DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 request for continued examination filed on November 11, 2025.
Claim 1 has been amended and is hereby entered.
Claims 5 and 7 have been canceled.
Claims 1–4, 6, and 8–13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on November 11, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 11, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1–4, 6, and 8–13 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–4, 6, and 8–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1–4, 6, and 8–13 are directed to a process (“A method”). Thus, claims 1–4, 6, and 8–13 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 1–4, 6, and 8–13, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
creating a relationship with an acquirer financial institution . . .;
maintaining a payment card account for the first merchant, the payment card account having a balance amount . . .;
. . . and accept payment transactions . . ., and the first merchant . . . is linked to a merchant identifier by the acquirer financial institution;
generating . . . transaction data based on the reading . . .;
transmitting a payment account system authorization request for the transaction to the acquirer financial institution, the request including the generated transaction data;
designating . . . the payment card account to receive credited settlements;
receiving . . . using the read payment card account data, settlements of payment card account transactions accepted by the merchant, said settlements credited to said balance amount of said payment card account maintained for the merchant . . ..
The claims, therefore, recite settling payment card account transactions, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies and computer components to implement this abstract idea (“mobile device”, “transaction acceptance program”, “payment application program”, “payment-enabled device”, “point of sale transaction acceptance device”, “devices”, “QR code”, “Near Field Communication (NFC)”, and “physical payment card”). The claims also recite downloading a transaction acceptance and payment application program; operating the merchant device as a point of sale device and payment-enabled device; detecting a QR code or NFC; and reading payment data from the QR code or NFC. These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the computer to communicate payment account data and perform the payment transactions. Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2–4, 6, and 8–13 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 2, 3, 6, 9, and 11, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the payment transactions recited in claim 1 by further specifying how the transaction is settled—“account issuer receiving said settlements”, “by a financial institution other than said account issuer”, “via an acquirer financial institution”, “via a payment application program”, and “with a payment enabled device”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“transaction acceptance application program”, “payment application program”, and “payment enabled device”). These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 4, 8, and 13, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the payment transactions recited in claim 1 by further specifying the type of payment account—“a physical payment card . . . for accessing the payment card account”, “assigning a merchant identifier to the payment card account”, and “payment card account data is in a form of a token”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“physical payment card”, “transaction acceptance application program”, and “payment application program”). These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 10, the additional recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This dependent claim only narrows the payment transactions recited in claim 1 by further specifying the type of transaction—“merchant-initiated transaction”.
For claim 12, the additional recited limitations of this claim are merely directed to an abstract idea. This dependent claim only recites choosing a payment account to settle the transaction, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because it recites a commercial interaction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1–4, 6, and 8–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhu, U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0172680 (“Prabhu”) in view of Tumminaro et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2007/0255652 (“Tumminaro”); Langley et al., U.S. Patent No. 9,292,870 (“Langley”); Havilio, U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0178124 (“Havilio”); and Wilkes, U.S. Patent App. No. 2012/0317032 (“Wilkes”).
For claim 1, Prabhu teaches:
A method comprising (¶ 10: example method):
maintaining a payment card account for the first merchant (¶ 26: merchant payment account) . . .; and
receiving, per execution of the transaction acceptance program . . ., settlements of payment card account transactions accepted by the first merchant (¶ 26: payment card account transactions settlement; ¶ 42: mobile payment application) . . ..
Prabhu does not teach: creating a relationship with an acquirer financial institution, wherein the acquirer financial institution provides a transaction acceptance program; downloading, to a first merchant mobile device operated by the first merchant: the transaction acceptance program provided by the acquirer financial institution, and a payment application program, wherein the payment application program enables the device to operate as a payment-enabled device; the payment card account having a balance amount, and the payment card account associated with both a transaction acceptance program and the payment application program; accessing the transaction acceptance program with the first merchant mobile device, wherein the transaction acceptance program enables the first merchant mobile device of the first merchant to operate as a point of sale transaction acceptance device and accept payment transactions from other devices, and the first merchant mobile device is linked to a merchant identifier by the acquirer financial institution; detecting, by the first merchant mobile device a Quick Response (QR) code or Near Field Communication (NFC) provided by a second device to initiate a transaction; reading, by the first merchant mobile device operating as the point of sale transaction acceptance device, payment card account data from the second device via the QR code or NFC; generating, by the transaction acceptance program, transaction data based on the reading; transmitting a payment account system authorization request for the transaction to the acquirer financial institution, the request including the generated transaction data; designating, via the first merchant mobile device, the payment card account to receive credited settlements; the transaction acceptance program using the read payment card account data . . . said settlements credited to said balance amount of said designated payment card account maintained for the first merchant; and operating the first merchant mobile device with the payment application program as a payment-enabled device.
Tumminaro, however, teaches:
downloading, to a first merchant mobile device operated by the first merchant (¶ 156: application program of invention downloaded onto phone; ¶ 223: merchant mobile phone):
the transaction acceptance program provided by the acquirer financial institution (¶ 252, 256: person-to-person payment platform associated with acquirer), and
a payment application program, wherein the payment application program enables the device to operate as a payment-enabled device (¶ 212–215: application for sending payments);
the payment card account having a balance amount (¶ 323: balance for user A’s account); and
designating, via the first merchant mobile device, the payment card account to receive credited settlements (¶ 183, 186, 587: account designated through mobile device);
said settlements credited to said balance amount of said designated payment card account maintained for the first merchant (¶ 323–324: funds transferred to user B’s account; ¶ 407: balance adjusted).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the payment card account in Prabhu by adding the payment application and balance amounts from Tumminaro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of providing a cost-effective and convenient mobile payment system—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Tumminaro (¶ 20: need for cost-effective, secure, and convenient mobile payments; ¶ 21: invention provides mobile payment platform for person-to-person or person-to-merchant transactions).
The combination of Prabhu and Tumminaro does not teach: creating a relationship with an acquirer financial institution; the payment card account associated with both a transaction acceptance program and the payment application program; the payment card account associated with both a transaction acceptance program and a payment application program; accessing the transaction acceptance program with the first merchant mobile device, wherein the transaction acceptance program enables the first merchant mobile device of the first merchant to operate as a point of sale transaction acceptance device and accept payment transactions from other devices, and the first merchant mobile device is linked to a merchant identifier by the acquirer financial institution; detecting, by the first merchant mobile device a Quick Response (QR) code or Near Field Communication (NFC) provided by a second device to initiate a transaction; reading, by the first merchant mobile device operating as the point of sale transaction acceptance device, payment card account data from the second device via the QR code or NFC; generating, by the transaction acceptance program, transaction data based on the reading; transmitting a payment account system authorization request for the transaction to the acquirer financial institution, the request including the generated transaction data; the transaction acceptance program using the read payment card account data; and operating the first merchant mobile device with the payment application program as a payment-enabled device.
Langley, however, teaches:
. . . wherein the acquirer financial institution provides a transaction acceptance program (col. 18, lines 33–38, 65–67: acquirer relationship with merchant for processing payments; col. 10, lines 38–48: merchant computing device application to accept payment);
accessing the transaction acceptance program with the first merchant mobile device, wherein the transaction acceptance program enables the first merchant mobile device of the first merchant to operate as a point of sale transaction acceptance device and accept payment transactions from other devices, and the first merchant mobile device is linked to a merchant identifier by the acquirer financial institution (col. 11, lines 23–38: POS service site application for receiving payments on merchant computing device; col. 10, lines 38–48: merchant computing device application to accept payment; col. 21, line 57–col. 22, line 7: merchant identifier associated with merchant);
detecting, by the first merchant mobile device a Quick Response (QR) code or Near Field Communication (NFC) provided by a second device to initiate a transaction (col. 7, lines 61–67; col. 15, lines 36–48: merchant computing device detects NFC from client computing device; col. 15, lines 56–65: payment based on NFC); and
reading, by the first merchant mobile device operating as the point of sale transaction acceptance device, payment card account data from the second device via the QR code or NFC (col. 15, lines 36–48; col. 22, lines 24–34: account data transferred from client computing device to merchant computing device through NFC);
generating, by the transaction acceptance program, transaction data based on the reading (col. 15, lines 49–55: account data captured through token received);
. . . the request including the generated transaction data (col. 15, lines 56–65: payment request sent to system platform including data extracted);
the transaction acceptance program using the read payment card account data (col. 15, line 56–col. 16, line 4: payment proceeds using captured account data).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the payment card account in Prabhu and the payment application and balance amounts from Tumminaro by adding the merchant application from Langley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating wireless payment for merchants—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Langley (col. 2, lines 4–15: need for allowing consumer payments with existing POS structures; col. 2, lines 45–62: invention allows receiving customer data for payment through NFC). Prabhu, Tumminaro, and Langley are all related to mobile payments, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these payments even more convenient by combining these methods together.
The combination of Prabhu, Tumminaro, and Langley does not teach: creating a relationship with an acquirer financial institution; the payment card account associated with both a transaction acceptance program and the payment application program; transmitting a payment account system authorization request for the transaction to the acquirer financial institution; and operating the first merchant mobile device with the payment application program as a payment-enabled device.
Havilio, however, teaches:
the payment card account associated with both the transaction acceptance program and the payment application program (¶ 51: application for sending and receiving payments; ¶ 82, 77–78: application allows interactions associated with payment account);
operating the first merchant mobile device as a payment-enabled device in response to employment of the payment application program (¶ 51, 68: application used to send payments as well as receive payments).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the payment card account in Prabhu, the payment application and balance amounts from Tumminaro, and the merchant application in Langley by adding the payment application from Havilio. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of using one application for sending and receiving payment transactions—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Havilio (¶ 12: conventional systems require a separate application to send or receive payments, which can be inconvenient; ¶ 42: invention provides payment system to send and receive payments). Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, and Havilio are all related to mobile payments, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these payments even more convenient by combining these methods together.
The combination of Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, and Havilio does not teach: creating a relationship with an acquirer financial institution; and transmitting a payment account system authorization request for the transaction to the acquirer financial institution.
Wilkes, however, teaches:
creating a relationship with an acquirer financial institution (¶ 32: acquirer maintains relationship with merchant); and
transmitting a payment account system authorization request for the transaction to the acquirer financial institution (¶ 34, 37: acquirer authorizes transaction for merchant).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the payment card account in Prabhu, the payment application and balance amounts from Tumminaro, the merchant application in Langley, and the payment application in Havilio by adding the acquirer relationship from Wilkes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating transactions that may require a relationship with a financial institution—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilkes (¶ 7–11: difficulties with obtaining acquirer accounts for funds transfers; ¶ 12: invention enables entities to accept financial transactions with acquirers). Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes are all related to payments, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these payments even more convenient by combining these methods together.
For claim 2, Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Prabhu further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein said payment card account was issued by an account issuer, said account issuer receiving said settlements (¶ 26: account issuer settles payments).
For claim 3, Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Prabhu further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein said payment card account was issued by an account issuer, said settlements received by a financial institution other than said account issuer, said received settlements transferred by said financial institution to said account issuer (¶ 26: issuer settles payments; ¶ 27: different issuers can process).
For claim 4, Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Prabhu further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: issuing a physical payment card to the first merchant, the card for accessing the payment card account (¶ 16: payment card issued to merchant with merchant account).
For claim 6, Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Prabhu further teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the transaction acceptance program is via an acquirer financial institution (¶ 26: issuer is also acquirer; ¶ 19: issuer associated with payment application).
For claim 8, Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Prabhu further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning a merchant identifier to the payment card account (¶ 19: merchant ID associated with merchant account).
For claim 9, Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Tumminaro further teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein executing the payment application program further comprises: debiting the balance amount of the payment card account maintained for the merchant (¶ 312: amount debits from A’s account).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the payment card account in Prabhu, the merchant application in Langley, the payment application in Havilio, and the acquirer relationship in Wilkes by adding the balance amounts from Tumminaro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of providing a cost-effective and convenient mobile payment system—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Tumminaro (¶ 20: need for cost-effective, secure, and convenient mobile payments; ¶ 21: invention provides mobile payment platform for person-to-person or person-to-merchant transactions). Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes are all related to payments, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these payments even more convenient by combining these methods together.
For claim 10, Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Prabhu further teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein the debiting is in response to a first merchant-initiated transaction (¶ 24: transaction request from payment application; ¶ 21–22: payment application on merchant device).
For claim 11, Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Prabhu further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein settlements are received in response to executing a transaction with a payment enabled device (¶ 24–26: settlement in response to transaction request from mobile device).
For claim 12, Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Tumminaro further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a designation of the payment card account to settle payment card account transactions (¶ 183, 186, 587: account designated through mobile device).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the payment card account in Prabhu, the merchant application in Langley, the payment application in Havilio, and the acquirer relationship in Wilkes by adding the card selection from Tumminaro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of providing a cost-effective and convenient mobile payment system—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Tumminaro (¶ 20: need for cost-effective, secure, and convenient mobile payments; ¶ 21: invention provides mobile payment platform for person-to-person or person-to-merchant transactions). Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes are all related to payments, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these payments even more convenient by combining these methods together.
For claim 13, Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Langley further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the payment card account data is in a form of a token (col. 15, lines 49–65: payment account data extracted from token).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the payment card account in Prabhu, the payment application and balance amounts from Tumminaro, the payment application in Havilio, and the acquirer relationship in Wilkes by adding the token from Langley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating wireless payment for merchants—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Langley (col. 2, lines 4–15: need for allowing consumer payments with existing POS structures; col. 2, lines 45–62: invention allows receiving customer data for payment through NFC). Prabhu, Tumminaro, Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes are all related to payments, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these payments even more convenient by combining these methods together.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims improve the operation of the computer system, which integrates the claims into a practical application. Applicant explains that conventional systems do not allow a merchant device to act as a point of sale device to accept transactions and a payment enabled device because the relationship with the acquirer is what allows such transaction acceptance functionality. Applicant argues that the claims therefore establish a relationship with an acquirer and download an acquirer application for performing both functionalities. Applicant concludes that for these reasons, the claims recite hardware elements arranged in a particular way to achieve a desired output, and provide payment functionalities not previously available. The improvements cited by Applicant, however, are improvements to the payment transaction itself. The claims create a relationship between a merchant and acquirer to enable payment acceptance, which is an improvement to the abstract idea of a payment transaction. The claims do not indicate how any technical elements are improved, but instead only specify that a relationship with an acquirer is created and an application downloaded. It is therefore unclear how a technological improvement makes such payment functionality possible. The claims instead merely apply the abstract idea to this generic technology, such as a payment application on a merchant device. The claims are therefore merely using these technologies as generic tools to implement the payment transaction, rather than providing any improvement to the technologies themselves in any way. Thus, claims 1–4, 6, and 8–13 do not include additional elements sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–4, 6, and 8–13 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant has amended claim 1 and argues that the combination of Prabhu (U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0172680), Lee (U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0046788), Langley (U.S. Patent No. 9,292,870), Havilio (U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0178124), and Wilkes (U.S. Patent App. No. 2012/0317032) does not disclose these additional limitations. Claim 1, however, is currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Prabhu in view of Tumminaro (U.S. Patent App. No. 2007/0255652), Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes. Thus, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 are moot.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 1, which was amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. As discussed above, however, claim 1 is currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Prabhu in view of Tumminaro, Langley, Havilio, and Wilkes. Thus, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2–4, 6, and 8–13 are moot.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Those prior art references are as follows:
Harvey et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0040001, discloses virtual payment accounts for consumer and merchant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIVESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272–3430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM–8:00 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272–3955. 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.
/DIVESH PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3696