DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response/application filed on 12/17/2025.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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
Claims 1, 12, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claim 11 has been canceled.
Claims 1-10, 12-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 20 is directed to “A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium”. However, a computer program that does not contain at least one structural limitation has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03 I.
As per claims 1-10, 12-19, and 21 the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
Claim 1 recites:
receiving a request associated with a blockchain transaction for a digital asset;
determining that a crypto wallet [account] holding the digital asset is associated with a transaction security option;
evaluating a transaction authorization rule associated with the transaction security option for verifying authorization for the blockchain transaction for the digital asset;
based on the evaluation of the transaction authorization rule, initially blocking the blockchain transaction for the digital asset;
generating a notification indicating that the blockchain transaction has been blocked;
receiving an override request to execute the blocked blockchain transaction, wherein the override request comprises a cryptographic digital signature verifying an identity of an authorized user; and
validating the cryptographic digital signature and, responsive to successful validation, allowing the blockchain transaction.
Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, the claim(s) is/are directed to a method, a system, and a manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligiblity Guidance, the claimed invention as drafted includes language (see underlined language above) that recites an abstract idea of authorizing a transaction based on transaction authorization rules, and allowing a blocked transaction based on successfully verifying a user authentication criteria (a certain method of organizing human activity such as a commercial or legal interactions) but for the recitation of additional claim elements. Claims 19 recites similar abstract idea. That is, other than reciting “processor(s)”, “memory”, “non-transitory computer readable medium”, “blockchain”, “digital”, “crypto wallet”, nothing in the claim precludes the language from being considered as performed by a person.
Under Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligiblity Guidance, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. For example, the additional elements of “processor(s)”, “memory”, “non-transitory computer readable medium”, “digital”, merely use a generic computer device and/or generic computer components as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional claim elements(s) such as “blockchain” generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of blockchain. The additional claim elements(s) such as “crypto wallet” generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of e-wallet.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The combination of elements is no more than the sum of their parts. Unlike the eligible claims in Diehr and Bascom, in which the elements limiting the exception taken together improve a technical field, the instant claim lacks an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 2-10, 12-14, 16, 17, 21 which further recite the abstract idea of with no extra additional elements.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 15, 18, which include additional claim elements that merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. For example, “user interface”. Furthermore, the additional claim elements(s) such as “multi-party computation crypto wallet” generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of crypto wallet.
Therefore, claims 1-10, 12- 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 1-6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson (US 20230006976), in view of Bennett (US 20080114678).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 19, and 20, Jakobsson discloses:
a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium ([0191] and Fig. 11);
one or more processors ([0191] and Fig. 11); and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors ([0191] and Fig. 11), wherein the memory is configured to provide the one or more processors with instructions which when executed cause the one or more processors to:
receive a request associated with a blockchain transaction for a digital asset (By disclosing, “In several embodiments, security platforms process P is a third-party service, e.g., implemented using a web server, receiving requests from a wallet to transfer ownership of one or more tokens, performing a verification and, conditional on the outcome of the verification, determining whether to approve the ownership transfer.” ([0120], [0101]));
determine that a crypto wallet holding the digital asset is associated with a transaction security option (By disclosing, “Users can use media wallet applications 110 to obtain and/or transfer NFTs 106. In facilitating the retention or transfer of NFTs 106, media wallet applications may utilize wallet user interfaces that engage in transactional restrictions through either uniform or personalized settings.” ([0136]); “Security policies may also be set by owners of NFTs by associating configurations maintained or references from their wallets or user profiles in marketplaces….Many such security policies can be in place at the same time, and can be evaluated when an action is taken to the associated NFT.” ([0327]-[0330], [0120]-[0121]));
evaluate a transaction authorization rule associated with the transaction security option for verifying authorization for the blockchain transaction for the digital asset (By disclosing, “Many such security policies can be in place at the same time, and can be evaluated when an action is taken to the associated NFT.” ([0327]-[0330], [0120]-[0121])); and
a cryptographic digital signature verifying an identity of an authorized user ([0143], [0177]).
Jakobsson does not expressly disclose:
based on the evaluation of the transaction authorization rule, initially blocking the blockchain transaction for the digital asset;
generating a notification indicating that the blockchain transaction has been blocked;
receiving an override request to execute the blocked blockchain transaction, wherein the override request comprises a cryptographic digital signature verifying an identity of an authorized user; and
validating the cryptographic digital signature and, responsive to successful validation, allowing the blockchain transaction.
However, Bennett teaches:
based on the evaluation of the transaction authorization rule, initially blocking the transaction for the asset; generating a notification indicating that the transaction has been blocked; receiving an override request to execute the blocked transaction, wherein the override request comprises a digital signature verifying an identity of an authorized user; and validating the digital signature and, responsive to successful validation, allowing the blockchain transaction. ([0042]-[0044], [0049]-[0050], [0052]-[0054] of Bennett).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Jakobsson in view of Bennett to include techniques of based on the evaluation of the transaction authorization rule, initially blocking the transaction for the asset; generating a notification indicating that the transaction has been blocked; receiving an override request to execute the blocked transaction, wherein the override request comprises a digital signature verifying an identity of an authorized user; and validating the digital signature and, responsive to successful validation, allowing the blockchain transaction. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow a suspended transaction to be double checked to improve the security of the transaction.
Regarding claim(s) 2, Jakobsson discloses:
wherein the transaction authorization rule is based on a configured threshold value associated with the digital asset (By disclosing, “A user may set limits for what is considered anomalously low, or these may be set relative to acquisition prices (e.g., “block sales for less than 1/1000th of the purchase price”) or relative to estimated market prices (e.g., “it is ok to transfer an asset with no payment between two associated wallets, but never to sell an asset at less than half its estimated market price”)” ([0327])).
Regarding claim(s) 3, Jakobsson discloses:
wherein the configured threshold value is evaluated against an estimated current market value of the digital asset, an initial value of the digital asset when added to the crypto wallet, a predicted future value of the digital asset, a current market value of a similar digital asset, a floor price of a collection in which the digital asset is associated with, or a previous purchase price associated with the digital asset (By disclosing, “A user may set limits for what is considered anomalously low, or these may be set relative to acquisition prices (e.g., “block sales for less than 1/1000th of the purchase price”) or relative to estimated market prices (e.g., “it is ok to transfer an asset with no payment between two associated wallets, but never to sell an asset at less than half its estimated market price”)” ([0327])).
Regarding claim(s) 4, Jakobsson discloses:
wherein the transaction authorization rule is based on a change in valuation of the digital asset (By disclosing, “In many embodiments of the security platforms, the process of performing a verification/approval can include one or more of …, (g) determining a discrepancy between a value of the digital asset and an offered price for the digital asset…” ([0121])).
Regarding claim(s) 5, Jakobsson discloses:
wherein the transaction security option is based on a crypto wallet address of a previous owner of the digital asset (By disclosing, “In several embodiments of the security platforms, security platforms may be utilized to identify on-chain assets that may have been illicitly gained by monitoring the assets that reside in, or have transferred through, wallet addresses presently or previously associated with fraudulent activity. The security platforms may be utilized to freeze the assets such that they may not be transferred without clearance, altered as described, or transferred into a temporary custodial account.” ([0334])).
Regarding claim(s) 6, Jakobsson discloses:
wherein the transaction authorization rule is configured to block every requested blockchain transaction for the digital asset (By disclosing, “A verification can be deemed either successful or unsuccessful. If the verification is deemed successful, security platform can approve a transfer of ownership of a digital asset, and if the verification is deemed unsuccessful, it can disapprove a transfer of the digital asset.” ([0409])).
Regarding claim(s) 8, Jakobsson discloses:
wherein the transaction security option is enabled for the digital asset based on a selection criterion (By disclosing, “A user may select a use for the security platforms for one or more types of transactions, such as (but not limited to) transactions that involve assets with individual value (e.g., value over $250), transactions originated by a particular user, transactions originated from a particular wallet, transactions that are in response to requests from parties that are not whitelisted with the security platforms, and/or with a wallet, any series of transactions that are performed in a rapid sequence, (e.g., at least 5 transactions being initiated within one minute), among others. A wallet may determine whether a given wallet should be routed via security platforms P, or the security platforms may scrutinize all transactions requested and determine which ones it should consider blocking.” ([0427])).
Regarding claim(s) 9, Jakobsson discloses:
wherein the selection criterion is based on the crypto wallet holding the digital asset or an owner associated with the crypto wallet. (By disclosing, “A user may select a use for the security platforms for one or more types of transactions, such as (but not limited to) transactions that involve assets with individual value (e.g., value over $250), transactions originated by a particular user, transactions originated from a particular wallet, transactions that are in response to requests from parties that are not whitelisted with the security platforms, and/or with a wallet, any series of transactions that are performed in a rapid sequence, (e.g., at least 5 transactions being initiated within one minute), among others. A wallet may determine whether a given wallet should be routed via security platforms P, or the security platforms may scrutinize all transactions requested and determine which ones it should consider blocking.” ([0427])).
Regarding claim(s) 10, Jakobsson discloses:
wherein the selection criterion is based on a category type of the digital asset or a former crypto wallet address associated with the digital asset. (By disclosing, “A user may select a use for the security platforms for one or more types of transactions, such as (but not limited to) transactions that involve assets with individual value (e.g., value over $250), transactions originated by a particular user, transactions originated from a particular wallet, transactions that are in response to requests from parties that are not whitelisted with the security platforms, and/or with a wallet, any series of transactions that are performed in a rapid sequence, (e.g., at least 5 transactions being initiated within one minute), among others. A wallet may determine whether a given wallet should be routed via security platforms P, or the security platforms may scrutinize all transactions requested and determine which ones it should consider blocking.” ([0427])).
Regarding claim(s) 12, Jakobsson does not disclose, but Bennett teaches:
wherein the override request is verified using a biometric signature, an override authorization code, or an identity verification certification (By disclosing, “In another illustrative embodiment where the requested authorization includes a fingerprint scan, controller 310 authenticates the requested authorization by first comparing a captured fingerprint pattern to a database of reference fingerprint patterns of employees having permission to authorize suspended transactions.” ([0055] of Bennett)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Jakobsson, in view of Bennett to include techniques of wherein the override request is verified using a biometric signature, an override authorization code, or an identity verification certification. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would improve the security of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim(s) 13, Jakobsson discloses:
providing one or more visual indicators associated with the transaction security option associated with the digital asset (By disclosing, “In certain embodiments, a second user interface context (see, for example, FIG. 14B) may display individual NFTs. In a number of embodiments, each NFT can be main-staged in said display with its status and relevant information shown. Users can swipe through each collectible and interacting with the user interface can launch a collectible user interface enabling greater interaction with a particular collectible in a manner that can be determined based upon the smart contract underlying the NFT.” ([0201]); and “each NFT may have a unique serial number and be associated with a smart contract defining an interface that enables the NFT to be managed, owned and/or traded.” ([0213], [0330])).
Regarding claim(s) 15, Jakobsson discloses:
wherein at least one of the one or more visual indicators is an interactive user interface element for initiating configuration of the transaction security option associated with the digital asset (By disclosing, “In certain embodiments, a second user interface context (see, for example, FIG. 14B) may display individual NFTs. In a number of embodiments, each NFT can be main-staged in said display with its status and relevant information shown. Users can swipe through each collectible and interacting with the user interface can launch a collectible user interface enabling greater interaction with a particular collectible in a manner that can be determined based upon the smart contract underlying the NFT.” ([0201]); and “each NFT may have a unique serial number and be associated with a smart contract defining an interface that enables the NFT to be managed, owned and/or traded.” ([0213], [0330])).
Regarding claim(s) 17, Jakobsson discloses:
receiving a request to modify the transaction security option associated with the digital asset (By disclosing, “modifying the digital asset includes performing different modifications to the digital assed based on a security policy” ([0054]); and “Non-limiting examples of modifications of a token include changing the terms of the token, changing the content associated with the token, changing the reference to content associated with the token, and/or changing access rights associated with the token” ([0394])).
Regarding claim(s) 21, Jakobsson does not disclose, but Bennett teaches:
wherein the transaction authorization rule is based on a configured threshold value associated with the digital asset. ([0050] of Bennett).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Jakobsson, in view of Bennett to include techniques of the transaction authorization rule is based on a configured threshold value associated with the digital asset. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the transaction to be more manageable.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson (US 20230006976), in view of Bennett (US 20080114678), further in view of Melika (US 20250139614).
Regarding claim(s) 7, Jakobsson does not disclose, but Melika teaches:
wherein the transaction security option is active for only a configured length of time (By disclosing, “For example, a user might configure a rule that restricts large transactions during specific time periods or a rule that requires multi-factor authentication for transactions exceeding a certain amount.” ([0047] of Melika)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Jakobsson, in view of Melika to include techniques of wherein the transaction security option is active for only a configured length of time. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would extend the functionality of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson (US 20230006976), in view of Bennett (US 20080114678), further in view of Keilwert (US 20250166464).
Regarding claim(s) 14, Jakobsson in view of Bennett does not disclose, but Keilwert teaches:
wherein the one or more visual indicators include a lock icon or a currency value (By disclosing, “In some embodiments, NFT collections may be displayed in a digital wallet 128, 132 of a player 124 with a display parameter of an icon associated with the NFT being related directly or indirectly to a value of the NFT use counter and/or token state. For example, a display or presentation parameter in the metadata (e.g., icon or image size, color, color intensity or shading (e.g., transparency, semi-transparency, shading, shadowing, and highlighting), dotted lines, alternative coloring schemes, printed text indicators (e.g., a number showing the use counter value, a dial or other indicator pointing to or indexed with a current use counter value), or other presentation or display parameter) can change based on a current value of the use counter or token state such that the icon or image associated with the NFT has a first appearance when the use counter has a first value or the first NFT token state and a second different appearance when the use counter has a second value or the second NFT token state” ([0094] of Keilwert); “In some embodiments, each NFT depicted as being associated with the NFT collection 704 may include an indicator or have an appearance that indicates a current token state of the NFT (e.g., first token state indicating that the NFT is not eligible to be redeemed or second token state indicating that the NFT is eligible to be redeemed) and/or a current use counter value.” ([0134] of Keilwert)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Jakobsson and Bennett that performing a blockchain transaction, in view of Keilwert to include techniques of wherein the one or more visual indicators include a lock icon. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the user to acknowledge the status of the digital asset.
Regarding claim(s) 16, Jakobsson in view of Bennett does not disclose, but Keilwert teaches:
wherein at least one of the one or more visual indicators indicates that the transaction security option is inactive (By disclosing, “In some embodiments, NFT collections may be displayed in a digital wallet 128, 132 of a player 124 with a display parameter of an icon associated with the NFT being related directly or indirectly to a value of the NFT use counter and/or token state. For example, a display or presentation parameter in the metadata (e.g., icon or image size, color, color intensity or shading (e.g., transparency, semi-transparency, shading, shadowing, and highlighting), dotted lines, alternative coloring schemes, printed text indicators (e.g., a number showing the use counter value, a dial or other indicator pointing to or indexed with a current use counter value), or other presentation or display parameter) can change based on a current value of the use counter or token state such that the icon or image associated with the NFT has a first appearance when the use counter has a first value or the first NFT token state and a second different appearance when the use counter has a second value or the second NFT token state” ([0094] of Keilwert); “In some embodiments, each NFT depicted as being associated with the NFT collection 704 may include an indicator or have an appearance that indicates a current token state of the NFT (e.g., first token state indicating that the NFT is not eligible to be redeemed or second token state indicating that the NFT is eligible to be redeemed) and/or a current use counter value.” ([0134] of Keilwert)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Jakobsson and Bennett that performing a blockchain transaction, in view of Keilwert to include techniques of wherein at least one of the one or more visual indicators indicates that the transaction security option is inactive. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the user to acknowledge the status of the digital asset.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson (US 20230006976), in view of Bennett (US 20080114678), further in view of Lindell (US 20240281795).
Regarding claim(s) 18, Jakobsson in view of Bennett does not disclose, but Lindell teaches:
wherein the crypto wallet holding the digital asset is a multi-party computation (MPC) crypto wallet ([0040] of Lindell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Jakobsson and Bennett that performing a blockchain transaction, in view of Lindell to include techniques of wherein the crypto wallet holding the digital asset is a multi-party computation (MPC) crypto wallet. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would leverage the advantages of using multi-party computation crypto wallet (e.g. allows a user to leverage a third-party platform to sign transactions, etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the amended limitations recite a technical improvement and thus are patent eligible. The Examiner, respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that
the functions recited in the claim such as “receiving…”, “determining…”, “evaluating…”, “initially blocking…”, “generating a notification…”, “receiving …”, and “validating…” are generic computer functions that can be performed by generic computers;
the functions recited in the claim such as “receiving…”, “determining…”, “evaluating…”, “initially blocking…”, “generating a notification…”, “receiving …”, and “validating…” can also performed manually without any additional elements; and
even if the functions recited in the claim such as “receiving…”, “determining…”, “evaluating…”, “initially blocking…”, “generating a notification…”, “receiving …”, and “validating…” are performed by generic computers and/or generic computer components, generic computers and/or generic computer components are used as a tool to perform the functions. The use of generic computers and/or generic computer components as a tool to implement the functions does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer and/or network performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection initiated by applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12126546 B1 to De Castro Marchese for disclosing:
Systems and methods are for managing resources across a global and/or cloud network. In particular, systems and methods are described for mitigating issues related to providing services using unstable resources (e.g., resources that may be off-line or potentially go off-line). For example, the systems and methods may mitigate issues related to providing services despite instability in resources by monitoring tokenized availability of a given resource using a decentralized blockchain network and performing actions based on that availability based on conditions specified within the code of action-specific self-executing programs themselves (as opposed to a centralized coordination device).
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 DUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4642. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 AM-5 PM.
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.
/DUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699