METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ACCOUNT MIGRATION

Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims This action is in reply to the application filed on 10th of May 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement filed 05/10/2024 has been considered. Initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Analysis First of all, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. For claim 1, the claim recites an abstract idea of “…hosting on the bill pay platform bill data of a client relating to the processing of RFPs intended for the client, the bill data being linked to the current financial institution to allow routing of RFPs intended for the client to said financial institution, sending, by the client to a new financial institution, a request for taking over the responsibility for the processing of RFPs intended for the client from the current financial institution, receiving, by the new financial institution, the request from the client to take over responsibility for the processing of RFPs intended for the client from the current financial institution, forwarding, by the new financial institution of the request to take over the responsibility for the processing of the RFPs intended for the client to the bill pay platform, receiving, by the bill pay platform, the request from the new financial institution to take over the responsibility for the processing of RFPs intended for the client in place of current financial institution, and linking, by the bill pay platform, the bill data of the client to the new financial institution to allow routing of RFPs intended for the client to said new financial institution.” This is an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, since it recites a commercial or legal interactions, namely managing a client’s financial account and bill-payment obligations and transferring responsibility for processing payment requests from one financial institution to another. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components/processes (e.g., bill pay platform). “We conclude that claim 1 is “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery” rather than “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1371 This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components/processes (e.g., bill pay platform) to receive/transmit data (extra-solution activities) and perform the abstract idea mentioned above. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The additional elements (e.g., bill pay platform) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements - (e.g., bill pay platform) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Again, the insignificant extra-solution activities mentioned above were re-evaluated in step 2B. The limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the courts found sending/receiving of data to be well understood, routine, and conventional activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Thus again, claims were not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 11-13. Dependent claims 2-13 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 be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. For claim 2, the recited limitation of this claim merely further narrows the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the step of forwarding, by the new financial institution, of the request to take over the responsibility for the processing of the RFPs intended for client to the bill pay platform further comprises: sending, by the new financial institution, proxy data of the client to the bill pay platform.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides 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 3, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim further adds, “receiving, by the bill pay platform, the request from the new financial institution to take over the responsibility for the processing of the RFPs intended for the client and proxy data relating to the client; using the proxy data of the client to retrieve corresponding identification data of the client in a payer alias directory, and linking, by the bill pay platform, the bill data of the client to the new financial institution to allow routing of RFPs intended for the client to said new financial institution only if the corresponding identification data of the client are retrieved in the payer alias directory.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 4, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim further adds, “sending, by the bill pay platform, an error message to the New financial institution if the corresponding identification data of the client are not retrieved in the payer alias directory.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data sending, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 5, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim further adds, “wherein the step of forwarding, by the new financial institution, of the request to take over the responsibility for the processing of RFPs intended for the client to the bill pay platform further comprises: sending, by the new financial institution, a confirmation to the client that the request has been produced and is currently being processed.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data sending, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 6, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim further adds, “sending, by the bill pay platform of a confirmation to the new financial institution, of the linking of the bill data of the client to the new financial institution and forwarding, by the new financial institution, of the confirmation to the client.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data sending, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 7, the recited limitation of this claim merely further narrows the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…requesting, by the client, prior to the step of sending, by the client, to the new financial institution a request to take over the responsibility for the processing of RFPs intended for the client, the new financial institution to open an account for the client.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides 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 8, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim further adds, “sending, by new financial institution, a request to the client to provide the details of a current financial institution.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data sending, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 9, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim further adds, “sending, by the new financial institution, a request to the client to install a banking application on a personal electronic device, to allow the client to communicate with new financial institution by means of said banking application.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data sending, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 10, the recited limitations of this claim merely further defined the generic computer component “a personal electric device” to install a banking application. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides 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 14, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim further adds, “sending, by the bill pay platform of a confirmation to the new financial institution, of the linking of the bill data of the client to the new financial institution and forwarding, by the new financial institution, of the confirmation to the client.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data sending, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 15, the recited limitation of this claim merely further narrows the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…requesting, by the client, prior to the step of sending, by the client, to the new financial institution a request to take over the responsibility for the processing of RFPs intended for the client, the new financial institution to open an account for the client.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides 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 16, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim further adds, “sending, by the new financial institution, a request to the client to install a banking application on a personal electronic device, to allow the client to communicate with new financial institution by means of said banking application.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data sending, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 17, the recited limitations of this claim merely further defined the generic computer component “a personal electric device” to install a banking application. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides 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 18, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim further adds, “wherein the step of forwarding, by the new financial institution, of the request to take over the responsibility for the processing of RFPs intended for the client to the bill pay platform further comprises: sending, by the new financial institution, a confirmation to the client that the request has been produced and is currently being processed.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data sending, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 19, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim further adds, “sending, by new financial institution, a request to the client to provide the details of a current financial institution.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data sending, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). For claim 20, the recited limitations of this claim merely further defined the generic computer component “a personal electric device” to install a banking application. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides 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. 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: Nathan, WO 2006/009879 A2, discloses transferring a customer’s accounts from one or more financial institutions to another institution. . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3092. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 9-5. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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. /EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 10/02/2026