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 .
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
2. Claim 21 is 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.
Claim 21 states, The medium of claim 20e… while there is no “claim 20e,” thus Claim 21 does not refer to another claim and is therefore indefinite.
Since claim 21 fails 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, and has been determined to be indefinite, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-22 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-22 are directed to a process (method), machine (system), and product/article of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-22 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of managing and maintaining risk relationship documents for an enterprise such as an insurer.
Claim 13 discloses an enterprise risk relationship document method of an enterprise, comprising:
receiving, a risk relationship document request associated with a particular risk relationship identifier; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
responsive to the risk relationship document request, retrieving information from a risk relationship data store, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), wherein the risk relationship data store contains records associated with a plurality of risk relationships between the enterprise and parties, and, for each risk relationship, a risk relationship identifier, a party identifier, a communication address, and at least one risk relationship parameter; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
based on the retrieved information, creating a risk relationship document; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
establishing a communication link and transmitting information about the risk relationship document to the communication address associated with the particular risk relationship identifier; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
exchanging data with a to support that include information about the risk relationship document, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method to provide communication via at least one of seven methods (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 14), wherein the enterprise is an insurer, the risk relationships are associated with insurance policies, and the parties are associated with insureds, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 15), wherein the risk relationship document is associated with at least one of: (i) proof of insurance, (ii) a Certificate Of Insurance ("COI"), (iii) an Evidence Of Property ("EOP"), (iv) a Statement Of Insurance, ("SOI"), and (v) a state-specific document, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 16), wherein a plurality of risk relationship documents of different types are created and transmitted, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 17),
Each of these claimed limitations employ mental processes involving judgement, observation, evaluation and opinion.
Claims 1-12 and 18-22 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 13-17.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-22 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-22 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as
a backend application computer server, a computer processor of the back-end application computer server, electronic records, an automatic communication link, a remote device, a distributed communication network to support interactive user interface displays,
a Quick Response ("QR") code, a chat interface, (vi) Interactive Voice Response ("IVR") system, a mobile smartphone application, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a risk relationship data store, wherein the risk relationship data store contains electronic records , automatically establishing a communication link, a computer memory coupled to the computer processor, a communication port coupled to the back-end application computer server to facilitate an exchange of data with a remote device via a distributed communication network to support interactive user interface displays, a back-end application computer server to automatically determine a set of certificate holders based on a machine learning model, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-22 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-22 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on
sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 13-15, 18-22, 1-3, 6-11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Faherty (US 20180165767 A1) hereafter Faherty, “Systems and Method Using Threshold Priority Values for a Risk Relationship Management Platform.”
Regarding Claim 13, An enterprise risk relationship document method, Faherty teaches, (A system to automatically facilitate processing of risk relationships for an enterprise, [Claim 1]), implemented via a backend application computer server of an enterprise, (In some embodiments, a communication device associated with a back-end application computer server exchanges information with remote devices. The information may be exchanged, for example, via public and/or proprietary communication networks, [0005]), comprising:
receiving, at a computer processor of the back-end application computer server, a risk relationship document request associated with a particular risk relationship identifier; (information may be “received” by or “transmitted” to, for example: (i) the back-end application computer server 1800 from another device; or (ii) a software application or module within the back-end application computer server 1800 from another software application, module, or any other source, [0061], A risk relationship computer store may contain electronic data records each representing a risk relationship, with each electronic data record including a relationship identifier [Abstract].
responsive to the risk relationship document request, retrieving information from a risk relationship data store, (The risk relationship management platform 150 may also exchange information with remote assignment management terminals a back-end application computer server 152 of the risk relationship management platform 150 may facilitate management, assignment, and viewing of information, [0027]), wherein the risk relationship data store contains electronic records associated with a plurality of risk relationship s between the enterprise and parties,
(A risk relationship computer store may contain electronic data records each representing a risk relationship, [0003]), and, for each risk relationship, a risk relationship identifier, a party identifier, a communication address, and at least one risk relationship parameter; (with each electronic data record including a relationship identifier and a set of relationship characteristic values including a priority value, [Abstract]), and means for exchanging electronic messages, via a distributed communication network, [0004]),
based on the retrieved information, automatically creating a risk relationship document;
automatically establishing a communication link and transmitting information about the risk relationship document to the communication address associated with the particular risk relationship identifier; (information may be processed, managed, and/or assigned via a risk relationship management platform and results may then be analyzed accurately and used to automatically initiate workflows and/or establish communication links, thus improving the overall performance of the system associated with message storage requirements and/or bandwidth considerations, [0025], the selected relationship identifier may then be assigned one of the internal assignment manager identifiers and linked relationship handler identifier. A set of tasks may be generated along with a scheduled task date. A display at a relationship handler terminal associated with the assigned relationship handler identifier may then facilitate performance of the set of tasks in accordance with the associated scheduled task dates, [0003]), and
exchanging data with a remote device via a distributed communication network to support interactive user interface displays that include information about the risk relationship document. (In some embodiments, a communication device associated with a back-end application computer server exchanges information with remote devices. The information may be exchanged, for
example, via public and/or proprietary communication networks, [0005], [ ]
to accurately and efficiently facilitate processing of risk relationships for an enterprise, [0006]).
Regarding claim 14, The method of claim 13, wherein the communication address is associated
with at least one of: (i) an email address, (ii) a telephone number, (iii) a Quick Response ("QR") code, (iv) a username and password, (v) a chat interface, (vi) an Interactive Voice Response ("IVR") system, and (vii) a mobile smartphone application. Faherty teaches, (Communication may be implemented using a wide variety of technologies. The I/O components518, 520 may include communication components operable to couple the machine 500 to a network526 or external devices via appropriate coupling (not shown). For example, the communication components 518, 520 may include a network interface component 520 or other suitable device such a signal generator 518 to interface with the network 526. In further examples, communication components 518, 520 may include wired communication components, wireless communication components, cellular communication components, Near Field Communication (NFC) components, Bluetooth® components (e.g., Bluetooth® Low Energy), Wi-Fi® components, and other communication components to provide communication via other modalities. The external devices maybe another machine or any of a wide variety of peripheral devices (e.g., a peripheral device coupled via a USB), [0063]. Moreover, the communication components 518, 520 may detect identifiers or include components operable to detect identifiers. For example, the communication components 518, 520may include Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag reader components, NFC smart tag detection components, optical reader components (e.g., an optical sensor to detect one-dimensional bar codes such as Universal Product Code (UPC) bar code, multi-dimensional bar codes such as Quick Response (QR) code, [0064].
Regarding claim 15, The method of claim 13, wherein the enterprise is an insurer, the risk
relationships are associated with insurance policies, and the parties are associated with insureds. Flaherty teaches, (Embodiments of the present invention might be associated with a number of different types of “risk relationships.” As used herein, the phrase “risk relationship” might refer to, for example, an existing insurance policy between an insurer and an insured entity, [ ] according to this embodiment, the assignment and relationship computer store 310 further stores a set of electronic data records each representing a risk relationship between the enterprise and an entity 390 (that is, an insurance policy between the insurer and an insured), [0038].
Claims 1-3, and 18-20 are rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claims 13-15. In these claims, the addition of a system implemented via a backend application computer server, a risk relationship data store that contains electronic records associated with a plurality of risk relationships between the enterprise and parties, and the back-end application computer server, coupled to the risk relationship data store, including a computer processor, and a computer memory coupled to the computer processor, and a communication port coupled to the back-end application computer server, or a non-transitory computer-readable medium do not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 102 or the referenced prior art. Faherty teaches, the system comprises a communication device associated with a back-end application computer server exchanges information with remote devices, [0005], the storage device 1830 further stores a computer data store 1860, [0062], The risk relationship management platform 1800 comprises a processor 1810, such as one or more commercially available Central Processing Units (“CPUs”) in the form of one-chip microprocessors, coupled to a communication device 1820 configured to communicate via a communication network, [0058], and the processor 1810 also communicates with a storage device 1830. The storage device 1830 may comprise any appropriate information storage device, including combinations of magnetic storage devices (e.g., a hard disk drive), optical storage devices, mobile telephones, and/or semiconductor memory devices.
Regarding claim 6, The system of claim 3, wherein at least one risk relationship parameter is
associated with at least one of: (i) a producer, (ii) a type of insurance, (iii) a coverage limit, (iv) a policy period, and (v) a certificate holder. Faherty teaches, (According to some embodiments, the risk relationship management platform 350 might assign (or re-assign) insurance policies 382 to insurance claims advisors 372 based at least in part on a type of insurance (e.g., a workers' compensation insurance policy as compared to a business insurance policy), information from an insurance underwriter, a type of industry associated with the insured, an opportunity age, an opportunity likelihood of success (e.g., a high or low likelihood of eventually being converted into a sale), an entity priority (e.g., whether an entity is considered a Very Important Party (“VIP”) client), and/or an insurer office.
Regarding claim 7, The system of claim 3, wherein the risk relationship document request is
received from at least one of: (i) an insured, and (ii) an insurance agent. Faherty teaches, (“risk relationship” might refer to, for example, an existing insurance policy between an insurer and an insured entity (e.g., whose policy is up for renewal) or potential insurance policy (e.g., associated with an entity who is considering purchasing insurance from the insurer), [0038], thus embodiments may accurately and efficiently facilitate processing of risk relationships for an enterprise, while allowing for flexibility and effectiveness when working with those relationships. Moreover, embodiments may help a claims advisor: support agents and underwriters in a sales process; facilitate the onboarding of new accounts (to help educate the insured about claim processes and contacts); be proactive with respect to serving accounts (to validate claim service delivery); facilitate claim service solutions; and/or process renewal calls to an account (to revisit service delivery and capabilities as appropriate),[0070]).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claims 6-7. In these claims, the addition of a non-transitory, computer-readable medium do not do not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 102 or the referenced prior art. Faherty teaches, the storage device 1830 further stores a computer data store 1860, [0062], The risk relationship management platform 1800 comprises a processor 1810, such as one or more commercially available Central Processing Units (“CPUs”) in the form of one-chip microprocessors, coupled to a communication device 1820 configured to communicate via a communication network, [0058], and the processor 1810 also communicates with a storage device 1830. The storage device 1830 may comprise any appropriate information storage device, including combinations of magnetic storage devices (e.g., a hard disk drive), optical storage devices, mobile telephones, and/or semiconductor memory devices, [0059].
Regarding claim 8, The system of claim 3, wherein the interactive user interface displays are
further to let a requestor reuse information from a prior risk relationship document
request. Faherty teaches, (A risk relationship management platform may retrieve a selected electronic data record and determine that the priority value is above a minimum threshold and below a maximum threshold value. The selected relationship identifier may then be assigned one of the internal assignment manager identifiers and linked relationship handler identifier. A set of tasks may be generated along with a scheduled task date. A display at a relationship handler terminal associated with the assigned relationship handler identifier may then facilitate performance of the set of tasks in accordance with the associated scheduled task dates, [0003] and FIGS. 5-13.
Regarding claim 9, The system of claim 3, wherein the interactive user interface displays are
further to display at least one of: (i) information about a plurality of insureds, and (ii)
information about a plurality of insurance policies. Faherty teaches, (According to some embodiments, an interactive graphical user interface provided by the risk relationship management platform 350 includes a claims advisor workflow. FIGS. 8 through 12 illustrate a claims advisor workflow in accordance with some embodiments. In particular, FIG. 8 illustrates a new business dashboard display 800 that might be shown to a claims advisor in accordance with some embodiments. The claims advisor might use a computer pointer 850 to select “Newly Assigned Quotes.” As a result of such a selection, FIG. 9 illustrates a newly assigned quotes display 900 in accordance with some embodiments. The newly assigned quotes display 900 may include, for example, an opportunity name, an opportunity stage description, an insurance policy effective date, a targeted premium, an opportunity owner, a date the claims advisor was assigned, and/or an agency for a number of records associated with various claims advisors. Selection of “Back” icon 930 might return the claims advisor to a previous display, [0049]).
Regarding claim 10, The system of claim 9, wherein the interactive user interface displays are
further to perform a search associated with the plurality of insureds or insurance policies. Faherty teaches, (FIG. 21 illustrates a new business workflow 2100 in accordance with some embodiments. At
2110, an underwriter may release a quote and update a pipe-line in a cloud-based customer relationship management product to a “quote” stage. At 2120, the underwriter may—upon a release of quotes between upper and lower threshold values—complete a prospect contact request which will lead to an alert being created in a dashboard. At 2130, a claims manager or advisor may review a claim consultant dashboard (e.g., on a daily basis) to determine new quote activity. At 2140, the claim manager or advisor may (from a detailed new business quote report) click “acknowledge” to review and follow-up on the underwriter's request. At 2150, the task may be marked as “acknowledged.” At 2160, the underwriter may be contacted (e.g., via email) for additional information on the prospect and conduct online research preparing to engage account, and, if appropriate, contact the insurance agent prior to contacting a prospect, [0066]).
Regarding claim 11, The system of claim 3, wherein the interactive user interface displays are
further to let a requestor schedule or cancel future risk relationship document requests. Faherty teaches, (risk relationship management platform may retrieve a selected electronic data record and determine that the priority value is above a minimum threshold and below a maximum threshold value. The selected relationship identifier may then be assigned one of the internal assignment manager identifiers and linked relationship handler identifier. A set of tasks may be generated along with a scheduled task date. A display at a relationship handler terminal associated with the assigned relationship handler identifier may then facilitate performance of the set of tasks in accordance with the associated scheduled task dates, [0003].
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
7. 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.
8. Claims 16, 17, 4, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Faherty (US 20180165767 A1) hereafter Faherty, “Systems and Method Using Threshold Priority Values for a Risk Relationship Management Platform,” in view of Fohr (US20220405852 A1), hereafter Fohr, “System and Method for Tracking Proof of Insurance and Insurance Compliance.”
Regarding claim 16, The method of claim 15, wherein the risk relationship document is
associated with at least one of: (i) proof of insurance, (ii) a Certificate Of Insurance ("COI"), (iii) an Evidence Of Property ("EOP"), (iv) a Statement Of lnsurance, ("SOI"), and (v) a state-specific document. Faherty does not teach, Fohr teaches, (The instant invention provides a real-time environment where the COI information is updated as the insurance status changes, [0037].
The instant invention provides a method for facilitating the dissemination, monitoring, and validation of Certificates of Insurance (COI) and/or proof of insurance, [0029], and an embodiment of the instant invention can handle a multitude of IRS and government forms. Typical IRS documentation includes W9, TIN (tax id forms) as well as state, county, city, legal forms, and licenses, [0111].
Faherty and Fohr are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of risk relationship management and documentation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the risk relationship management practices of Faherty with the specific documentation requirements of Fohr to provide real-time proof that the underlying insurance is compliant, [0029].
Regarding claim 17, The method of claim 16, wherein a plurality of risk relationship
documents of different types are created and transmitted. Faherty does not teach, Fohr teaches, (The instant invention provides proof of insurance/certification to a third party, sends insureds automated requests for missing or expiring certificates, reducing time spent manually monitoring COIs, creates and sends the insureds emails and links to upload their certifications, [0084]).
Faherty and Fohr are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of risk relationship management and documentation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the risk relationship management practices of Faherty with the specific documentation requirements of Fohr to reduce the cost of servicing and providing COI and supporting documents, [0087].
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claims 16 and 17. In these claims, the addition of a system implemented via a backend application computer server, a risk relationship data store that contains electronic records associated with a plurality of risk relationships between the enterprise and parties, and the back-end application computer server, coupled to the risk relationship data store, including a computer processor, and a computer memory coupled to the computer processor, and a communication port coupled to the back-end application computer server, do not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 or the referenced prior art (Faherty teaches, the system comprises a communication device associated with a back-end application computer server exchanges information with remote devices, [0005], the storage device 1830 further stores a computer data store 1860, [0062], The risk relationship management platform 1800 comprises a processor 1810, such as one or more commercially available Central Processing Units (“CPUs”) in the form of one-chip microprocessors, coupled to a communication device 1820 configured to communicate via a communication network, [0058], and the processor 1810 also communicates with a storage device 1830. The storage device 1830 may comprise any appropriate information storage device, including combinations of magnetic storage devices (e.g., a hard disk drive), optical storage devices, mobile telephones, and/or semiconductor memory devices.
Regarding claim 12, They system of claim 3, wherein the back-end application computer
server is further to: automatically determine a set of certificate holders based on a machine learning model and third party-data, wherein the risk relationship document is transmitted to each certificate holder and any adjustment to the automatically determined set is provided as feedback to the machine learning model. Faherty does not teach, Fohr teaches, (The instant invention also uses Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning to expedite a number of tasks related to finding and identifying information in a document, [0129]. The instant invention using the Natural Language Processing module and operating in the real-time monitoring mode can monitor a shared folder and extract structured data from insurance documents placed in the folder and identify conflicts in the documents. For example, if two documents both have the same policy number but have differing expiration dates, this information would be flagged to the user. By identifying conflicts, the instant invention provides an automated process to identify risk, [0132]. A system of the embodiment of the invention is capable of monitoring any changes, modifications or updates made to their terms and conditions, as compared to PDF or paper-based COI documents. As such, the system and method can preferably provide approaches for secure version control of COIs so that: a. changes made to their state-- both before and after execution may be tracked, verified, and immutably recorded; and b.
operations with integration with any external or third-party system, application, or platform, may be
tracked and verified (e.g. transactions on distributed ledgers, operations performed on external
systems via. APIs, on network-connected devices, etc.), [0374]).
Faherty and Fohr are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of risk relationship management and documentation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the risk relationship management practices of Faherty with the real time monitoring of specific documentation requirements of Fohr to reduce the cost of servicing and providing COI and supporting documents, [0087].
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624