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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to application 18/803,026 entitled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MODULAR SUBSCRIPTION-CENTRIC RESOURCE ARCHITECTURES" originally filed on March 2, 2026, with claims 1 to 20 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 2, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Final Office Action mailed November 28, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A system for modular subscription-centric resource architectures, the system comprising:
…to: facilitate a user registration process via a mobile banking application interface to collect user's resource account data, comprising preferences, goals, and affiliations with one or more entities;
store the resource account data…;
utilize a recommendation engine comprising one or more … algorithms to analyze the stored resource account data to determine an appropriate subscription tier recommendation from subscription tiers, wherein essential packages are suggested for newer users and intricate packages for established users;
…a dashboard interface comprising multiple platform dashboard pages associated with the subscription tiers;
display, …a first dashboard page of the dashboard interface comprising the intrinsic benefits and features of each subscription tier and sections for user interactions to transition …to another dashboard page of the dashboard interface
display, based on a user interaction with a section associated with a subscription tier of the subscription tiers …a second dashboard page of the dashboard interface associated with a customizable bundle option, wherein the customizable bundle option comprises a range of services tailored to individual objectives;
…based on user selections to the second dashboard page, and based on analysis of the user's resource account by the recommendation engine, an updated second dashboard page, wherein the updated second dashboard page comprises additional options for the user selections based on suitability scores calculated, via the recommendation engine, for a set of options associated with the user selections, wherein the set of options comprise the additional options, wherein the additional options are options with higher suitability scores;
and dynamically modify, based on user selections and the suitability scores to the updated second dashboard page, the dashboard interface.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/client and/or financial services provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “determine an appropriate subscription tier recommendation” and “proactively suggest service combinations” recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[at least one non-transitory storage device; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processor is configured] [in the at least one non-transitory storage device] [via a graphical user interface (GUI) of a display interface of an end-point device of a user][the GUI] [on the GUI]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, networking, and display technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[machine learning]: merely applying the generic machine learning functions of analyzing data to perform an abstract idea.
[generate] [generate, in real-time][update]: insignificant extra-solution activity
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0030] The system 130 may represent various forms of servers, such as web servers, database servers, file server, or the like, various forms of digital computing devices, such as laptops, desktops, video recorders, audio/video players, radios, workstations, or the like, or any other auxiliary network devices, such as wearable devices, Internet-of-things devices, electronic kiosk devices, mainframes, or the like, or any combination of the aforementioned.
[0059] This can be built using libraries like TENSORFLOW® or SCIKIT-LEARN™.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 2:
“machine learning”: merely applying the generic machine learning functions of analyzing data to perform an abstract idea.
Claims 3-5: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 6:
“processor”: merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 7: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0030] The system 130 may represent various forms of servers, such as web servers, database servers, file server, or the like, various forms of digital computing devices, such as laptops, desktops, video recorders, audio/video players, radios, workstations, or the like, or any other auxiliary network devices, such as wearable devices, Internet-of-things devices, electronic kiosk devices, mainframes, or the like, or any combination of the aforementioned.
[0059] This can be built using libraries like TENSORFLOW® or SCIKIT-LEARN™.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 8 recites:
“A …program product for modular subscription-centric resource architectures, the …program product …to:
facilitate a user registration process via a mobile banking application interface to collect user's resource account data, comprising preferences, goals, and affiliations with one or more entities;
store the resource account data …
utilize a recommendation engine comprising … algorithms to analyze the stored resource account data to determine an appropriate subscription tier recommendation from subscription tiers, wherein essential packages are suggested for newer users and intricate packages for established users;
…a dashboard interface comprising multiple platform dashboard pages associated with the subscription tiers;
display, … a first dashboard page of the dashboard interface comprising the intrinsic benefits and features of each subscription tier and sections for user interactions to transition … to another dashboard page of the dashboard interface;
display, based on a user interaction with a section associated with a subscription tier of the subscription tiers … a second dashboard page of the dashboard interface associated with a customizable bundle option, wherein the customizable bundle option comprises a range of services tailored to individual objectives;
… based on user selections to the second dashboard page, and based on analysis of the user's resource account by the recommendation engine, an updated second dashboard page, wherein the updated second dashboard page comprises additional options for the user selections based on suitability scores calculated, via the recommendation engine, for a set of options associated with the user selections, wherein the set of options comprise the additional options, wherein the additional options are options with higher suitability scores;
and dynamically modify, based on user selections and the suitability scores to the updated second dashboard page, the dashboard interface.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/client and/or financial services provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “determine an appropriate subscription tier recommendation” and “proactively suggest service combinations” recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computer] [comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code causing an apparatus] [in the at least one non-transitory storage device] [via a graphical user interface (GUI) of a display interface of an end-point device of a user][the GUI] [on the GUI]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, networking, and display technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[machine learning]: merely applying the generic machine learning functions of analyzing data to perform an abstract idea.
[generate] [generate, in real-time][update]: insignificant extra-solution activity
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 9:
“computer”: merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
“machine learning”: merely applying the generic machine learning functions of analyzing data to perform an abstract idea.
Claims 10-12 and 14:
“computer”: merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
Claim 13:
“processor”: merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 15 recites:
“A method for modular subscription-centric resource architectures, the method comprising:
facilitating a user registration process via a mobile banking application interface to collect user's resource account data, comprising preferences, goals, and affiliations with one or more entities;
storing the resource account data …
utilizing a recommendation engine comprising one or more …algorithms to analyze the stored resource account data to determine an appropriate subscription tier recommendation from subscription tiers, wherein essential packages are suggested for newer users and intricate packages for established users;
generating a dashboard interface comprising multiple platform dashboard pages associated with the subscription tiers;
displaying, …a first dashboard page of the dashboard interface comprising the intrinsic benefits and features of each subscription tier and sections for user interactions to transition … to another dashboard page of the dashboard interface;
displaying, based on a user interaction with a section associated with a subscription tier of the subscription tiers …a second dashboard page of the dashboard interface associated with a customizable bundle option, wherein the customizable bundle option comprises a range of services tailored to individual objectives;
… based on user selections to the second dashboard page, and based on analysis of the user's resource account by the recommendation engine, an updated second dashboard page, wherein the updated second dashboard page comprises additional options for the user selections based on suitability scores calculated, via the recommendation engine, for a set of options associated with the user selections, wherein the set of options comprise the additional options, wherein the additional options are options with higher suitability scores;
and dynamically modify, based on user selections and the suitability scores to the updated second dashboard page, the dashboard interface.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/client and/or financial services provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “determine an appropriate subscription tier recommendation” and “proactively suggest service combinations” recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[in the at least one non-transitory storage device] [via a graphical user interface (GUI) of a display interface of an end-point device of a user][the GUI] [on the GUI]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, networking, and display technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[machine learning]: merely applying the generic machine learning functions of analyzing data to perform an abstract idea.
[generating, in real-time][updating]: insignificant extra-solution activity
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 16:
“machine learning”: merely applying the generic machine learning functions of analyzing data to perform an abstract idea.
Claims 17-19: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 20:
“processor”: merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane (“SYSTEM, METHOD, AND APPARATUS FOR OPERATING A WEALTH MANAGEMENT PLATFORM”, U.S. Publication Number: 20230351515 A1), in view of Raleigh (“SERVICE PLAN DESIGN, USER INTERFACES, APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACES, AND DEVICE MANAGEMENT”, U.S. Publication Number: 20200045519 A1)in view of Kanjlia (“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING A USER INTERFACE FOR FACILITATING PERSONAL PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20210004898 A1),
Regarding Claim 1,
Lane teaches,
A system for modular subscription-centric resource architectures, the system comprising: at least one non-transitory storage device; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processor is configured
(Lane [0135] based on interactions with the platform (e.g., allowing users to self-select a user class, for example from a selected group of templates; based on a subscription or other criteria with the platform
Lane [0375] different model architecture, or incorporate domain-specific knowledge into the algorithm
Lane [0398] a non-transient computer readable medium
Lane [0139] available (e.g., by a subscription to a proprietary database)
Lane [0132] such that a processor executing the instructions ...a logic circuit; a programmable logic circuit; a processor; a memory device of any type; and/or network communication resource(s) of any type.)
to: facilitate a user registration process via a mobile banking application interface to collect user's resource account data,
(Lane [0244] a membership indicator 20614 (e.g., registration status with the platform
Lane [0245] a second level of access is provided to the user after registration on the platform.
Lane [0002] a typical engagement may include interactions with multiple companies (e.g., insurance, investment companies, banks, underwriters, etc.)
Lane [0171] users include a client user, ... a bank user
Lane [0236] a web portal, web site, mobile application... user accesses the user interface 107 from a device
Lane [0237] a set of bibliographic data corresponding to the user, and/or a set of account information related to the user.)
comprising preferences, goals, and affiliations with one or more entities;
(Lane [0236] user preferences selected
Lane [0239] offer creation tool 20306 (e.g., allowing an agent user to create an offer for a client user, configured for the needs, goals, and priorities of the client user)
Lane [0266] all clients (and/or a selected fraction of the clients) within the corresponding tranche, where the trait values include one or more of: an affiliation with a certain company 22102; an affiliation with a certain carrier)
store the resource account data in the at least one non-transitory storage device;
(Lane [0237] bibliographic data corresponding to the user, and/or a set of account information related to the user.
Lane [Claim 14] user preferences description is stored within one of: a data store of the online platform or a device used by the user)
utilize a recommendation engine
(Lane [0144] the tranche assignment circuit 306 may provide notifications in response to the tranche movement, and/or may provide a tranche movement recommendation)
comprising one or more machine learning algorithms to analyze the stored resource account data
(Lane [0140] the data store 116 may include any other information related to the platform 102, such as documentation, performance data, data utilized for any analysis or illustration set forth herein, user preference information, and/or data utilized by a machine learning, artificial intelligence, and/or iterative improvement component herein)
to determine an appropriate subscription tier recommendation from subscription tiers
(Lane [0244] a subscription category 20614 of the user
Lane [Claim 25] a subscription category or membership indicator
Lane [0234] recommends products
Lane [0245] provides at least two levels of access to the platform
Lane [0322] an action recommendation... (e.g., recommending an action to be taken...))
additional options for the user selections based on suitability scores calculated, via the recommendation engine, for a set of options associated with the user selections, wherein the set of options comprise the additional options,
(Lane [0295] common enrollment interface 22814 includes a common interface element such as: a common menu; a common menu element; a common display setting; a common display organization; a common permissions setting; and/or a common preferences setting.
Lane [0138] iterative improvement process (e.g., settings for platform access and/or feature capability for the user, including which features should be available directly to the user, ... correlated with successful outcomes, ...and/or success indicators such as financial outcomes, risk management, and the like);
Lane [0288] permissions adjustments, settings adjustments, or the like ....the responsible user can offer a number of interface settings, and classify users within their set of users as individual groups, readily applying the desired interface settings.
Lane [0303] a description of enabled user preferences 23308 (e.g., default settings, and/or settings determined by classifying the user based on expressed user preferences 23308, which may extend to settings beyond those explicitly selected by the user—for example a user class value 20006 indicating that the user prefers certain types of menus, menu operation, window sizing or behavior, color schemes, etc.);)
wherein the additional options are options with higher suitability scores;
(Lane [0337] identify engagement trends, timelines, scores
Lane [0338] may include a trained model to provide a score of the events and features of the configuration that may be attributed to the activity of the client.
Lane [0344] The predicted engagement may be a probability value, a score (e.g., a relative value in the range of 1-100), a qualitative rating (e.g., low, high, etc.).
Lane [0349] may include determining statistics, ratings, and/or scores for the activities for the events with respect to a baseline. The method may further include the step of predicting the client engagement from the engagement analytics 10208 and implementing a user interface, the user interface providing a display of the predicted engagement... may include predicting a likelihood, a score, or other indicators indicative of the probability that a client will engage with the platform
Lane [0357] The trained model may generate a score for the plurality of stress test parameters wherein the score is indicative of the relevance of the parameters to the user. In some cases, the highest-scoring parameters may be selected.)
Lane does not teach wherein essential packages are suggested for newer users and intricate packages for established users; generate a dashboard interface comprising multiple platform dashboard pages associated with the subscription tiers display, via a graphical user interface (GUI) of a display interface of an end-point device of a user, a first dashboard page of the dashboard interface comprising the intrinsic benefits and features of each subscription tier and sections for user interactions to transition the GUI to another dashboard page of the dashboard interface; display, based on a user interaction with a section associated with a subscription tier of the subscription tiers on the GUI, a second dashboard page of the dashboard interface associated with a customizable bundle option, wherein the customizable bundle option comprises a range of services tailored to individual objectives; generate, in real-time, based on user selections to the second dashboard page, and based on analysis of the user's resource account by the recommendation engine, an updated second dashboard page, wherein the updated second dashboard page comprises additional options for user selection; and dynamically modify, based on user selections and the suitability scores to the updated second dashboard page, the dashboard interface.
Raleigh teaches,
generate a dashboard interface comprising multiple platform dashboard pages associated with the subscription tiers display, via a graphical user interface (GUI) of a display interface of an end-point device of a user,
(Raleigh [0579] FIG. 60 illustrates a representative generic UI arrangement 10240 including a set of service plans 10244 (or service plan bundles) for a particular selected sub-category 10246 within a particular category. ...Selecting one of the service plans 10244, the user of the mobile wireless communication device 100 can access additional information)
a first dashboard page of the dashboard interface comprising the intrinsic benefits and features of each subscription tier
(Raleigh [0580] Several partition areas 10206 can provide a narrative description of the service plan 10234/10244, specific parameters that define the service plan 10234/10244, and key features of the selected service plan)
and sections for user interactions to transition the GUI to another dashboard page of the dashboard interface
(Raleigh [0579] FIG. 60 illustrates a representative generic UI arrangement .. can be displayed simultaneously within the selection area 10242 of the UI 101, and the selection area can be scrollable in one or more directions to view additional sub-categories
Raleigh [0495] one or more icons are placed in the bottom area providing information and/or links to additional information.)
display, based on a user interaction with a section associated with a subscription tier of the subscription tiers on the GUI, a second dashboard page of the dashboard interface associated with a customizable bundle option, wherein the customizable bundle option comprises a range of services tailored to individual objectives;
(Raleigh [0682] can be tailored based on a number of different criteria. In some embodiments, the options presented to the user include voice service plans based on previous service usage, present service usage, one or more dialed numbers, present geographic location, home network location, available local networks, roaming properties, etc.
Raleigh [2052] cause the processing unit to in response to the second input present, through the graphical user interface, second summary information about a previous service plan bundle associated with the wireless end-user communication device.)
generate, in real-time, based on user selections to the second dashboard page, and
(Raleigh [1684] A portion of interfaces can be realized through defined APIs that can connect between a mobile wireless communication device,
Raleigh [1417] to the device end user for service plan selection...UI display is configured to allow the user to purchase or activate a service plan within the offer set in real-time or near-real-time
Raleigh [2052] cause the processing unit to in response to the second input present, through the graphical user interface, second summary information about a previous service plan bundle associated with the wireless end-user communication device.)
based on analysis of the user's resource account by the recommendation engine, an updated second dashboard page, wherein the updated second dashboard page comprises additional options for user selection; and
(Raleigh [0682] can be tailored based on a number of different criteria. In some embodiments, the options presented to the user include voice service plans based on previous service usage, present service usage, one or more dialed numbers, present geographic location, home network location, available local networks, roaming properties, etc.
Raleigh [2052] cause the processing unit to in response to the second input present, through the graphical user interface, second summary information about a previous service plan bundle associated with the wireless end-user communication device.
Raleigh [Claim 1] assist in obtaining, through the user interface, a first user input indicating a first user selection from the first plurality of selection options)
dynamically modify, based on user selections and the suitability scores to the updated second dashboard page, the dashboard interface.
(Raleigh [0436] service controller 122) to update user interface service usage or service cost information for display to the user.
Raleigh [0691] “refresh” the set of “Featured Plans” displayed)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the financial suggestion subscription service of Lane to incorporate the service plan design teachings of Raleigh “to enable subscribers … to view, research, select and customize service plans.” (Raleigh [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. service plan design) to a known concept (i.e. financial suggestion subscription service) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “view, research, select and customize service plans… share and set permission controls for service plans… manage communication services through graphical user interfaces; to sponsor and promote service plans; and to design, manage, and control communication services through application programming interfaces” Raleigh [Abstract])
Raleigh does not teach wherein essential packages are suggested for newer users and intricate packages for established users;
Kanjlia teaches,
wherein essential packages are suggested for newer users and intricate packages for established users;
(Kanjlia [0096] interface design engine 210 may be configured to display payment reminders or suggestionsKanjlia [0065] may be configured to dynamically determine an appropriate interface for the user. For example, based on the user's information including, for example, transaction history, profile, demographic information, behavior,... may determine what type of interface that the user is most receptive to. In another example, if a user is technologically experienced, interface dialog engine 211 may determine whether the interface for this user will have a different look and feel from a user interface for another user who is less technologically experienced....if a user is determined to be technically experienced, interface dialog engine 211 may be configured to provide more products and functions associated with the payment transaction; whereas for a user who is determined to be less technically experienced, interface dialog engine 211 may be configured to provide basic and less complex processes associated with the payment transaction. )
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the financial suggestion subscription service of Lane to incorporate the payment suggestion personalization teachings of Kanjlia “for providing customized user interfaces for facilitating personal payment transactions.” (Kanjlia [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. payment suggestion personalization) to a known concept (i.e. financial suggestion subscription service) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “interface design engine 210 may be configured to display payment reminders or suggestions …via an interface” Kanjlia [0096])
Regarding Claim 2,
Lane, Raleigh, and Kanjlia teach the financial suggestion service of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Lane does not teach wherein the machine learning algorithms are further configured to update the subscription tier recommendation dynamically based on real-time changes in the user's resource account data.
Raleigh teaches,
wherein the machine learning algorithms are further configured to update the subscription tier recommendation dynamically based on real-time changes in the user's resource account data.
(Raleigh [0508] a flexible and efficient adaptive ambient service is provided using a baseline (e.g., a basic starting point) of an adaptive ambient service profile...allowable access list and disallowed access list for the ambient service.... ambient service profile is an automated and a self-evolving service profile using various techniques
Raleigh [0511] for automatically adapting the service profile based on ambient service usage and thereby updates the ambient service allowed
Raleigh [0522] automated provisioning and activation)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the financial suggestion subscription service of Lane to incorporate the service plan design teachings of Raleigh “to enable subscribers … to view, research, select and customize service plans.” (Raleigh [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. service plan design) to a known concept (i.e. financial suggestion subscription service) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “view, research, select and customize service plans… share and set permission controls for service plans… manage communication services through graphical user interfaces; to sponsor and promote service plans; and to design, manage, and control communication services through application programming interfaces” Raleigh [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 3,
Lane, Raleigh, and Kanjlia teach the financial suggestion service of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Lane teaches,
wherein the dashboard interface further comprises a visual representation of the user's progress towards their financial goals,
(Lane [0139] provide appropriate dashboards for each user, to provide reports
Lane [0234] providing illustrations and/or updates for the user on the progress of enrollment, performance of investments and/or the overall plan, etc.).
Lane [0170] progression statistics (e.g., time-at-stage for each step of an enrollment process, performance progression over time such as conformance to plan of growth, enrollment, or the like); completion statistics
Lane [0198] an overall participant progression summary
Lane [0208] financial goals that may be presented to some users)
including alerts for reaching specific milestones or falling behind.
(Lane [0339] configured to correlate the activity data with a milestone of the client
Lane [0003] determine whether the insurance product has performed successfully according to the plan
Lane [0303] an alert description value 23320 (e.g., the formatting, communication mechanism, trigger conditions, etc. for alerts on the user interface 107 and/or to be sent to user devices).)
Regarding Claim 4,
Lane, Raleigh, and Kanjlia teach the financial suggestion service of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Lane teaches,
wherein the customizable bundle option allows the user to compare potential service combinations side-by-side before finalizing their selection.
(Lane [0170] forecasting tools (e.g., estimated or projected versions of any one or more of the foregoing, and/or including historical matching of prior forecasting to actual results); and/or comparisons of any one or more of the foregoing to a prior implemented plan.
Lane [0186] comparison of multiple plan features relative to the expected outcome of the plan
Lane [0360] charts and graphs such as line charts,...data projections, data tables, text descriptions, figures, and the like. ...formatted as images, HTML, vector graphics, spreadsheet data)
Regarding Claim 6,
Lane, Raleigh, and Kanjlia teach the financial suggestion service of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Lane teaches,
subscription tier
(Lane [0244] a subscription category 20614 of the user
Lane [Claim 25] a subscription category or membership indicator)
Lane does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate and display personalized offers and discounts from third-party merchants, based on the user's selected … and preferences.
Kanjlia teaches,
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate and display personalized offers and discounts from third-party merchants, based on the user's selected … and preferences.
(Kanjlia [0109] provided in an interface sent to client 114 that includes one or more alternative options and display incentives
Kanjlia [0084] whether a user will be receptive to a particular offer by considering the user's inputs... historic payment behavior (e.g., shopped at or ordered products from a particular retailer) ... information relating to membership and/or loyalty program (e.g., has a bonus membership with a retailer)
Kanjlia [0086] Determining whether a user will be receptive to a particular offer may depend on multiple inputs—for example, user-set preferences, historic payment behavior such as having shopped at or ordered from a some store
Kanjlia [0066] Determining whether a user will be receptive to a particular offer may depend on multiple inputs)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the financial suggestion subscription service of Lane to incorporate the payment suggestion personalization teachings of Kanjlia “for providing customized user interfaces for facilitating personal payment transactions.” (Kanjlia [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. payment suggestion personalization) to a known concept (i.e. financial suggestion subscription service) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “interface design engine 210 may be configured to display payment reminders or suggestions …via an interface” Kanjlia [0096])
Regarding Claim 7,
Lane, Raleigh, and Kanjlia teach the financial suggestion service of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Lane teaches,
wherein the dashboard interface includes an interactive tutorial that guides new users through the subscription selection and customization process.
(Lane [0147] a dashboard of a user interface of the platform
Lane [0248] an enrollment management circuit 108 that enrolls a new user on the platform
Lane [0288] providing communications, tutorials...clients that prefer visual information to numerical information (or vice versa), or based on any other criteria using any information available to that user in the platform.
Lane [0337] asset allocation guidance
Lane [0139] other information that guides the enrollment process)
Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Claim 11 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane, Raleigh, and Kanjlia in view of Nagaraja (“ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ASSISTED SERVICE PROVISIONING AND MODIFICATION FOR DELIVERING MESSAGE-BASED SERVICES”, U.S. Publication Number: 20200244605 A1).
Regarding Claim 5,
Lane, Raleigh, and Kanjlia teach the financial suggestion service of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Lane teaches,
wherein the mobile banking application interface
(Lane [0171] users include a client user, ... a bank user
Lane [0236] a web portal, web site, mobile application... user accesses the user interface 107 from a device)
Lane does not teach includes a virtual assistant configured to provide real-time financial advice and recommendations based on the user's current subscription tier and resource account data.
Nagaraja teaches,
includes a virtual assistant configured to provide real-time financial advice and recommendations based on the user's current subscription tier and resource account data.
(Nagaraja [0130] a professional (e.g., … personal financial advisors, etc.) and/or a platform administrator is provided
Nagaraja [0041] Certain selected services may only be accessible to certain users based on information such as organizational affinity (e.g., employees of a certain company purchasing a portion of service access to platform 106 can only talk to Jiseki's financial advisor, …), profile, or payment/membership status, etc.
Nagaraja [0039] depending on the level of services a user has signed up, or the user's organization has signed up on behalf of the user, # sara is mapped to a mental health service chatbot equipped with access to different knowledge bases or data stores corresponding to the respective subscription level.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the financial suggestion subscription service of Lane to incorporate the chatbots assistants of Nagaraja where “a chatbot equipped with the correspondent knowledge …can always be provisioned.” (Nagaraja [0032]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. chatbots assistants) to a known concept (i.e. financial suggestion subscription service) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “a chatbot …can always be provisioned … to minimize the waiting time from a user's perspective.” Nagaraja [0032])
Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on March 2, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Objections
Applicant's amendments rectify the previous objections.
The objection is lifted.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“Applicant respectfully submits that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application in at least the independent claims and in light of Example 37 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples… the independent claims recite a method for presenting tier based subscriptions to users and dynamically modifying GUI with options associated with the tier based subscriptions based on user's interaction with the tier based subscriptions... automatically modifying the graphical interface based on computed results, and dynamically rearranging, filtering, and injecting options based on calculated suitability scores. "
Examiner responds:
Examiner disagrees that the applicant’s proposed invention parallels that of Example 37 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. In the example, a crux of the invention functionally rearranges and moves icons on a graphical user interface. The applicant’s invention merely modifies a graphical interface (rearranging, filtering, and injecting options) based on calculated suitability scores. Moreover, the updated graphical interface is merely a post-solution activity. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
Furthermore, Examiner maintains the Applicant’s invention differs from Example 37 in that it overcame the “Mental Process” classification because the claimed step of determining the amount of use of each icon by tracking how much memory had been allocated to each application associated with each icon over a predetermined period of time in a manner not practically performed in the human mind, at least because it requires a processor accessing computer memory indicative of application usage. It overcame the “Organizing Human Activity” classification because the claims never stated any fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people.
In this Instant Application, the Examiner never rejected the claims under “Mental Process” but the claims are replete with reciting fundamental economic principles and practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. Such as: to “facilitate a user registration process via a mobile banking application interface to collect user's resource account data, comprising preferences, goals, and affiliations with one or more entities;store the resource account data in the at least one non-transitory storage device”
As such, the Instant Application in no way resembles Example 37
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's amendments required the application of no new/additional prior art.
The Applicant states:
“Nowhere does Raleigh, singly or in combination with other cited references, teaches or suggests generating, in real-time, based on user selections to the second dashboard page, and based on analysis of the user's resource account by the recommendation engine, an updated second dashboard page, wherein the updated second dashboard page comprises additional options for user selections based on suitability scores calculated, via the recommendation engine, for a set of options associated with the user selections, wherein the set of options comprise the additional options, wherein the additional options are options with higher suitability scores; and dynamically modifying, based on user selections and the suitability scores to the updated second dashboard page, the dashboard interface. "
Examiner responds:
Firstly, the Drawings in Raleigh are replete with dashboard images (Figures 1, 56-65, and 67-196) based on analysis of the user's resource account by the recommendation engine, :
PNG
media_image1.png
592
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
409
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
390
727
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The combination of prior art references teach the amended limitations:
additional options for the user selections based on suitability scores calculated, via the recommendation engine, for a set of options associated with the user selections,
(Lane [0295] common enrollment interface 22814 includes a common interface element such as: a common menu; a common menu element; a common display setting; a common display organization; a common permissions setting; and/or a common preferences setting.
Lane [0138] iterative improvement process (e.g., settings for platform access and/or feature capability for the user, including which features should be available directly to the user, ... correlated with successful outcomes, ...and/or success indicators such as financial outcomes, risk management, and the like);
Lane [0285] Example common interface elements include.... a common preferences setting.
Lane [0239] to adjust interface elements for the clients, and/or to change default settings for clients);
Lane [0288] permissions adjustments, settings adjustments, or the like ....the responsible user can offer a number of interface settings, and classify users within their set of users as individual groups, readily applying the desired interface settings.
Lane [0303] a description of enabled user preferences 23308 (e.g., default settings, and/or settings determined by classifying the user based on expressed user preferences 23308, which may extend to settings beyond those explicitly selected by the user—for example a user class value 20006 indicating that the user prefers certain types of menus, menu operation, window sizing or behavior, color schemes, etc.);)
wherein the set of options comprise the additional options, wherein the additional options are options with higher suitability scores;
(Lane [0337] identify engagement trends, timelines, scores
Lane [0338] may include a trained model to provide a score of the events and features of the configuration that may be attributed to the activity of the client.
Lane [0344] The predicted engagement may be a probability value, a score (e.g., a relative value in the range of 1-100), a qualitative rating (e.g., low, high, etc.).
Lane [0349] may include determining statistics, ratings, and/or scores for the activities for the events with respect to a baseline. The method may further include the step of predicting the client engagement from the engagement analytics 10208 and implementing a user interface, the user interface providing a display of the predicted engagement... may include predicting a likelihood, a score, or other indicators indicative of the probability that a client will engage with the platform
Lane [0357] The trained model may generate a score for the plurality of stress test parameters wherein the score is indicative of the relevance of the parameters to the user. In some cases, the highest-scoring parameters may be selected.)
and dynamically modify, based on user selections and the suitability scores to the updated second dashboard page, the dashboard interface,
(Lane [0288] permissions adjustments, settings adjustments, or the like ....the responsible user can offer a number of interface settings, and classify users within their set of users as individual groups, readily applying the desired interface settings.)
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nies (“Use of Analytics Methods for Personalized Guidance”, U.S. Publication Number: 20140143026 A1) proposes automated personalized guidance include the evaluation of interaction content data. At least one automated guidance is assigned to an agent based upon the evaluation. The automated guidance is defined by at least one interaction type and at least one guidance trigger. Interaction content data is monitored to identify instances of the interaction type and the guidance trigger. Upon identification of the interaction type and the guidance trigger, the automated guidance is automatedly provided. The automated guidance is then evaluated based upon the interaction content data.
Gambale (“Adaptive life advisor system”, U.S. Patent: 10963972 B1) proposes providing automated advising services to a customer of a provider institution, including but not limited to a provider institution computing system determining a goal of the customer based on a user input of the customer, generating a set of sub-goals for the goal, determining a current status of the customer relating to the sub-goals and the goal, determining whether the current status of the customer meets any sub-goals and a projected status of the customer indicating whether the customer is projected to meet the goal, and sending a notification to a user device of the customer notifying the customer of a completion state of the goal based on at least one of the sub-goals met by the current status of the customer and whether the customer is projected to meet the goal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights