitry to perform abstract ides does not provide an “inventive concept” such that the claim amounts to significantly more than that abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221-227
The Examiner would like to point out that “claims for which computers are invoked merely as a tool…use of a computer as a tool – economic task, or method of conducting business, the computer acts as a device to move and hold data, but the computer is used merely in its ordinary capacity of routine computerization of bookkeeping functions are not tied to a technological advance.”
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer functions of Applicant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately; hence, the ordering of the steps is therefore, ordinary and conventional. Also, the Examiner would like to point out that “an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.”
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-19 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant and maintains his 35 USC 101 rejection(s).
Applicant’s Argument #2:
Applicant contends that the amended claims obviate the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim(s) 5 and 10.
Examiners’ Response to Argument #2:
Applicant’s argument that the amended claims obviate the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim(s) 5 and 10 has fully been considered and is persuasive; therefore, the rejection(s) are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2016.04(a)(2).
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Consideration’s indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(d).
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field;
Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine;
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception;
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in MPEP § 2106.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea)).
Consideration’s indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in MPEP 2016.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field MPEP 2106.04(d)(1);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine MPEP 2106.04(d)(2);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the consideration’s indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are NOT indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the in MPEP 2016.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(g);
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h);
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See MPEP 2106;
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Step 1: Statutory Categories (MPEP § 2106.03):
Representative claim 1 is directed toward a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Representative claim 11 is directed toward an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention.
Representative claim 20 is directed toward an article of manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity:
The claim, as a whole, recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves processing secure transactions, which is an abstract idea without substantially more.
1. A method for integrating pay by bank services, comprising:
receiving, at a merchant computer program for a merchant executed on a user electronic device, a request to add funds to a merchant account or wallet (Which is an example of commercial or legal interactions);
receiving, at the merchant computer program, a selection to add an online banking account to the merchant account or wallet (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
receiving, at the merchant computer program, a selection of a funding amount (Which is an example of commercial or legal interactions);
receiving, at the merchant computer program, a selection of a user financial institution (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
receiving, at the merchant computer program, user login credentials for the user financial institution (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
receiving, at the merchant computer program and from a user financial institution backend, one or more bank accounts associated with the user login credentials (Which is an example of commercial or legal interactions);
receiving, at the merchant computer program, a selection of one of the bank accounts (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
receiving, at the merchant computer program, a token for the selected bank account from a merchant financial institution backend (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
storing, by the merchant computer program, the token in a merchant wallet (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
routing, by the merchant computer program, a funding transaction for the funding amount using the token (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and
conducting, by the merchant computer program, the funding transaction (Which is an example of commercial or legal interactions).
Thus, the claim(s) are directed toward processing secure transactions, which is an abstract idea, without substantially more.
NOTE: The mere nominal recitation of technology does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.1
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of some of the positively recited steps (e.g., “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “storing;” “routing;” and “conducting;”) including interaction with a plurality of devices and additional elements of:
(e.g., (a) “merchant computer program;” “merchant;” “user electronic device;” “user financial institution;” “bank accounts;” “merchant financial institution;”).
The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of:
data processing (e.g., “storing;” “routing;” “conducting;” etc. step(s) as claimed); and
data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” etc. step(s) as claimed)).
The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data processing, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea(s) are performed (e.g., the non-transitory computer-readable….) Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does NOT integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does NOT impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do NOT integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do NOT provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do NOT include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field.
Applicant’s Specification, as filed on 3/23/2023 does NOT provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0074]As noted above, the processing machine used to implement embodiments may be a general-purpose computer. However, the processing machine described above may also utilize any of a wide variety of other technologies including a special purpose computer, a computer system including, for example, a microcomputer, mini-computer or mainframe, a programmed microprocessor, a micro-controller, a peripheral integrated circuit element, a CSIC (Customer Specific Integrated Circuit) or ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) or other integrated circuit, a logic circuit, a digital signal processor, a programmable logic device such as a FPGA, PLD, PLA or PAL, or any other device or arrangement of devices that is capable of implementing the steps of the processes disclosed herein.
Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as:
data processing (e.g., “storing;” “routing;’ “conducting;” etc. step(s) as claimed); and
data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” “receiving;” etc. step(s) as claimed)).
are well understood, routine and conventional. Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in 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 here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activates previously known in the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do NOT add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The original filed Specification supports this conclusion at
Applicant’s Specification which recites:
[0074]As noted above, the processing machine used to implement embodiments may be a general-purpose computer. However, the processing machine described above may also utilize any of a wide variety of other technologies including a special purpose computer, a computer system including, for example, a microcomputer, mini-computer or mainframe, a programmed microprocessor, a micro-controller, a peripheral integrated circuit element, a CSIC (Customer Specific Integrated Circuit) or ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) or other integrated circuit, a logic circuit, a digital signal processor, a programmable logic device such as a FPGA, PLD, PLA or PAL, or any other device or arrangement of devices that is capable of implementing the steps of the processes disclosed herein.
Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Hence, the use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.2 Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
For these reasons, there is NO invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Conclusion
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-19 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
For instance, in claim(s) 2 and 12 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the selection of funds in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 3 and 13 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the entering of login credentials to access accounts in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 4 and 14 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the types of bank accounts used in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim 5 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the use of token associated with a merchant to aid in secure transactions in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 6 and 15 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the type of token used in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 7 and 16 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the limitations of the token used in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 8 and 17 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the limitations of the token used in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 9 and 18 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the type of transactions used in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 10 and 19 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe payment routs in furtherance of the abstract idea.
In all the dependent claim(s), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. This is because the claim(s) do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, the claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claim(s) also are not patent eligible.
Claims 11 and 20 contains similar language or like deficiencies found in claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-19 do not add any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above and are rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure.
Iyer et al., (US 2021/0264409)
Embodiments provide methods and systems of enabling an electronic payment from a merchant device using customer credential when a customer does not have mobile device or card with him. The customer enters customer credential, associated with a customer wallet, on a merchant wallet application accessible in the merchant device. The customer credential and merchant credential are transmitted to a server system associated with a payment network. The server system validates the customer credential, generates and transmits a pull payment request to a customer wallet server for approval of the payment request for transferring funds from customer wallet to the merchant wallet. After the approval, the server system transmits the successful payment response to the merchant device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Dante Ravetti whose telephone number is (571) 270-3609. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. John Hayes may be reached at (571) 272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 270-4609.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from
the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information
for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public
PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through
Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system see
http://pair-direct5yspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the private
PAIR system, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 1-(866)
217-9197. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service
Representative or access to the automated information system, call 1-(800) 786-
9199 (IN USA or CANADA) or 1 -(571) 272-1000.
/DANTE RAVETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697 9/29/2025
1 (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, NO 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP 2106);
2 MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h);
Prosecution Insights