DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing on 7/25/2024.
3. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if,” “may,” “might,” “can,” and “could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. See MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and/or boldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 5 recites a method wherein the generating the report includes sending the report to a management team, the report further including at least one of the second threshold corresponding to each of the second set of exchange traded funds, a date, or a time.
Claim elements pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claims 11 and 17 have similar issues.
4. 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system to perform a method and/or computer-readable medium to cause a system to perform a method comprising:
providing a pool of at least one share of each of the plurality of exchange traded funds to be traded by the plurality of retirement plans, the pool being held by a trust for the plurality of retirement plans;
receiving, from a first of the plurality of retirement plans, …, a first order of the plurality of orders, the first order specifying a first amount that is other than a whole number of shares of a first of the plurality of exchange traded funds;
identifying, …, a second amount that is a whole number of shares nearest to the first amount that complies with an identification rule defining that the second amount is to be a next whole number higher than the first amount;
adding, from the pool, a number of shares to the first amount such that a sum of the number of shares and the first amount equals the second amount;
directing an exchange to execute, before an end of a trading day, at least one trade of the first of the plurality of exchange traded funds for the second amount, higher than the first amount, the second amount including a first portion of a share corresponding to the pool;
allocating, …, the first amount to the first of the plurality of retirement plans;
allocating, …, a difference between the first amount and second amount to the pool; monitoring a number of shares of each of the exchange traded funds in the pool;
determining a first set of exchange traded funds, the first set of exchange traded funds being exchange traded funds in the pool outside of a first threshold;
determining a second set of exchange traded funds, the second set of exchange traded funds being exchange traded funds in the pool outside of a second threshold, the second threshold being greater than the first threshold;
generating a report including the second set of exchange traded funds;
… adjusting the number of shares of each of the exchange traded funds of the first set of exchange traded funds to be within the first threshold; and
… adjusting one or more of the first threshold or the second threshold based on the first set of exchange traded funds and the second set of exchange traded funds.
These limitations, as drafted, recite a method and/or a system configured to perform a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to manage and process financial trades which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a hardware processor coupled a memory (Claim(s) 1, 7 and 13) and performing method steps/functions automatically (Claim(s) 1, 7 and 13).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to (i) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1, 7 and 13. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
No additional computer components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generically recited computer.
As such, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
5. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §2163.02 and §2181 (IV)(I).
In the instant case, Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
providing a pool of at least one share of each of the plurality of exchange traded funds to be traded by the plurality of retirement plans, the pool being held by a trust for the plurality of retirement plans.
However, the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function of providing is not explained at all or is not explained in sufficient detail.
Claims 7 and 13 have similar issues.
Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are rejected based upon their dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
receiving, from a first of the plurality of retirement plans, by a hardware processor coupled to a memory, a first order of the plurality of orders, the first order specifying a first amount that is other than a whole number of shares of a first of the plurality of exchange traded funds;
identifying, by the hardware processor coupled to the memory, a second amount that is a whole number of shares nearest to the first amount that complies with an identification rule defining that the second amount is to be a next whole number higher than the first amount;
adding, from the pool, a number of shares to the first amount such that a sum of the number of shares and the first amount equals the second amount;
Claim 1 recites that the first amount is an amount other than a whole number of shares (i.e., the first amount is not a whole number) and that the second amount is a whole number of shares closest to the first amount. For example, the first amount is 2.75 shares and the second amount is 3 shares, 3 is the whole number closest to 2.75.
Claim 1 recites adding a number of shares to the first amount such that the sum of the number of shares and the first amount is equal to the second amount.
However, that is not possible.
If a share (e.g., 1 share) is added to the first amount (e.g., 2.75 shares), the sum (e.g., 3.75 shares) will never equal the second amount (e.g., 3 shares). Examiner notes that addition of number of shares (e.g., 5 shares) to the first amount (e.g., 2.75 shares) creates a sum (e.g., 8.75) even more distant from the second amount (e.g., 3 shares).
Does the Applicant mean adding a fractional portion of a share (e.g., .25 shares) to the first amount (e.g., 2.75 shares) to equal the second amount (e.g., 3 shares)?
Examiner notes that the summation has no impact on any of the recited method steps. The method performs a calculation, and then performs functions pertaining to the first amount and the second amount, not the sum of the number of shares and the first amount.
Claims 7 and 13 have similar issues.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
determining a first set of exchange traded funds, the first set of exchange traded funds being exchange traded funds in the pool outside of a first threshold;
determining a second set of exchange traded funds, the second set of exchange traded funds being exchange traded funds in the pool outside of a second threshold, the second threshold being greater than the first threshold;
What is being determined?
Does this mean the determining the first and second set of exchange traded funds exist? Such an interpretation means that the nature of the first and second set of exchange traded funds (i.e., being outside or greater than a threshold) has no patentable weight. The claim limitation is defining the funds, not the method steps being performed.
Or does this mean that the method is determining that the funds are outside or greater than the threshold? The claim limitation is defining the method step performed.
Claims 7 and 13 have similar issues.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
automatically adjusting the number of shares of each of the exchange traded funds of the first set of exchange traded funds to be within the first threshold; and
automatically adjusting one or more of the first threshold or the second threshold based on the first set of exchange traded funds and the second set of exchange traded funds.
Is the method adjusting funds to be within the threshold or is the method adjusting thresholds to accommodate the funds? If a threshold is adjusted to accommodate being outside the threshold is it even a threshold?
Claims 7 and 13 have similar issues.
Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are rejected based upon their dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
7. 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 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breen (US Patent 6,615,188) in view of Cody (US PG. Pub. 2010/0017339) and Pruitt (US Patent 7,668,773).
Regarding Claim 1, Breen discloses a method of processing a plurality of orders, each order specifying a portion, less than all, of a share (fractional share) of at least one of a plurality of exchange traded financial instrument to be traded, the orders being received for each of a plurality of retirement plans (IRAs). (see abstract; col. 4, line 50 - col. 5, line 3; col. 52; col. 8, lines 38-62), the method comprising:
providing a pool (operator account or facilitation account) of at least one share of each of the plurality of exchange traded funds (mutual funds) to be traded by the plurality of retirement plans, the pool being held by a trading server operator (operator) for the plurality of retirement plans (IRAs). (see col. 8, lines 8-10; lines 38-62 and col. 9, lines 10-17; col. 12, lines 39-51);
receiving, from a first of the plurality of retirement plans (IRAs), by a hardware processor coupled to a memory, a first order of the plurality of orders, said first order specifying a first amount (whole share + fractional share) that is other than a whole number of shares of a first of the plurality of exchange traded funds (see abstract; col. 4, lines 50-52; col. 8, lines 38-62);
identifying, by the hardware processor coupled to the memory, a second amount (nearest whole share) that is a whole number of shares nearest to the first amount (whole share + fractional share) that complies with an identification rule defining that the second amount is to be the next whole number higher than the first amount (rounded up). (see col. 12, line 30 – col. 13, line 2);
adding, from the pool, a number of shares (fractional share) to the first amount (whole share + fractional share) such that a sum of the number of shares (fractional share) and the first amount (whole share + fractional share) equals the second amount (nearest whole share). (see col. 12, line 30 – col. 13, line 2);
directing an exchange to execute, before an end of a trading day, at least one trade of the first of the plurality of exchange traded investments for the second amount (rounded up nearest whole share), higher than the first amount (rounded up), said second amount (rounded up nearest whole share) including a first portion (fraction) of a share corresponding to the pool (facilitation account). (see col. 8, lines 38-62; col. 9, lines 10-17; col. 12, line 19 – col. 13, line 2);
allocating, by the hardware processor coupled to the memory, the first amount (fractional shares + whole shares) to the first of the plurality of retirement plans (IRAS). (see col. 8, lines 38-62; col. 12, line 19 – col. 13, line 2);
allocating, by the hardware processor coupled to the memory, a difference (remainder) between the first (fractional shares + whole shares) amount and second amount (rounded up nearest whole share) to the pool (facilitation account). (see col. 8, lines 38-62 and col. 9, lines 10-17 col. 12, line 19 – col. 13, lines 13);
monitoring (tracking) a number of shares of each of the traded funds in the pool (i.e., an account balance). (see col. 1, lines 12-29);
determining a first set of exchange traded funds (mutual funds). (see col. 4, line 53 – col. 5, line 3);
determining a second set of exchange traded funds. (see col. 4, line 53 – col. 5, line 3);
generating a report including the second set of exchange traded funds. (see col. 11, lines 57-61).
Breen does not explicitly teach a method wherein the pool is held by a trust for the plurality of retirement plans, although the holder of a pool of exchange traded funds could be any entity (e.g., a person, a group of people, a corporation, a trust …).
Regardless, Cody discloses a method wherein the pool (of investments) by a trust. (see para. 23-26).
Breen does not recite a method comprising the first set of exchange traded funds being exchange traded funds in the pool outside of a first threshold; the second set of exchange traded funds being exchange traded funds in the pool outside of a second threshold, the second threshold being greater than the first threshold; automatically adjusting the number of shares of each of the exchange traded funds of the first set of exchange traded funds to be within the first threshold; and automatically adjusting one or more of the first threshold or the second threshold based on the first set of exchange traded funds and the second set of exchange traded funds.
Pruitt discloses a method comprising:
the first set of exchange traded funds being exchange traded funds in the pool outside of a first threshold (benchmarks or constraints). (see col. 5, line 56 – col. 6, line 20);
the second set of exchange traded funds being exchange traded funds in the pool outside of a second threshold (benchmarks or constraints). (see col. 5, line 56 – col. 6, line 20), the second threshold being greater (maximum) than the first threshold (minimum). (see col. 26, lines 16-50);
generating a report including the second set of exchange traded funds (indicating performance in relation to benchmarks). (see col. 5, line 56 – col. 6, line 20);
automatically adjusting (trimming) the number of shares of the first set of exchange traded funds (outside constraints) to be within the first threshold. (see col. 47, lines 20-35); and
automatically adjusting one or more of the first threshold (maximum) or the second threshold (minimum) based on the first set of exchange traded funds (portfolios) and the second set of exchange traded funds (portfolios). (see col. 8, lines 30-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Breen by incorporating a trust, as disclosed by Cody, as a trust is a standard and conventional entity that holds investments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Breen by incorporating automatic adjustments to funds, as disclosed by Pruitt, thereby ensuring that funds stay within predefined thresholds.
Regarding Claim 2, Breen discloses a method comprising selling a whole number of shares in the pool according to a schedule (regularly scheduled times) in response to the pool including at least one share. (see col. 14, lines 33-43).
Regarding Claims 3-4, Breen does not teach a method wherein automatically adjusting the number of shares of each of the exchange traded funds of the first set of exchange traded funds in the pool includes, for each exchange traded fund of the first set of exchange traded that exceeds an upper threshold of the first threshold, selling a number of shares of the exchange traded fund to reduce the number of shares of the exchange traded fund to be equal to a set amount, the set amount being less than the upper threshold of the first threshold; or automatically adjusting the number of shares of each of the exchange traded funds of the first set of exchange traded funds in the pool includes, for each exchange traded fund of the first set of exchange traded funds that is below a lower threshold of the first threshold, buying a number of shares of the exchange traded fund to increase the number of shares of the exchange traded fund to be greater than the lower threshold of the first threshold
Pruitt discloses a method a method wherein:
automatically adjusting the number of shares of each of the exchange traded funds of the first set of exchange traded funds in the pool includes, for each exchange traded fund of the first set of exchange traded that exceeds an upper threshold of the first threshold, selling (trimming) a number of shares of the exchange traded fund to reduce the number of shares of the exchange traded fund to be equal to a set amount, the set amount being less than the upper threshold of the first threshold (upper bound of the asset class). (see col. 29, lines 25-44; col. 31, lines 13-20; col. 47, lines 20-35); and
automatically adjusting (rebalancing) the number of shares of each of the exchange traded funds of the first set of exchange traded funds in the pool includes, for each exchange traded fund of the first set of exchange traded funds that is below a lower threshold of the first threshold (below lower bound of asset class), buying a number of shares of the exchange traded fund to increase the number of shares of the exchange traded fund to be greater than the lower threshold of the first threshold. ( see col. 31, lines 14-20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Breen, Cody and Pruitt by a rebalancing a pool when it fell outside thresholds, as disclosed by Pruitt, thereby ensuring that the pool remains within predefined thresholds.
Regarding Claim 5, Breen does not teach a method wherein the generating the report includes sending the report to a management team, the report further including at least one of the second threshold corresponding to each of the second set of exchange traded funds, a date, or a time.
Pruitt discloses a method wherein the generating the report includes sending the report (performance report) to a management team (advisor), the report further including at least one of the second threshold (benchmarks) corresponding to each of the second set of exchange traded funds, a date, or a time. (see col. 5, line 56 – col. 6, line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Breen, Cody and Pruitt by issuing reports pertaining to the performance of the funds, as disclosed by Pruitt, thereby keeping an investor informed about the performance of their investments.
Regarding Claims 6-18, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims or are otherwise disclosed by the prior art applied in previously rejected claims.
8. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. 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, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached on (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 February 21, 2026