DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 03/02/2026.
Claims 15, 29, and 32 have been amended and is hereby entered.
Claims 15-34 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Final.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for future claim amendments to avoid U.S.C 112(a) issues that can arise. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
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.
Claim 15-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 15-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, In re Danly 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 582, 531 (CCPA 1959). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1657 (bd Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). However, the claim does not positively recite any elements that necessarily constitute a system or apparatus, such as computer hardware. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not limit the claim to structure. The limitations of these claims are interpreted as computer code or software per-se and are not statutory. Claims 15-34 recite a digital lending platform, one or more interfaces, third-party integration, task manager, rules engine, loan-product database, pricing algorithm, unsecured loan-lending system, secured loan-lending system, and optical character recognition (OCR) module, which are not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media are functional descriptive material per se and are considered to be software per se, which is not statutory (see MPEP 2106.03). Here, Applicant has claimed systems defined merely by software or terms synonymous with software or files, namely “a digital lending platform, one or more interfaces, third-party integration, task manager, rules engine, loan-product database, pricing algorithm, unsecured loan-lending system, secured loan-lending system, and optical character recognition (OCR) module,” lacking storage on a medium, which does not enable any underlying functionality to occur. Examiner recommends amending the claim to clearly include hardware in order to overcome this rejection. Additionally, any amendments must be fully supported by the specification. Claim 15 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. (Step 1: NO).
Examiner respectfully notes that even if Claims 15-34 are directed to statutory subject matter (e.g. a system), Claims 15-34 would be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of processing loan products and borrower documents, and determining the pricing of loan products, without significantly more. As noted above, claim 15 does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, a full two-step analysis is provided below, with claim 15 being treated as being directed to a machine (system).
Claims 15-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of processing loan products and borrower documents, and determining the pricing of loan products without significantly more.
Claim 15 is directed to a system (currently as recited it is not directed to statutory subject matter -system ). (Step 1: YES).
Claim 15 is directed to a digital lending platform, comprising: one or more interfaces with a third-party integration; a task manager configured to monitor and prioritize running processes of the digital lending platform; a rules engine configured to implement eligibility rules and decisioning processes for unsecured and secured loan products, wherein the eligibility rules comprise rules for minimum credit scores, maximum loan amounts, and maximum loan-to-value ratios for loan amounts to assets; an administration portal comprising a graphical user interface ("GUI") configured for display on a screen of a lender representative's display; a loan-product database configured to store information for the loan products; a pricing algorithm configured to determine pricing for the loan products; wherein the task manager is configured to (i) monitor running processes of the digital lending platform using one or more assigned process and group identifiers; and (ii) schedule execution priorities for the monitored processes based on the monitoring; an unsecured loan-lending system configured to originate and service unsecured loans; and a secured loan-lending system configured to originate and service secured loans, including an optical character recognition (OCR) module for processing borrower documents. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing loan products and borrower documents, and determining the pricing of loan products (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk by processing the borrower's loan application and verifying the supporting information, underwriting a potential loan and performing a detailed risk assessment in view of the supporting information, and funding the loan upon approval from underwriting; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing of unsecured and secured loan products and determining of a price for each loan product, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g. a digital lending platform, one or more interfaces, third-party integration, task manager, rules engine, administration portal, graphical user interface ("GUI"), screen, lender representative's display; loan-product database, pricing algorithm, unsecured loan-lending system, secured loan-lending system, and optical character recognition (OCR) module, do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 15 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of a digital lending platform, one or more interfaces, third-party integration, task manager, rules engine, administration portal, graphical user interface ("GUI"), screen, lender representative's display; loan-product database, pricing algorithm, unsecured loan-lending system, secured loan-lending system, and optical character recognition (OCR) module, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 15 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a digital lending platform, one or more interfaces, third-party integration, task manager, rules engine, administration portal, graphical user interface ("GUI"), screen, lender representative's display; loan-product database, pricing algorithm, unsecured loan-lending system, secured loan-lending system, and optical character recognition (OCR) module, are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 16-34 are directed to a system (currently as recited it is not statutory subject matter), which perform the steps that describe the abstract idea of processing loan products and borrower documents, and determining the pricing of loan products. Specifically, dependent claims 16-34 are directed to a system (currently as recited it is not statutory subject matter), which performs the steps: wherein the digital lending platform is configured for information sharing such that at least a potential borrower need not provide duplicative customer information to any systems comprising the digital lending platform; wherein the one or more interfaces comprises one or more Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), one or more web applications, or at least one API and at least one web application; wherein the third-party integration is configured to allow one or more third-parties to at least contribute additional information for the processing of the lending-related information; wherein the digital lending platform is configured for gathering and processing lending-related information for originating loans, servicing loans, or both; wherein the loans are selected from unsecured loans and secured loans; wherein the unsecured loan-lending system includes a personal loan-lending system having a personal loan-originating system and a personal loan-servicing system; wherein the personal loan-originating system is configured for originating personal loans; wherein the personal loan- servicing system is configured for servicing the personal loans; wherein the unsecured loan-lending system is configured to support various types of unsecured loans such as personal lines of credit, student loans, or credit cards; wherein the secured loan-lending system includes a mortgage-lending system having a mortgage-originating system and a mortgage-servicing system; wherein the mortgage-servicing system is configured for servicing the mortgages; the secured loan-lending system is configured to support various types of secured loans such as home equity loans, home equity lines of credit, or automotive loans; wherein the mortgage-originating system is configured for originating mortgages; wherein the mortgage-originating system includes a borrower-oriented system, a lender-oriented system, a mortgage-originating subsystem for at least mortgage-application processing, and the third-party integration supporting mortgage origination; wherein at least the borrower-oriented system, the lender-oriented system, and the mortgage-originating subsystem share one or more server hosts comprising the digital lending platform; wherein any one or more of the borrower-oriented system, the lender-oriented system, and the mortgage-originating subsystem include one or more dedicated server hosts; wherein the mortgage-originating subsystem includes an automatic underwriting module that is configured to perform detailed risk assessments in view of borrower-related information transferred to a database server and stored in one or more databases on a storage device of the one or more dedicated server hosts; the third-party integration includes a fraud-checking module, a credit-checking module, and a verifying module configured for transferring mortgage-related information between the mortgage-originating subsystem and third parties such as fraud-detecting companies (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk by processing the borrower's loan application and verifying the supporting information, underwriting a potential loan and performing a detailed risk assessment in view of the supporting information, and funding the loan upon approval from underwriting; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing of unsecured and secured loan products and determining of a price for each loan product, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, claims 16-34 recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of a digital lending platform, one or more interfaces, third-party integration, task manager, rules engine, administration portal, graphical user interface ("GUI"), screen, lender representative's display; loan-product database, pricing algorithm, unsecured loan-lending system, secured loan-lending system, optical character recognition (OCR) module, one or more Application Programming Interface (API), one or more web applications, personal loan-lending system, personal loan-originating system, personal loan-servicing system, mortgage-lending system, mortgage-originating system, mortgage-servicing system, borrower-oriented system, lender-oriented system, mortgage-originating subsystem, one or more server hosts, one or more dedicated server hosts, automatic underwriting module, database server, one or more databases, storage device, fraud-checking module, credit-checking module, verifying module, and mortgage-product generator are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: a digital lending platform, one or more interfaces, third-party integration, task manager, rules engine, administration portal, graphical user interface ("GUI"), screen, lender representative's display; loan-product database, pricing algorithm, unsecured loan-lending system, secured loan-lending system, optical character recognition (OCR) module, one or more Application Programming Interface (API), one or more web applications, personal loan-lending system, personal loan-originating system, personal loan-servicing system, mortgage-lending system, mortgage-originating system, mortgage-servicing system, borrower-oriented system, lender-oriented system, mortgage-originating subsystem, one or more server hosts, one or more dedicated server hosts, automatic underwriting module, database server, one or more databases, storage device, fraud-checking module, credit-checking module, verifying module, and mortgage-product generator are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Dependent claims 16-34 have further defined the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim: Claim 15, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. The dependent claims 16-34 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, claims 16-34 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 15-34 are not patent-eligible.
Prior Art Rejection
Examiner respectfully notes that with respect to the 35 US.C. 103 rejection of claims 15-34, the rejection is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments/remarks made in an amendment filed on 03/02/2026. Specifically, the closest prior art the examiner has been able to locate are Broadbent (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2001/0047326 A1; hereinafter "Broadbent"), Russell (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0194120 A1; hereinafter "Russell"), Zalik (U.S. Patent No. US 10,726,477 B1; hereinafter "Zalik"); and Shaden (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0271175 A1; hereinafter "Shaden").While Broadbent, Russell, Zalik, and Shaden are similar to the instant application in many respects, there are clear patentable distinctions. Unlike the prior art, the present invention teaches of a digital lending platform, comprising: one or more interfaces with a third-party integration; a task manager configured to monitor and prioritize running processes of the digital lending platform; a rules engine configured to implement eligibility rules and decisioning processes for unsecured and secured loan products, wherein the eligibility rules comprise rules for minimum credit scores, maximum loan amounts, and maximum loan-to-value ratios for loan amounts to assets; an administration portal comprising a graphical user interface ("GUI") configured for display on a screen of a lender representative's display; a loan-product database configured to store information for the loan products; a pricing algorithm configured to determine pricing for the loan products; wherein the task manager is configured to (i) monitor running processes of the digital lending platform using one or more assigned process and group identifiers; and (ii) schedule execution priorities for the monitored processes based on the monitoring; an unsecured loan-lending system configured to originate and service unsecured loans; and a secured loan-lending system configured to originate and service secured loans, including an optical character recognition (OCR) module for processing borrower documents.
Independently the claims are obvious; however, the claims as a whole are not obvious because the examiner would have to improperly use the claims as a road map to combine the individual obvious claims together. The limitations of the present invention below teaches the following elements that eludes the prior art search. Specifically, the claim limitations that resulted in no combination of the prior arts to be found to render the claims obvious without applying improper hindsight are: “a digital lending platform, comprising: one or more interfaces with a third-party integration; a task manager configured to monitor and prioritize running processes of the digital lending platform; a rules engine configured to implement eligibility rules and decisioning processes for unsecured and secured loan products, wherein the eligibility rules comprise rules for minimum credit scores, maximum loan amounts, and maximum loan-to-value ratios for loan amounts to assets; an administration portal comprising a graphical user interface ("GUI") configured for display on a screen of a lender representative's display; a loan-product database configured to store information for the loan products; a pricing algorithm configured to determine pricing for the loan products; wherein the task manager is configured to (i) monitor running processes of the digital lending platform using one or more assigned process and group identifiers; and (ii) schedule execution priorities for the monitored processes based on the monitoring; an unsecured loan-lending system configured to originate and service unsecured loans; and a secured loan-lending system configured to originate and service secured loans, including an optical character recognition (OCR) module for processing borrower documents.”
Hence, no combination of the prior arts were found to render the claims obvious without applying improper hindsight; thus, the claims are novel and non-obvious.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objections of claims 29 and 32, the objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments/remarks made in the amendment filed on 03/02/2026.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 15-34, the rejection is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments/remarks made in an amendment filed on 03/02/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/02/2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 15-34 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant arguments are moot in view of the grounds of rejections presented above in this office action. The arguments are addressed to the extent they apply to the amended claims.
Applicant argues that “Claims 15-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully submits that those skilled in the art will appreciate that the claimed digital lending platform recites a specific, integrated computer architecture that performs concrete operations in a technically defined manner: a task manager that monitors running platform processes via assigned process/group identifiers and schedules execution priorities based on that monitoring (a resource-management improvement to how the platform operates), coupled with a rules engine, pricing algorithm, loan-product database, third- party integrations, and separate secured and unsecured origination/servicing subsystems, including an OCR module that machine-processes borrower documents. In combination, these elements tie the claimed functionality to particular computing components and workflow controls that improve the operation of the platform itself and effect a real-world, automated lending system, rather than merely implementing a fundamental economic practice with generic computing.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong II, as previously discussed in the Final Office Action: dated 03/20/2025 and the Final Office Action: dated 10/01/2025, Examiner respectfully notes that there is no improved technology in simply monitoring, prioritizing, processing, implementing, storing, determining, originating, and servicing data (i.e., decisions, loan product, loan information, loan pricing, unsecured loan, secured loan, and borrower documents data etc.). The disclosed invention simply cannot be equated to improvement to technological practices or computers. There is no technical improvement at all. Instead, Applicant recites “a digital lending platform, comprising: one or more interfaces with a third-party integration; a task manager configured to monitor and prioritize running processes of the digital lending platform; a rules engine configured to implement eligibility rules and decisioning processes for unsecured and secured loan products, wherein the eligibility rules comprise rules for minimum credit scores, maximum loan amounts, and maximum loan-to-value ratios for loan amounts to assets; an administration portal comprising a graphical user interface ("GUI") configured for display on a screen of a lender representative's display; a loan-product database configured to store information for the loan products; a pricing algorithm configured to determine pricing for the loan products; wherein the task manager is configured to (i) monitor running processes of the digital lending platform using one or more assigned process and group identifiers; and (ii) schedule execution priorities for the monitored processes based on the monitoring; an unsecured loan-lending system configured to originate and service unsecured loans; and a secured loan-lending system configured to originate and service secured loans, including an optical character recognition (OCR) module for processing borrower documents.” The recited features in the limitations do not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant is simply using a computer to input, process, and output data. The recited features in the limitations does not disclose a technical solution to technical problem, but simply a business solution. Specifically, the recited steps, as amended, are merely managing/processing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) and does not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Thus, Applicant has simply provided a business method practice of processing data (loan/lending data), and no technical solution or improvement has been disclosed.
Moreover, there is no technology/technical improvement as a result of implementing the abstract idea. The recited features of the “task manager is configured to (i) monitor running processes of the digital lending platform using one or more assigned process and group identifiers; and (ii) schedule execution priorities for the monitored processes based on the monitoring” in amended claim 15 simply amount to the abstract idea of processing loan products and borrower documents; and, there is no computer functionality improvement or technology improvement. The claim does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea and not to technology. Additionally, Examiner notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., recited fundamental economic principle or practice and/or commercial interaction) is not an improvement in technology (See, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
Additionally, Claim 15, as amended, recites steps at a high level of generality. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and output. See MPEP 2106.05. The claim simply makes use of a computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. Furthermore, these steps, as amended, are recited as being performed by a digital lending platform, one or more interfaces, third-party integration, task manager, rules engine, administration portal, graphical user interface ("GUI"), screen, lender representative's display; loan-product database, pricing algorithm, unsecured loan-lending system, secured loan-lending system, and optical character recognition (OCR) module. The additional elements: a digital lending platform, one or more interfaces, third-party integration, task manager, rules engine, administration portal, graphical user interface ("GUI"), screen, lender representative's display; loan-product database, pricing algorithm, unsecured loan-lending system, secured loan-lending system, and optical character recognition (OCR) module are recited at a high level of generality, and are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving, processing, and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Amended claim 15 recites a digital lending platform, one or more interfaces, third-party integration, task manager, rules engine, administration portal, graphical user interface ("GUI"), screen, lender representative's display; loan-product database, pricing algorithm, unsecured loan-lending system, secured loan-lending system, and optical character recognition (OCR) module, which are simply used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the recitation of “a digital lending platform, one or more interfaces, third-party integration, task manager, rules engine, administration portal, graphical user interface ("GUI"), screen, lender representative's display; loan-product database, pricing algorithm, unsecured loan-lending system, secured loan-lending system, and optical character recognition (OCR) module” in the limitations merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. The claims, as amended, merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Hence, claim 15, as amended, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91,101 USPQ2d at 1973 (MPEP 2106.05(1)). As made clear by the courts, the "'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(1)). Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Hence, Examiner respectfully declines Applicant’s request to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 15-34.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are the following:
Hsieh (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US-20190295107-A1) “Lead Management System and Methods Thereof”
Sundaram (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US-20200372574-A1) “Multi-lender platform that securely stores proprietary information for pre-qualifying an applicant”
Bramlage (U.S. Patent No. US-8666885-B1) “Customized consumer loan product search system and method”
Broadbent (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US- 2001/0047326-A1) “Interface system for a mortgage loan originator compliance engine”
Russell (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US- 2002/0194120-A1) “Consultative decision engine method and system for financial transactions”
Shaden (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US-2007/0271175-A1) “System, method and apparatus for brokering loan applications”
Thomas (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US-2017/0186116-A1) “System and method for enabling IP marketplace APIs”
Poll (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US-2017/0186116-A1) “System and method of monitoring, measuring and reporting of post-closing processes in real estate purchase transactions and delivery of title insurance policies”
Lewis, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. US-8,065,225-B1) “System and method for acquiring a mortgage loan”
Palumbo (U.S. Patent No. US-8,666,879-B1) “Method and system for pricing forward commitments for mortgage loans and for buying committed loans”
Koo (U.S. Patent No. US-10,417,705-B1) “Information decision and display system for use in financial institution, such as bank, brokerage firm and mortgage company, comprises firewall for defining internal portion of system and first database is located in internal portion”
Zalik (U.S. Patent No. US-10,726,477-B1) “Systems and methods for providing closed-end loans”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571) 270-7978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 - 5:00.
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, MICHAEL W. ANDERSON can be reached on 571-270-0508.
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.
/MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights