DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is responsive to the submission filed October 24, 2025.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended.
Claim 20 is canceled.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant contends that the claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, Applicant contends that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract ideas because the claim improves security by preventing the one-time secure operation between the service device and the entity account from being performed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(II). The amended claim element of preventing the one-time secure operation, e.g., a commercial transaction, between the service device, e.g., merchant computer, and the entity account, e.g., buyer financial account, is part of a commercial interaction between the buyer and merchant, i.e., a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. Because it recites an abstract idea, rather than an additional element, it cannot serve as a basis to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. Therefore, Applicant’s contention that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract idea is unpersuasive.
Accordingly, this ground of rejection is maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. There are two criteria for subject matter eligibility. The first is that the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2106(I). Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. See MPEP 2106(I). Here, claims 1-7 and 21 are directed towards a machine, claims 8-14 are directed towards a process, and claims 15-19 are directed towards a manufacture. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claims recite abstract ideas.
Per Claim 1: Claim 1, as a whole, is directed towards the abstract idea of generating, providing, and validating a one-time use payment token for use in a commercial transaction. In particular, the claim recites receiving a request to generate a one-time operation code used to facilitate a transaction. The claim then receives a use limitation associated with the one-time operation code. The system generates the one-time operation code and encodes the one-time operation code into an encoded one-time operation code. The encoded one-time operation code includes restrictions unique to the transaction account and the entity account. The system transmits the one-time operation code to an identified recipient of the code. In response to determining, based on the restrictions, that the one-time operation code is expired or canceled, the system prevents the one-time operation code from being used to complete the transaction. In other words, the claim recites Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities recognized as reciting abstract ideas. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by a processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request to generate a one-time operation code associated with an entity account, the one-time operation code used to facilitate a secure operation between a service device and a recipient of the one-time operation code using the entity account;
receiving at least one use limitation associated with the one-time operation code;
generating the one-time operation code used to access the secure operation at the service device;
encoding, based on accessing a database of mappings, the one-time operation code into an encoded one-time operation code, wherein the encoded one-time operation code comprises (i) a first mapping that maps the one-time operation code to restrictions unique to the entity account and (ii) a second mapping that maps the one- time operation code to the entity account;
transmitting the one-time operation code to the recipient identified in the request to generate the one-time operation code, the one-time operation code configured to be captured by an imaging device of the service device to facilitate a one-time secure operation between the service device and the entity account; and
in response to determining, based on the restrictions, that the one-time operation code is expired or canceled by the entity account, preventing the one-time secure operation between the service device and the entity account from being performed.
Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.04(d), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, or that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not indicative of a practical application. Here, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium, service device, and imaging device. However, these additional elements serve to implement the abstract ideas. In other words, these additional elements amount to instructions to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The analysis then proceeds to determine whether the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.05, additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, or that recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities are not indicative of reciting significantly more than the abstract ideas. Claim elements previously considered to recite insignificant extra-solution activities are reevaluated at this step to determine whether they recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Such findings must be supported by the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Berkheimer Memo. Here, as noted above, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium, service device, and imaging device. However, these additional elements serve to implement the abstract ideas. In other words, these additional elements amount to instructions to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 8: Claim 8 recites abstract subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. However, claim 8 fails to recite any additional elements that serve to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 15: Claim 15 recites abstract subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. However, claim 15 fails to recite any additional elements that serve to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-19, and 21: Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-19, and 21 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 2, 9 and 16 recite the abstract idea that the code is in a particular format, i.e., QR code, and is transmitted to be displayed for scanning, e.g., completing a transaction, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite the abstract idea that the use limitation limits the use of the token to a single transaction and that the use limitation is associated with the token, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the abstract idea that the use limitation limits the use of the token to a particular place and time, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite the abstract idea that the use limitation includes a resource amount limitation, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 6 and 13 recite the additional element that the service device is a mobile device of an additional user. However, this additional fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas as it amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers.
Claims 7 and 14 recite the abstract idea of transmitting instructions to the service to control functions after receiving the token, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 21 recites the abstract idea of cancelling the one-time operation code or linking the one-time operation code to an error that prevents it from being used in a transaction, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0281598 to Singh et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0285871 to Long et al.
Per Claim 1: Singh discloses:
A system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by a processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations comprising: (see Singh at ¶ 71: Components of computer system 500 also include a system memory component 514 (e.g., RAM), a static storage component 516 (e.g., ROM), and/or a disk drive 517. Computer system 500 performs specific operations by processor(s) 512 and other components by executing one or more sequences of instructions contained in system memory component 514.)
receiving a request to generate a one-time operation code associated with an entity account, the one-time operation code used to facilitate a secure operation between a service device and a recipient of the one-time operation code using the entity account; (see Singh at ¶ 61: Thereafter, at an interaction 16, an interface widget or other tool associated with mobile application 302 is opened and a generate QR code (or other machine-readable code) request is issued and/or exchanged with a QR code (QRC) wallet SDK 304, which passes the financial instrument data and/or an identifier or preference for the financial instrument data to QRC wallet SDK 304. This may cause an interaction 17, which is non-interactive with the corresponding user and mobile application 302 (e.g., does not require approval in mobile application 302). During interaction 17, QRC wallet SDK 304 requests that a QRC gateway server 306 and/or a QRC platform server 308 generate a QR code and/or identifier (ID) for the corresponding financial instrument. See also ¶ 21: The QR or other machine-readable code on the user's mobile device may be time limited and/or limited to a certain number of scans, such as a single scan by a merchant device that may be required in ten minutes of code generation by the transaction processor.)
generating the one-time operation code used to access the secure operation at the service device; (see Singh at ¶ 67: At step 406, the payment QR code is generated using an account of a user. The payment QR code is generated based on an identifier, preference, or opt-in by the user for a particular financial instrument or other data to be encoded to the QR code for payment processing and scanning by a merchant or POS device. A payment QR code may then be generated by creating and/or encoding a QR or other machine-readable code with information that, when scanned and/or decoded, may allow for processing using an account or other financial instrument of a user.)
transmitting the one-time operation code to the recipient identified in the request to generate the one-time operation code, the one-time operation code configured to be captured by an imaging device of the service device to facilitate a one- time secure operation between the service device and the entity account; and (see Singh at ¶ 67: At step 408, the payment QR code displayable on an interface of a mobile device is provided. The payment QR code may be provided back to the mobile device of the user, which may be stored locally and/or cached in order for presentation when the interface widget is executing and/or in a foreground of the mobile device. See also ¶ 68: At step 410, a scan of the payment QR code by a secondary device is processed. The scan may be by a POS, merchant, and/or other user device, such as using a code scanner (e.g., red light scanner), camera, or other visual input device. When scanned, the QR code may authorize electronic transaction processing based on the limitations of the QR code (e.g., time, number of uses, transaction processing and/or location limits, etc.).)
However, Singh fails to disclose but Long, an analogous art of encoded payment tokens and restrictions, discloses:
receiving at least one use limitation associated with the one-time operation code; (see Long at ¶ 28: The consumer interacts with the resource interface 121 (may also be a web page hosted by the resource server and rendered on device 120) to create a secure token linked to the resource and to user-define caveats on secure token redemption).)
encoding, based on accessing a database of mappings, the one-time operation code into an encoded one-time operation code, wherein the encoded one-time operation code comprises (i) a first mapping that maps the one-time operation code to restrictions unique to the entity account and (ii) a second mapping that maps the one- time operation code to the entity account; (see Long at ¶ 20: A “secure token” is a piece of information that minimally identifies the delegating consumer (delegating consumer identifier) and the resource of the delegating consumer (resource identifier), and perhaps, the receiving consumer (receiving consumer identifier). The information can be encoded (such as in a barcoded or Quick Response (QR) code format); embedded within a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) link; embedded in a document to be transported to a third-party. The secure token can contain a URL or access mechanism to the resource server 110 that allows the third-party to validate the token or to further delegate the token. See also ¶ 21: The “use-based restrictions” or “caveats” are conditions associated with the secure token that are defined by the delegating consumer from device 120 using the resource interface 121. The caveats are dynamically evaluated at the time of access based on information provided with the access, such as receiving consumer's identifier, POS terminal identifier for the POS terminal 140, calendar date, day of week, time of day, currency amount of the access transaction, receiving consumer's operated device identifier for the receiving consumer's operated device 130, retailer identifier associated with the POS terminal 140, retailer category associated with a grouping or type of retailer associated with the POS terminal 140, item identifiers for any items associated with the access transaction, and/or other configured and predefined data types available from the receiving consumer's operated device 130 and/or available from the POS terminal 140. The types of information provided during access can be represented as variables within the conditions defined in the caveats; the conditions organized in statements that result in an action, such as authorized or unauthorized. The conditions defined in the statement of the caveats can also request that some additional information be obtained from the receiving consumer during the access transactions, such as a notice to an operator of the POS terminal 140 to obtain and verify a government issued identification card of the receiving consumer and verify that it is a particular name or please request the receiving consumer to enter a Personal Identification Number (PIN), and the like. In some cases, a caveat may require an operator (clerk) of the POS terminal 140 verify that a task or action has been completed by a system/automated software service; or a caveat may provide the POS terminal 140 with enough information so that the POS terminal 140 may query the system/automated software service automatically (such as through an URL to a service Application Programming Interface (API) that the other system exposes in an automated fashion. See also ¶ 23: In an embodiment, the secure token with the caveats are encoded together as a single barcoded image and/or QR token.)
in response to determining, based on the restrictions, that the one-time operation code is expired or canceled by the entity account, preventing the one-time secure operation between the service device and the entity account from being performed. (see Long at ¶ 45: In an embodiment, the original delegating consumer can interact with the interface 111 (through interface 121) at any time that precedes redemption of the secure token and revoke the secure token or mark the entire secure token invalid. This prevents the secure token from being redeemed. This can be accomplished by, as one example, adding a caveat in the original secure token that checks to make sure at the time of redemption that the secure token has not been revoked or marked invalid.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh so that the token is encoded with use restrictions and the transaction is declined based on a cancelled token using the techniques disclosed in Long. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to increase the security of transactions made using the payment token.
Per Claim 8: Claim 8 recites subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1, and does so in the context of a process which Singh discloses (see Abstract: There are provided systems and methods for an interface widget tool for automatic QR code generation and display without application launching.)
Per Claim 15: Claim 15 recites subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1, and does so in the context of a non-transitory computer-readable medium which Singh discloses (see ¶ 71: In one embodiment, the logic is encoded in non-transitory computer readable medium.)
Per Claims 2, 9, and 16: The combination of Singh and Long discloses the subject matter of claims 1, 8, and 15, from which claims 2, 9, and 16 depend, respectively. Singh further discloses:
wherein the one-time operation code comprises a dynamic Quick Response (QR) code generated on a mobile device and transmitted to a display device configured to display the dynamic QR code to be captured by the imaging device of the service device. (see Singh at ¶ 67: At step 406, the payment QR code is generated using an account of a user. The payment QR code is generated based on an identifier, preference, or opt-in by the user for a particular financial instrument or other data to be encoded to the QR code for payment processing and scanning by a merchant or POS device. A payment QR code may then be generated by creating and/or encoding a QR or other machine-readable code with information that, when scanned and/or decoded, may allow for processing using an account or other financial instrument of a user.)
Per Claims 3, 10, and 17: The combination of Singh and Long discloses the subject matter of claims 1, 8, and 15, from which claims 3, 10, and 17 depend, respectively. Singh further discloses:
wherein the at least one use limitation comprises limiting the use of the one-time operation code to an individual operation or a series of recurring operations, and wherein the one-time operation code is mapped to the at least one use limitation to prevent use of the one-time operation code in an environment that exceeds the at least one use limitation. (see Singh at ¶ 21: The QR or other machine-readable code on the user's mobile device may be time limited and/or limited to a certain number of scans, such as a single scan by a merchant device that may be required in ten minutes of code generation by the transaction processor. This may be done to limit risk and fraud from obtaining the QR or other machine-readable code by malicious devices. Further, this may prevent accidental scanning and may invalidate the code after a period of time to assist with preventing double or other accidental scanning and multiple code usages. Thus, if the code is previously used and/or deemed to be expired after a period of time, the transaction may be declined, and the user's device may be required to refresh and/or request generation of a new machine-readable code via the interface widget.)
Per Claims 4, 11, and 18: The combination of Singh and Long discloses the subject matter of claims 3, 10, and 17, from which claims 4, 11, and 18 depend, respectively. However, Singh fails to disclose but Long discloses:
wherein the at least one use limitation further comprises particular locations and particular times in which the one-time operation code is valid. (see Long at ¶ 59: In an embodiment, at 221, the resource delegation manager obtains the use-based restrictions as restrictions that define one or more of: a second identifier for a second user, a location-based identifier for a particular location of redemption, a category-based identifier for a category of an enterprise for redemption, a date or date range for redemption, a time-of-day for redemption, an item identifier for an item that redemption is to be made for, and/or an amount or an amount range that redemption is to be made for.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh so that the customer can define the payment token limitations using the techniques disclosed in Long. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable a customer to set a particularized level of fraud control for a given payment token.
Per Claims 5, 12, and 19: The combination of Singh and Long discloses the subject matter of claims 4, 11, and 18, from which claims 5, 12, and 19 depend, respectively. However, Singh fails to disclose but Long discloses:
wherein the at least one use limitations further comprises a resource amount limitation available in the secure operation. (see Long at ¶ 59: In an embodiment, at 221, the resource delegation manager obtains the use-based restrictions as restrictions that define one or more of: a second identifier for a second user, a location-based identifier for a particular location of redemption, a category-based identifier for a category of an enterprise for redemption, a date or date range for redemption, a time-of-day for redemption, an item identifier for an item that redemption is to be made for, and/or an amount or an amount range that redemption is to be made for.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh so that the customer can define the payment token limitations using the techniques disclosed in Long. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable a customer to set a particularized level of fraud control for a given payment token.
Per Claims 6 and 13: The combination of Singh and Long discloses the subject matter of claims 1 and 8, from which claims 6 and 13 depend, respectively. Singh further discloses:
wherein the service device comprises a mobile device of an additional user. (see Singh at ¶ 12: This may then allow the user to perform faster electronic transaction processing with merchant devices at physical merchant locations and using point-of-sale (POS) devices or other merchant terminals or devices (e.g., an iPad, tablet computing device, mobile smart phone, iPhone, other computing device, etc.).)
Per Claims 7 and 14: The combination of Singh and Long discloses the subject matter of claims 1 and 8, from which claims 7 and 14 depend, respectively. Singh further discloses:
transmitting instructions to the service device to control functions of the service device in response to the one-time operation code being received by the service device. (see Singh at ¶ 21: Thereafter, the transaction processor may provide electronic transaction processing using the account of the user and/or funding or payment instrument provided by the user (e.g., via the account and/or encoded in the QR code). The merchant device may receive transaction approval and/or denial based on the results of the transaction processing. This may be done through one or more API calls and/or data exchanges, where the merchant device may receive a result of transaction processing, which may be used for transaction approval/denial, receipt printing, and other transaction processing history information.)
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh and Long as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0163617 to Laxminarayanan et al.
Per Claim 21: The combination of Singh and Long discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 21 depends. However, the combination of Singh and Long fails to disclose but Laxminarayanan, an analogous art of token management, discloses:
wherein the operation of preventing the one-time secure operation between the service device and the entity account from being performed comprises canceling the one-time operation code or mapping the one-time operation code to an error code that prevents the one-time secure operation from being performed. (see Laxminarayanan at ¶ 176: If a payment token is stolen or otherwise compromised, it can be canceled and reissued without having to change the actual payment credentials.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh so that the payment token is cancelled when it is compromised. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to increase the security of the payment tokens.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0341948 discloses a method for utilizing a non-transactable account identifier with a payment token is disclosed. The non-transactable account identifier can have the same format as a primary account number (PAN) and the payment token, but is not used to conduct a payment transaction.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0279245 discloses that a merchant website includes a QR code button to initiate a payment transaction. The QR code button is selected by a consumer at checkout. If selected, a QR code is generated on a second computing device. The QR code is displayed on a second computing device and contains embedded data such as a token for a PAN stored in a memory of the second computing device and two cryptograms. A webcam in communication with the first computing device is used to scan the QR code. The data embedded in the QR code is passed from the second computing device to the merchant website via the first computing device and used to complete the payment transaction.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0236118 discloses systems, methods, apparatus, processes, computer program code and means for conducting transactions are described which allow a first party to a transaction to identify a second party to a transaction.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0339664 discloses techniques for enhancing the security of a communication device when conducting a transaction using the communication device may include using a limited-use key (LUK) to generate a transaction cryptogram, and using a signature key to generate a signature. The transaction can be an offline data authentication transaction, and access can be granted based on authentication of the signature prior to verifying the transaction cryptogram.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILESH B KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7083. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Monday-Friday, alternating Fridays off.
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. 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.
/NILESH B KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699