DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant filed the amendment on 09/11/2025. Claims 8-27 are pending. Claims 8-27 are amended. Claims 8-27 are rejected. After careful consideration of applicant arguments, the examiner finds them to be not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 USC § 101
3. Applicant’s arguments toward 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is not persuasive. Amended independent claims 8, 15, and 21 do not have additional elements that could lead to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
4. Applicant is of the opinion that the amended claim 8 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and lists the features of amended claim, and concludes that “Using the connect system to facilitate transfer of data in the processing of electronic transactions, the online platforms are capable of processing the electronic transactions without having to access sensitive data associated with the users, thereby eliminating certain computer components required for managing and storing the sensitive data.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Mentioned above the claim features performed by using the computer components. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
5. Rejections of claims 12 and 25 due to amendments claims 12 and 25 are withdrawn.
However, amendments to claims 8, 15, and 21 raised issues pertaining to “New matter”, see below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
6. Rejections of claims 8-27 due to amendments are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
7. Rejections of claims 15-20 due to amendments claim 15 are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
8. Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art references Douglas et al. and Anderson et al fail to teach “receiving … an indication that a user of the user device has initiated a first transaction with a first entity associated with the first online platform during a first online session between the user device and the first online platform, intercepting … the user data provided by the user via the user interface without providing the first online platform access to the user data, facilitating, using the user profile, a second transaction between the user and a second entity during a second online session between the user device and a second online platform associated with the second entity”.
Applicant arguments are no longer applicable because they are moot in light of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
Intended Use
9. Intended use language is generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II) ("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 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).”); see also MPEP 2103(C). Examples of claim limitations that are often found to precede intended use include “adapted to,” “capable of,” “sufficient to,” “whereby,” and “for.”
10. Claim 8 recites “in response … providing… a user interface for interacting with the user” and “providing … the token to the first online platform for processing the first transaction”.
Claim 15 recites “providing the token to the first online platform for processing the first transaction”.
Claim 16 recites “in response … providing information … for use in the second transaction between the user and the second entity”.
Claim 21 recites “prompting … the user for user data for facilitating a first transaction between the user and the first entity” and “providing the token to the first online platform for processing the first transaction”.
Optional Language
11. Optional limitations are generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2103(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.”).
12. Claim 12 recites “in response to authenticating the user, presenting, on the user device information from the user profile without requiring any input from the user”.
Claim 25 recites “in response to authenticating the user, presenting, on the device information from the user profile without requiring any input from the user”.
Claims 8 and 21, from which claims 12 and 25 depend respectively, do not recite authenticating step of the user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
13. 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.
14. Claims 8-27 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.
15. In the instant case, claims 8, 15, and 21 are directed to a “method, non-transitory machine-readable medium, and system for managing user identities and transaction data”.
16. Claim 8 recites “generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction”. Specifically, the claim recites “receiving … an indication that a user… has initiated a first transaction with a first entity associated with … during a first … session …; in response to receiving the indication, providing … for interacting with the user; prompting … the user for user data; intercepting … the user data provided by the user … without providing … access to the user data; generating … a token that encapsulates at least a portion of the user data for the first transaction between the user and the first entity; providing … the token … for processing the first transaction; generating … a user profile for the user based on the user data; and facilitating, using the user profile, a second transaction between the user and a second entity during a second … session … associated with the second entity”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
17. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of the claim 8 such as “a computer system”, “a client module integrated within a first online platform that is executed on a user device”, “a first online session”, “a user interface”, “a second online session”, and “a second online platform” do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and therefore, neither improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. With respect to “receiving, by a computer system and from a client module integrated within a first online platform that is executed on a user device, an indication that a user of the user device has initiated a first transaction with a first entity associated with the first online platform during a first online session between the user device and the first online platform, wherein the client module is associated with the computer system” and “providing, by the computer system, the token to the first online platform for processing the first transaction” is simply transmitting data; “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
18. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction using computer technology (e.g., the processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
19. Hence, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
20. Claims 15 and 21 also recite “generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
21. As in the case of claim 8, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of claims 15 and 21 such as “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “a machine”, “a client module integrated within a first online platform that is executed on a device”, “a first online platform”, “a first online session”, “a user interface”, “a second online session”, “a second online platform”, “a non-transitory memory”, and “one or more hardware processors” do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and therefore, neither improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. With respect to “receiving, from a client module integrated within a first online platform that is executed on a device, an indication that a user of the device has initiated a first transaction with a first entity associated with the first online platform during a first online session between the device and the first online platform” and “providing the token to the first online platform for processing the first transaction” is simply transmitting data; “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
22. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction using computer technology (e.g., the processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
23. Hence, claims 15 and 21 are not patent eligible.
24. Dependent claim 9 further describes the abstract idea of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction, as recites “determining … that the user has a user account with …; and obtaining … second user data … wherein the user profile is generated further based on the second user data”. The additional elements such as “the computer system”, “the first online platform” and “a first data storage associated with the first online platform” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 10 further describes the abstract idea of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction, as recites “determining … that the user has a user account with a service provider different from the first entity; and obtaining … second user data from … associated with the service provider, wherein the user profile is generated further based on the second user data”. The additional elements such as “the computer system” and “a service provider server” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claims 11 and 24 further describe the abstract idea of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction, as each recites “wherein the user account is linked to a plurality of financial instruments associated with the user, and wherein the method further comprises: presenting the plurality of financial instruments …; and receiving, from the user … a selection of a particular financial instrument from the plurality of financial instruments, wherein the token is generated based on data associated with the particular financial instrument”. The additional element such as “the user interface” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. With respect to “receiving … a selection of a particular financial instrument from the plurality of financial instruments, wherein the token is generated based on data associated with the particular financial instrument” is simply transmitting data; “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claim 12 further describes the abstract idea of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction, as recites “receiving … a second indication that the user is accessing … associated with the second entity; and in response to authenticating the user, presenting, the … information from the user profile without requiring any input from the user”. The additional elements such as “a second client module integrated within the second online platform executed on the user device” and “the user device” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. With respect to “receiving, from a second client module integrated within the second online platform executed on the user device, a second indication that the user is accessing the second online platform associated with the second entity” is simply transmitting data; “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claims 13, 17, and 26 further describe the abstract idea of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction, as each recites “wherein the information is inaccessible …”. The additional element such as “the second online platform” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 14 further describes the abstract idea of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction, as recites “generating a second token based on the information from the user profile for the second transaction conducted between the user and the second entity; and transmitting the second token …”. The additional element such as “the second online platform” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. With respect to “transmitting the second token to the second online platform” is simply transmitting data; “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claim 16 further describes the abstract idea of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction, as recites “subsequent to the generating the user profile, receiving … associated with the second entity, a second indication that the user is accessing …; authenticating the user based on an identifier of the user; and in response to the authenticating the user, providing information from the user profile … for use in the second transaction between the user and the second entity”. The additional elements such as “a second client module integrated within the second online platform” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. With respect to “receiving, from a second client module integrated within the second online platform associated with the second entity, a second indication that the user is accessing the second online platform” and “providing information from the user profile to the second client module integrated within the second online platform for use in the second transaction between the user and the second entity” is simply transmitting data; “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claim 18 further describes the abstract idea of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction, as recites “generating a second token for the second transaction based on the user profile; and transmitting the second token …”. The additional element such as “the second online platform” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. With respect to “transmitting the second token to the second online platform” is simply transmitting data; “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claim 19 further describes the abstract idea of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction, as recites “wherein the user profile comprises a device identifier associated with the user, and wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting a code to … the user based on the device identifier; prompting … the user to provide an authentication code; and authenticating the user based on matching the authentication code received … and the code transmitted …”. The additional elements such as “the device” and “the second client module integrated within the second online platform” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. With respect to “transmitting a code to the device of the user based on the device identifier” is simply transmitting data; “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claim 20 further describes the abstract idea of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction, as recites “in response to authenticating the user, transmitting… transaction data associated with the user profile, wherein the transaction data represents at least the first transaction between the user and …”. The additional elements such as “the second client module integrated within the second online platform” and “the first online platform” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. With respect to “transmitting, to the second client module integrated within the second online platform, transaction data associated with the user profile, wherein the transaction data represents at least the first transaction between the user and the first online platform” is simply transmitting data; “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claim 22 further describes the abstract idea of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction as recites “determining that the user has a user account with …; and obtaining second user data …, wherein the user profile is generated further based on the second user data”. The additional elements such as “the first online platform” and “a first data storage associated with the first online platform” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 23 further describes the abstract idea of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction, as recites “determining that the user has a user account with a service provider different from the first entity; and obtaining second user data … associated with the service provider, wherein the user profile is generated further based on the second user data”. The additional element such as “a service provider server” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 25 further describes the abstract idea of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction, as recites “receiving … a second indication that the user is accessing the second online platform associated with a second entity; and in response to authenticating the user, presenting … information from the user profile without requiring any input from the user”. The additional elements such as “a second client module integrated within the second online platform” and “the device” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. With respect to “receiving, from a second client module integrated within the second online platform, a second indication that the user is accessing the second online platform associated with a second entity” is simply transmitting data; “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claim 27 further describes the abstract idea of generating a user profile to facilitate a financial transaction, as recites “generating a second token based on the user profile; and transmitting the second token … for the second transaction”. The additional element such as “the second client module integrated within the second online platform” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. With respect to “transmitting the second token to the second client module integrated within the second online platform for the second transaction” is simply transmitting data; “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Conclusion
25. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
26. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
27. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
28. Claims 8-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New matter
29. Claim 8 recites “providing, by the computer system, the token to the first online platform for processing the first transaction”.
Claims 15 and 21 recite “providing the token to the first online platform for processing the first transaction”.
Previous to “providing” step, claims 8, 15, and 21 recite “generating … a token that encapsulates at least a portion of the user data” and “generating a token based on at least a portion of the user data” respectively.
The specification cites that “the client module may intercept the user data, such that the user data is not be passed to the online platform” (para 22) and “client module 242 may intercept the user data provided by the user 140 without allowing the user data to pass to the merchant client 240” (para 64), i.e., the data is prohibited from being sent to the online platform.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation generated tokens that encapsulates data and based on a portion of data is still data.
Claims 8, 15, and 21 limitations “providing the token to the first online platform” contradicts the Specification (see paras 22 and 64), on the contrary “…The client module may then intercept the new information provided by the user, and transmit the new information to the server…” (see para 36).
30. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
31. Claims 9-14, 16-20, and 22-27 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 8, 15, and 21 because claims 9-14, 16-20, and 22-27 inherit the deficiencies of claims 8, 15, and 21 respectively due to their dependency.
32. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
33. Claims 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Lack of antecedent basis
34. Claim 21 recites the limitation “the client module” in paragraph starting with “prompting …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
35. Claims 22-27 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 21 because claims 22-27 inherit the deficiencies of claim 21 due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
36. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
37. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
38. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
39. Claim 8-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US9361085B2 to El-Gillani in view of US20130297504A1 to Nwokolo et al.
40. As per claims 8, 15, and 21:
El-Gillani discloses the following limitations:
receiving, by a computer system and from a client module integrated within a first online platform that is executed on a user device (Col.2, lines 15-20 “According to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a processor implemented method on a device, the method comprising: receiving web application resources associated with a web application; modifying the web application resources by adding methods at least some of which pertain to processing of user data of the web application”, col.6, lines 57-61 “The memory 604 contains a web application client runtime with data interception and processing 610 that is executable by the processor. Web application client runtime 400 of FIG. 2A is specific example of component 610.”, col/line 6/67-7/2 “The client device 600 is configured to perform user data interception and processing, for example pertaining to the exchange of user data with web servers 340.”, col.7, 15-21 “Client runtime 300, which in this example is a W3C WebApp client runtime (e.g. web browser) includes an HTML/CSS renderer 302 and an ECMA runtime 304. Also shown is a network interceptor 306, which inspects resources retrieved over the network. Also shown is wrapper resources 301 that include a runtime interceptor 303, rules engine 305 and data handlers 307”) an indication that a user of the user device has initiated a first transaction with a first entity associated with the first online platform during a first online session between the user device and the first online platform, wherein the client module is associated with the computer system (col.10, lines 50-53 “The intercepted call is used to determine the operation type in block 5-2. The type may be a local operation (e.g. manipulation of a field), initiating request to server, or processing a response from server.”, col.10, lines 28-35 “The wrapper, in block 5-1, wraps the EMCA and DOM API in order to intercept API calls made by the application resources and register for event callbacks. Examples of intercepted operations may include, but are not limited to: … Submitting a Form and processing its content through Form.onSubmit event callback.”, col.11, lines 47-53 “Pattern 2: As part of the HTML Form action carried out through HTTP (client data to server). This is typically followed by loading of a URL which follows the above pattern. An example is a web form to transfer money to a recipient. The user fills the form fields and once the form is submitted, the browser loads a URL of a new page showing recent transactions.”, col.13, lines 1-4 “In the case of a FORM submit, in block 6-8, the Wrapper intercepts the on Submit event, after all other WebApp event listeners, and verifies that its action attribute is set to invoke a server URL.”)
in response to receiving the indication, providing, by the computer system and via the client module, a user interface for interacting with the user (Col.5, lines 35-37 “as user interface resources 212, typically using HTML/CSS. Web-based applications typically follow the above described model.”, col.6, lines 56-57 “The client processor 602, memory 604, user interface 606 and display 608.”, col.8, lines 64-67 “The wrapper resources 301 may also provides resources for: User interface to allow users to configure rules, described below, and data access control/sharing policies.”
prompting, by the computer system and via the user interface of the client module, the user for user data (Col.10, lines 30-40 “Examples of intercepted operations may include, but are not limited to: … User Input, such as text typed into a Form input field.”, col.11, lines 47-53 “Pattern 2: As part of the HTML Form action carried out through HTTP (client data to server). This is typically followed by loading of a URL which follows the above pattern. An example is a web form to transfer money to a recipient. The user fills the form fields and once the form is submitted, the browser loads a URL of a new page showing recent transactions.”, col.12, lines 35-37 “When a call is made to read the value of an HTML Input field, block 6-4 (data manipulation), the wrapper invokes a data handler which reads the DOM input value”,
intercepting, by the computer system and using the client module, the user data provided by the user via the user interface without providing the first online platform access to the user data (Col.1, lines 31-42 “In both cases, private user data is exposed and controlled by an independent entity which introduces security risks. User data is by design exposed to the application provider software/hardware components. As a result, from the end-user's perspective, an additional security risk is introduced… This is true even when data is transmitted through secure protocols such as HTTPS and stored in encrypted format by the application provider, since in all cases the clear-text user data is still available in memory to the application provider.”, col.1, lines 50-56 “In some embodiments, methods are provided that automatically detect and intercept user data. Once intercepted, different processing may be performed including execution of security algorithms. Instead of intercepting the network payload, components may be added to the web application client-side runtime environment.”, col.5, lines 62-64 “Embodiments of the invention provide a method for automatically identifying user data, without prior knowledge of the WebApp, and invoking a data handler.”, col.5, lines 57-61 “This information travelling on the network contains two categories of data: user-data representing data entered by the user, and control-data representing data specific to the WebApp and necessary for its operation, such as record ids, operation codes, state information, etc.”, col.6, lines 1-4 “intercepting user data for the purpose of applying a security algorithm in order to ensure WebApp server components do not have access to private user data, while leaving control data intact”, col.6, lines 46-50 “On the server, the application layers of a WebApp server 500 include WebApp resources 520 and server logic 540. No change is required on the server-end in order for the injected wrapper data processing functionality (e.g. injected security algorithms) to work on the client side.”, col.7, lines 2-12 “Web servers 340 are not specific web servers; rather, this data interception and processing can be performed in respect of any interactions involving user data that the device is configured to recognize, irrespective of what the web server on the other end of the interaction might be. For example, the data interception and processing may be used to apply a level of security to communications with the web application servers 340 that do not rely on a third party hosting secure data. This allows client device 600 to be used to interact with 3.sup.rd party applications with user data security.”)
generating, by the computer system, a token that encapsulates at least a portion of the user data for the first transaction between the user and the first entity (Col.6, lines 19-25 “Some examples of security algorithms include encryption, which includes encryption/decryption operations using symmetric and asymmetric keys, the use of user-based certificates for authentication and privacy, as well as tokenization of cleartext data. Tokenization refers to the process of replacing cleartext data with random, or partially random, strings, referred to as tokens.”, col.16, lines 19-25 “i) processing outgoing data by: a) tokenizing the user data to produce tokenized user data and returning the tokenized user data; b) encrypting the user data to produce encrypted user data; c) creating a mapping between the encrypted user data and the tokenized user data;”, col.14, lines 33-36 “Masking algorithm tokenization, executed in block 7-2, replaces user data with tokens that meet the syntax restrictions required by the application, and specified as part of the masking rule.”, col.14, lines 39-47 “In one embodiment of the innovation, the masking algorithm, selects a unique token, which is composed of two random values, with no mathematical relationship to user data. The values identify a record and field respectively. The two values are assembled into a string, following a known structure and encoding, which does not occur in user data. Examples include encoding the string using reserved UNICODE characters representing languages not used by the user.”)
providing, by the computer system, the token to the first online platform for processing the first transaction (Col.14, lines 48-49 “User data is then swapped with the tokens, block 7-3, and sent to the WebApp server in block 7-4.”, col.13, lines 1-6 “In the case of a FORM submit, in block 6-8, the Wrapper intercepts the on Submit event, after all other WebApp event listeners, and verifies that its action attribute is set to invoke a server URL. If so, the Wrapper data handlers, in block 6-9, which use DOM API to replace the INPUT field values with their Masked equivalent.”, col.13, lines 18-23 “In the case of AJAX, in block 6-13, the wrapper intercepts DOM XMLHTTPRequest calls. The wrapper data handler inspects, in block 6-14, the destination URL as well as the data to be posted (if any). It accordingly determines if they are any instances of String Wrapper, and if so, uses their masked equivalent when invoking the XMLHTTPRequest methods.”)
El-Gillani does not disclose, however, Nwokolo et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
generating, by the computer system, a user profile for the user based on the user data ([0009] “…electronic wallets are becoming a more prevalent counterpart to electronic forms of payment for a wide variety of transactions. Generally speaking, an electronic wallet is a system by which a credit card, debit card, pre-paid card, etc., is stored where a single electronic application which provides access to them, analogous to the way in which one might store corresponding physical payment cards in a tangible wallet.”, [0029] “The consumer signs in to their selected wallet in step 6. They also select from among the payment sources, for example card accounts, associated with their selected wallet. The purchaser further selects a shipping address associated with the wallet…”, [0030] “… the generation of a payment token step 8 would include the payment token as a programming object or file. The token generally includes a transaction identifier; a cardholder name; billing address; postal code; a tokenized PAN reference in substitution for the PAN; a wallet transaction indicator; a masked card number representing the selected card from the wallet; a start date associated with the selected card; an expiration date associated with the card; the card brand and/or type…”)
facilitating, using the user profile, a second transaction between the user and a second entity during a second online session between the user device and a second online platform associated with the second entity (Fig.2, items 180, 200, 220, 240, 260, “step 9” – “step 17”; [0037] “Tokenizer entity 240 saves the consumer's card choice and generates a payment token associated with the transaction in step 9. At step 10, the tokenizer entity 240 transmits the payment token details and shipping address to the merchant 200, providing a Checkout Resource URL 260. Merchant 200 retrieves the payment token and shipping address from the Checkout Resource URL 260 in step 11. The consumer 180 chooses shipping options, upon which the total cost is computed, at step 12. The merchant 200 then submits the payment token with total transaction cost information in step 13. An order ID, the tokenized PAN reference, a transaction total and currently of transaction may be communicated together. Tokenizer entity 240 detokenizes the authentication request in step 14 and submits the authentication request to the payment gateway/acquirer 220 in step 15. The response to tokenizer entity 240 from the payment gateway/acquirer 220 is transmitted to the merchant 200 in step 16, then on to the consumer 180 with an order confirmation in step 17…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a method of tokenizing sensitive cardholder payment information for use in cashless transactions includes receiving a request to process a cashless transaction between a merchant and a purchaser using first payment data stored with an electronic wallet provider on behalf of the purchaser of Nwokolo et al. (‘504, [0014]) with teaching of El-Gillani for automatically detecting and intercepting user data, and once intercepted, different processing may be performed including execution of security algorithms (‘085, col.1, lines 50-53) for retrieving a cardholder name billing address postal code from a transaction identifier and generating a payment token associated with the transaction, transmitting the payment token details and shipping address to the merchant and merchant retrieves the payment token and shipping address (‘504, [0030], [0037]).
As per claim 15 El-Gillani additionally discloses the following limitations:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions, that when executed by a machine, causes the machine to perform operations (Col.3, lines 57-60, “In some embodiment, there is provide computer readable storage medium having computer executable instructions stored thereon that when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform the method as described herein.”)
As per claim 21 El-Gillani additionally discloses the following limitations:
a non-transitory memory (Col.3, lines 61-62 “a system comprising: … memory”)
one or more hardware processors (col.3, lines 61-62 “a system comprising: a processor”)
41. As per claims 9 and 22:
El-Gillani does not disclose, however, Nwokolo et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
determining, by the computer system, that the user has a user account with the first online platform (Fig.1, item “Step 6”; [0029] “The consumer signs in to their selected wallet in step 6. They also select from among the payment sources, for example card accounts, associated with their selected wallet. The purchaser further selects a shipping address associated with the wallet. obtaining, by the computer system, second user data from a first data storage associated with the first online platform, wherein the user profile is generated further based on the second user data…”)
obtaining, by the computer system, second user data from a first data storage associated with the first online platform, wherein the user profile is generated further based on the second user data (Fig.1, item “Step 7”; [0029] “…The online wallet provider/PPOW 140 delivers selected card and address data to the operator of the network of wallets, PPOS 120, in step 7.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a method of tokenizing sensitive cardholder payment information for use in cashless transactions includes receiving a request to process a cashless transaction between a merchant and a purchaser using first payment data stored with an electronic wallet provider on behalf of the purchaser of Nwokolo et al. (‘504, [0014]) with teaching of El-Gillani for automatically detecting and intercepting user data, and once intercepted, different processing may be performed including execution of security algorithms (‘085, col.1, lines 50-53) for determining that user has account, retrieving associated data of cardholder information, and also obtaining data from wallet provider’s storage (‘504, [0029]).
42. As per claims 10 and 23:
El-Gillani does not disclose, however, Nwokolo et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
determining, by the computer system, that the user has a user account with a service provider different from the first entity ([0009] “…an electronic wallet is a system by which a credit card, debit card, pre-paid card, etc., is stored where a single electronic application which provides access to them, analogous to the way in which one might store corresponding physical payment cards in a tangible wallet.”, [0026] “…in this case under the name of PayPass Online Services (PPOS). Furthermore, represented as entity 140, PayPass Online Wallet (PPOW), the operator of the network of wallets is further acting as one of the electronic wallet service providers within the federation of network wallets.”, [0028] “…Merchant 200 then redirects the user to the network of wallets landing page, step 3. … The purchaser chooses their wallet in step 4, and PPOS 120 redirects the user to their selected wallet in step 5.”)
obtaining, by the computer system, second user data from a service provider server associated with the service provider, wherein the user profile is generated further based on the second user data ([0029] “…The online wallet provider/PPOW 140 delivers selected card and address data to the operator of the network of wallets, PPOS 120, in step 7.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a method of tokenizing sensitive cardholder payment information for use in cashless transactions includes receiving a request to process a cashless transaction between a merchant and a purchaser using first payment data stored with an electronic wallet provider on behalf of the purchaser of Nwokolo et al. (‘504, [0014]) with teaching of El-Gillani for automatically detecting and intercepting user data, and once intercepted, different processing may be performed including execution of security algorithms (‘085, col.1, lines 50-53) for determining that a service provider is different from a merchant, an electronic, and user has account with specific wallet service provider, and obtaining data from service provider’s server (‘504, [0028], [0029]).
43. As per claims 11 and 24:
El-Gillani does not disclose, however, Nwokolo et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
presenting the plurality of financial instruments on the user interface ([0009] “… electronic wallets are becoming a more prevalent counterpart to electronic forms of payment for a wide variety of transactions. Generally speaking, an electronic wallet is a system by which a credit card, debit card, pre-paid card, etc., is stored where a single electronic application which provides access to them, analogous to the way in which one might store corresponding physical payment cards in a tangible wallet.”, [0029] “The consumer signs in to their selected wallet in step 6. They also select from among the payment sources, for example card accounts, associated with their selected wallet…”)
receiving, from the user and via the user interface, a selection of a particular financial instrument from the plurality of financial instruments, wherein the token is generated based on data associated with the particular financial instrument ([0029] “…The online wallet provider/PPOW 140 delivers selected card and address data to the operator of the network of wallets, PPOS 120, in step 7.”, [0030] “Network operator 120 then saves the selected card details and uses the card details to generate a payment token which will be shared with the merchant in order to consummate the transaction in step 8…The token generally includes a transaction identifier; a cardholder name; billing address; postal code; a tokenized PAN reference in substitution for the PAN; a wallet transaction indicator; a masked card number representing the selected card from the wallet; a start date associated with the selected card; an expiration date associated with the card; the card brand and/or type…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a method of tokenizing sensitive cardholder payment information for use in cashless transactions includes receiving a request to process a cashless transaction between a merchant and a purchaser using first payment data stored with an electronic wallet provider on behalf of the purchaser of Nwokolo et al. (‘504, [0014]) with teaching of El-Gillani for automatically detecting and intercepting user data, and once intercepted, different processing may be performed including execution of security algorithms (‘085, col.1, lines 50-53) for choosing a particular financial instrument and generated token represents information of the chosen financial instrument (‘504, [0029], [0030]).
44. As per claims 12, 16, and 25:
El-Gillani does not disclose, however, Nwokolo et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
receiving, from a second client module integrated within the second online platform executed on the user device, a second indication that the user is accessing the second online platform associated with the second entity ([0027] “…consumer 180 has placed certain goods or services in an electronic shopping cart, and has arrived at a checkout page. The consumer will be presented with options for payment which will include an on-line checkout button invoking the network of wallets operated by PayPass online services 120, which the consumer 180 selects at step 1.”, [0029] “The consumer signs in to their selected wallet in step 6…”)
in response to authenticating the user, presenting, on the user device information from the user profile without requiring any input from the user ([0029] “…They also select from among the payment sources, for example card accounts, associated with their selected wallet. The purchaser further selects a shipping address associated with the wallet…”, [0030] “…At step 9, PPOS 120 returns a return address and the payment token together to the merchant 200 in order to finalize the transaction.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a method of tokenizing sensitive cardholder payment information for use in cashless transactions includes receiving a request to process a cashless transaction between a merchant and a purchaser using first payment data stored with an electronic wallet provider on behalf of the purchaser of Nwokolo et al. (‘504, [0014]) with teaching of El-Gillani for automatically detecting and intercepting user data, and once intercepted, different processing may be performed including execution of security algorithms (‘085, col.1, lines 50-53) for accessing a merchant platform, invoking wallet system, identifying an electronic wallet profile data, and automatically populating of the user information from wallet profile (‘504, [0029], [0030]).
45. As per claims 13, 17, and 26:
El-Gillani discloses the following limitations:
wherein the information is inaccessible by the second online platform (Col.1, lines 31-33 “In both cases, private user data is exposed and controlled by an independent entity which introduces security risks. User data is by design exposed to the application provider software/hardware components”, col.6, lines 1-4 “intercepting user data for the purpose of applying a security algorithm in order to ensure WebApp server components do not have access to private user data, while leaving control data intact”, col.7, lines 2-12 “Web servers 340 are not specific web servers; rather, this data interception and processing can be performed in respect of any interactions involving user data that the device is configured to recognize, irrespective of what the web server on the other end of the interaction might be. For example, the data interception and processing may be used to apply a level of security to communications with the web application servers 340 that do not rely on a third party hosting secure data. This allows client device 600 to be used to interact with 3.sup.rd party applications with user data security.”)
46. As per claims 14, 18, and 27:
El-Gillani discloses the following limitations:
generating a second token based on the information from the user profile for the second transaction conducted between the user and the second entity (Col.14, lines 33-36 “Masking algorithm tokenization, executed in block 7-2, replaces user data with tokens that meet the syntax restrictions required by the application, and specified as part of the masking rule.”, col.39, lines 39-42 “In one embodiment of the innovation, the masking algorithm, selects a unique token, which is composed of two random values, with no mathematical relationship to user data. The values identify a record and field respectively.”
transmitting the second token to the second online platform (Col.7, lines 2-7 “Web servers 340 are not specific web servers; rather, this data interception and processing can be performed in respect of any interactions involving user data that the device is configured to recognize, irrespective of what the web server on the other end of the interaction might be.”, col.14, lines 48-49 “User data is then swapped with the tokens, block 7-3, and sent to the WebApp server in block 7-4.”)
47. As per claim 19:
El-Gillani discloses the following limitations:
transmitting a code to the device of the user based on the device identifier (Col.9, lines 39-42 “The configuration rules identifying applicable domains may be stored locally or fetched from a trusted server using secure web protocols such as HTTPS.”, col.10, lines 4-8 “As detailed above, the WebApp JavaScript modification is applied for both embedded and URL sourced resources. In both cases the actual code modification performed in blocks 4-7 and 4-9 is performed by a Logic Analyser, which can be local to the device, or provided as a remote service.”) The configuration rules identifying applicable domains may be stored locally or fetched from a trusted server using secure web protocols such as HTTPS.
prompting, via the second client module integrated within the second online platform, the user to provide an authentication code (Col/line 5/65-6/8 “Examples of aspects that may be added to a WebApp transaction in this manner include, but are not limited to: … intercepting user data in order to support monitoring of access to key data”, col.6, lines 19-23 “Some examples of security algorithms include encryption, which includes encryption/decryption operations using symmetric and asymmetric keys, the use of user-based certificates for authentication and privacy, as well as tokenization of cleartext data.”)
authenticating the user based on matching the authentication code received via the second client module and the code transmitted to the device (Col.6, lines 19-25 “Some examples of security algorithms include encryption, which includes encryption/decryption operations using symmetric and asymmetric keys, the use of user-based certificates for authentication and privacy, as well as tokenization of cleartext data. Tokenization refers to the process of replacing cleartext data with random, or partially random, strings, referred to as tokens”, col.8, lines 64-67 “The wrapper resources 301 may also provides resources for: User interface to allow users to configure rules, described below, and data access control/sharing policies.”).
48. As per claim 20:
El-Gillani does not disclose, however, Nwokolo et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
in response to authenticating the user, transmitting, to the second client module integrated within the second online platform, transaction data associated with the user profile, wherein the transaction data represents at least the first transaction between the user and the first online platform ([0029] “…The online wallet provider/PPOW 140 delivers selected card and address data to the operator of the network of wallets, PPOS 120, in step 7.”, [0030] “…Therefore, the generation of a payment token step 8 would include the payment token as a programming object or file. The token generally includes a transaction identifier; a cardholder name; billing address; postal code; a tokenized PAN reference in substitution for the PAN; a wallet transaction indicator; a masked card number representing the selected card from the wallet; a start date associated with the selected card; an expiration date associated with the card; the card brand and/or type. At step 9, PPOS 120 returns a return address and the payment token together to the merchant 200 in order to finalize the transaction.”, [0032] “…Capping the dollar amount of associated with the payment token consistent with the legitimate completion of the transaction for which it is generated provides an additional layer of security. In addition to capping a dollar amount on the payment token, the payment token may be bound to the merchant involved in initiating the corresponding transaction for which it is generated…”, [0033] “Having received the payment token in step 9, the merchant 200 stores the token as step 10, then presents the consumer 180 with any final options (for example shipping services) to complete the transaction…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a method of tokenizing sensitive cardholder payment information for use in cashless transactions includes receiving a request to process a cashless transaction between a merchant and a purchaser using first payment data stored with an electronic wallet provider on behalf of the purchaser of Nwokolo et al. (‘504, [0014]) with teaching of El-Gillani for automatically detecting and intercepting user data, and once intercepted, different processing may be performed including execution of security algorithms (‘085, col.1, lines 50-53) for inserting transaction data such as transaction identifier, wallet transaction indicator and transmitting it to the merchant platform (‘504, [0032], [0033]).
Conclusion
49. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20170011423A1 – Douglas et al. – Discloses systems and methods for outputting individualized targeted interaction information to a user in an environment based on detection of a device associated with the user within the environment using a plurality of sensors positioned within the environment.
US20190325445A1 – Anderson et al. – Discloses methods for facilitating financial transactions include facilitating or otherwise increasing the ease and speed of checkout processes, in particular, one or more implementations comprise an e-commerce payment facilitator that acts as an intermediary between a commerce application and a payment gateway.
US20240185284A1 - Mass et al. – Discloses a user identity management platform that manages user identity for an enterprise, such as a retail enterprise, in particular, a specific identity graph structure is provided that allows for flexible management and selection of user account information depending on the context.
US20210201362A1 – Stern et al. – Discloses a server system for analyzing user interaction in an environment, wherein operations including determine a user has interacted with an item positioned in the environment based on a communication signal received from a hub physically located in the environment indicating an item tag associated with the item is linked with a user tag associated with the user.
US20060236382A1 to Hinton et al. – Discloses a method, system, apparatus, and computer program product to support computing systems of different enterprises that interact within a federated computing environment, wherein federated single-sign-on operations can be initiated at the computing systems of federation partners on behalf of a user even though the user has not established a user account at a federation partner prior to the initiation of the single-sign-on operation.
50. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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.
51. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANULLA ABDULLAEV whose telephone number is (571)272-4367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM -4:30PM ET.
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 at 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.
/AMANULLA ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 March 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights