DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 were amended and/or newly added in the Applicant’s filing on 12/30/2025.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing(s) on 12/30/2025.
3. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if,” “may,” “might,” “can,” and “could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. See MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and/or boldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 2 recites a system performing operations comprising:
in response to receiving the second name in the update file, transmitting a notification to the cardholder computing device that the one or more accounts require the updated legal name of the cardholder.
Claim elements pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claims 9 and 16 have similar issues.
Claim 12 recites a system performing operation comprising:
receiving an access request from the cardholder computing device and, in response to the access request, transmitting a request to the cardholder computing device requesting that the cardholder enter their account credentials.
Claim elements pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claims 5 and 19 have similar issues
4. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system to perform a method and/or computer-readable medium containing instructions, when executed, causes a computer to perform a method comprising:
receiving an update file from a first third-party …, the update file including a second record having a second account identifier, the first name of the cardholder associated with the second account identifier, and a second name of the cardholder;
identifying a match between the first account identifier and the second account identifier, the second account identifier corresponding to the first account identifier, the first and second account identifiers comprising a social security number of the cardholder;
modifying the first record in the account information table by writing the second name to the first record in the account information table;
performing a[n] … authentication process with a cardholder …;
receiving, from the cardholder …, an authentication success indication corresponding to the … authentication process;
responsive to receiving the authentication success indication, performing a soft credit check on the first account identifier, the soft credit check comprising:
transmitting, …, a soft credit check inquiry to a second third-party ..., the soft credit check inquiry being associated with including the first account identifier;
accessing, from the second third-party … and with permission of the cardholder, a credit report associated with the first account identifier;
reviewing the credit report to identify one or more accounts associated with the first account identifier
responsive to the soft credit check inquiry, receiving in return, from the second third-party …, a list of one or more accounts associated with the first account identifier;
presenting the list of one or more accounts … [to] the cardholder …, each of the presented accounts being individually selectable;
receiving, …, a selection of one or more of the one or more accounts for updating;
generating a structured cardholder update file associated with a single account provider, including writing the second name and a corresponding second account identifier to the cardholder update file, the cardholder update file including only the selected accounts associated with the single account provider;
pushing the cardholder update file to a … single account provider, synchronizing the second name with the selected accounts;
receiving, from … the single account provider, a receipt notification indicating whether the selected accounts were updated;
responsive to the receipt notification, writing an entry in an … update status table indicating update activity for the selected accounts, the entry including at least: a date/time of a last update pushed and/or update request received, a date/time of a last receipt notification received from the single account provider, and whether the receipt notification indicated a successful update;
determining, based on the … update status table, that the single account provider has not received current account information corresponding to the first account identifier; and
responsive to the determining, pushing a most recent cardholder update file to the single account provider.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to update accountholder information which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, under its broadest interpretation, covers a series of steps that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions) which are mental process, a second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” is a court-provided example of a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a database (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a processor (Claim(s) 1), a memory (Claim(s) 1), a step-up authentication process (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a secure webservice (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a server (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a user interface (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), and a computing device (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 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. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
No additional computer components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generically recited computer.
As such, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
5. No Prior Art Rejection
Applicant’s amended claims have overcome the prior art of record.
Specifically, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the limitations of:
receiving, from the computing device associated with the single account provider, a receipt notification indicating whether the selected accounts were updated;
responsive to the receipt notification, writing an entry in an ANC update status table indicating update activity for the selected accounts, the entry including at least: a date/time of a last update pushed and/or update request received, a date/time of a last receipt notification received from the single account provider, and whether the receipt notification indicated a successful update;
determining, based on the ANC update status table, that the single account provider has not received current account information corresponding to the first account identifier; and
responsive to the determining, pushing a most recent cardholder update file to the single account provider. (as in Claim 1).
Substantially similar limitations are present in all independent claims.
The prior art does not teach a system maintaining an update status table recording receipt notifications from single account providers, wherein the receipt notifications indicate that the single account provider has updated the cardholder’s account information, determining, based on the status table, that the single service provider has not received the current (i.e., updated) account information, and pushing the most recent (i.e., updated) account information to the single account provider.
No further prior art has been asserted against the claimed invention.
6. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered. Some arguments were persuasive, and the previously asserted rejection(s) have been withdrawn. However, some arguments were not persuasive, and the previously asserted rejection(s) remain relevant. Such arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and are addressed below.
§101 Rejection
Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not recite a judicial exception and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong One of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 15-16.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
(1) Mental process grouping (collect/analyze/display) - improper expansion
A limitation falls within the mental process grouping only if it "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper," and the USPTO expressly instructs that claims do not recite a mental process when they contain limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind; examiners are reminded not to expand the mental process grouping to cover such limitations.
Here, amended claim 1 recites computer/network operations that cannot practically be performed mentally, including:
secure webservice transmission;
step-up authentication and receipt of an authentication success indication;
remote access (with permission) to a credit report and review of that report to
identify accounts;
generation of a structured update file and pushing it to a provider system;
receipt notifications;
writing status-table entries including timestamps and success/failure;
stale state determination from the status table; and
automatic push of a most recent update file.
These are not "observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions" performed in a human mind. Rather these limitations are distributed networked control operations and state management. See Arguments, pp. 15-16.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A mental process includes processes that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Mental processes include processes that would require “the use of a physical aid, such as pen and paper.” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). And processes that utilize a computer. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Claims that recite limitations “that cannot practically be performed in the human mind” are not mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). For example, a limitation that cannot be practically performed in the human mind is “detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets” and “rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask, where the method required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure.” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The examples provided require a computer. A computer is inherent to the underlying process (e.g., there is no network traffic, data packets or pixels without a computer). This is not the case with the claimed invention.
As to the specific argued claim elements …
secure webservice transmission;
As a preliminary matter, the specification recites that a secure webservice is “encrypted communications.” See Specification, para. 89. Encrypted communications do not necessarily require a computer as encrypted communications predate the advent of computers.
Regardless, a human being can transmit (i.e., communicate), via encrypted communication, a soft credit check inquiry (e.g., via verbal communication or written on paper) to a second third- party, the soft credit check inquiry including the first account identifier; and responsive to the soft credit check inquiry, a human being receiving in return (e.g., via verbal communication or written on paper), from the second third-party, a list of one or more accounts associated with the first account identifier.
step-up authentication and receipt of an authentication success indication;
A human being can utilize step-up authentication procedures (i.e., a security approach that prompts users for additional verification only when accessing sensitive resources or performing high-risk actions) with a cardholder and receive an authentication success indication from said cardholder.
remote access (with permission) to a credit report and review of that report to
identify accounts;
generation of a structured update file and pushing it to a provider system;
receipt notifications;
writing status-table entries including timestamps and success/failure;
stale state determination from the status table; and
automatic push of a most recent update file.
A human being can access (with permission) a credit report and review said credit report. A human being can identify accounts, generate a structured update file and push (i.e., distribute or transmit) said update file to a provider. A human being can receive notifications. A human being can write status-table entries including timestamps and success/failure. A human being can make a determination from a status table whether data is in a “stale” state. A human being can push (i.e., distribute or transmit) a most recent update file.
Admittedly, performance on a computer would make the computations and calculations faster but relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (U.S. 2014), 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept).
Applicant further argues:
Accordingly, the Action's "collect/analyze/display" paraphrase does not establish that the claims recite a mental process under the USPTO's enumerated grouping. See Arguments, p. 16.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention performs the functions comprising:
remote access (with permission) to a credit report and review of that report to
identify accounts;
generation of a structured update file and pushing it to a provider system;
receipt notifications;
writing status-table entries including timestamps and success/failure;
stale state determination from the status table; and
automatic push of a most recent update file.
The claimed invention is collecting data (i.e., a credit report), analyzing the data (i.e., reviewing the credit report and identifying accounts), and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (i.e., pushing the update status files based upon the collected credit reports, and analysis of the credit report and accounts).
Applicant further argues:
Amended claim 1 is not directed to a fundamental economic principle (e.g., hedging, intermediated settlement), nor to a commercial/legal interaction in the abstract. Instead, it recites a technical distributed synchronization and verification mechanism for propagating identity updates across heterogeneous external provider systems with secure communications, receipt confirmed logging, stale state detection, and automatic remediation. The claim limitations recite the "how" of secure, reliable, machine-managed data propagation, not merely a mental economic principle or a business rule about commerce. See Arguments, p. 16.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The specification recites:
If a person legally changes his or her name, it is important for that person to subsequently update their bank accounts and credit cards with their new name as soon as possible. This facilitates ensuring that that their financial transactions, statements, licenses, etc. are accurate and that one can avoid any confusion or potential fraud. Updating one’s name with their bank accounts, credit cards, licenses, etc. can be very difficult. It can take months to get all credit cards, licenses, passport, utilities, etc. updated to reflect a name change. See Specification, para. 3.
Changing and updating names on bank accounts and credit cards (i.e., financial accounts) is a fundamental economic practice. Specifically, changing and updating names on bank accounts and credit cards reduces potential fraud.
Examiner notes that reducing potential fraud pertaining to bank accounts and credit cards is mitigation of financial risk and that the mitigation of financial risk is a court-provided example of a fundamental economic practice. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A), citing Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. (2014).
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites a practical application, specifically “an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,” and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 16-19.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
Consistent with those principles, Applicant's independent claims are properly viewed as directed to a technological solution to a technological problem, i.e., secure, reliable propagation and verification of identity updates across external provider systems, with receipt confirmed logging, stale detection, and automatic remediation. This aligns with the USPTO's examples in which an ordered combination of technical steps reflecting improvements described in the specification integrates an otherwise abstract idea into a practical application (and therefore is not "directed to" the exception). It is also consistent with the USPTO's guidance (including Ex parte Desjardins) emphasizing that eligibility at Prong Two turns on whether the claim as a whole reflects the disclosed technological improvement. See Arguments, pp. 18-19 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP §2106.05(a) recites:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. – emphasis added.
However, the specification does not provide any evidence that the claimed invention results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer, an improvement to conventional technology or technological processes, or is addressing a technology-based problem.
Additionally, the specification does not provide any evidence that there is even a technology-based problem to be solved. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that existing technology was not capable of performing the claimed process but for the claimed technology-based solution.
Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is analogous to Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA (Fed. Cir. 2016) in which the court stated:
The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. see Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – emphasis added.
MPEP §2106.04(d) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); [and]
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Examiner asserts that the additional elements amount to merely (1) including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or alternatively, (2) merely links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the additional elements amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea and, as such, satisfies Step 2B of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 19-20.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 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. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
7. Conclusion
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 JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached on (571)270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 May 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights