DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 6/9/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 8, amendments to claims 1, 7, 9-10 and 14, and addition of claim 21 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full. The claim amendments overcome the pre-existing art rejections. After further search, additional prior art is being cited to teach the added limitations, and new art rejections are applied. Additionally, antecedent basis rejections under 35 USC 112 are made relating to the lack of basis for the added limitations concerning candidate recipients.
After further consideration, the 101 rejection is maintained, as the GUI limitations are not seen as an improvement in user interfaces. Rather, it is seen as an embodiment of displaying information in a particular way. Said way of information display could be embodied in a non-computerized embodiment. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly the Core Wireless and Trading Technologies examples distinguishing user interface limitations as improving or not improving computer functionality. Core Wireless is directed to the functioning of the computer itself, namely an application summary of unlaunched applications being selectable by a user, and is seen as an improvement in computer functionality. Trading Technologies is directed to arranging information that assists users in processing information more quickly, and is not seen as an improvement in computer functionality. Examiner sees the present claims as being more closely related to Trading Technologies’ claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lack of an antecedent basis. Claims 7 and 14 recited “the candidate recipient”. Examiner interprets this candidate recipient to correspond to the claimed recipient in “identify, based on the intended recipient information, a recipient”.
If this is the first time a candidate recipient is mentioned in the claims, it must be acknowledged properly.
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 1-7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: receive recipient identification; identify a list of candidate recipients and themes of past transactions for candidates; adjust candidate list order based on themes and received transfer memo information; wherein the order of the list of candidate recipients is adjusted as each character, word or phrase is received, include a status indicator for each candidate based on a similarity score, said indicator updates as the transfer memo information is received, receive a transfer request; obtain historical memo information; identify recipient themes; initiate a security action if the memo themes are not similar enough to recipient themes; determine a degree of similarity between memo and recipient themes, and deny the transfer is the similarity is not a threshold. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically fundamental economic behavior, including fundamental economic principles (mitigating risk) and commercial or legal interactions (business relations). They are also directed to mental processes, including concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation and/or judgement). The similarity comparisons are mental processes, and are directed to mitigating risk in financial transactions, which is considered part of business relations.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: processors, memory, instructions to apply the risk mitigation, natural language processing to apply the similarity comparisons of transaction activity, and displaying and entering data on a GUI, individually and in combination, merely use a computer (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites recipient information; claim 3 recites identifying user profiles associated with said information within a similarity level. Claim 4 recites transaction themes include past candidate recipient transactions, and past memo information are memo lines in past transactions. Claim 4 includes the use of natural language processing (NLP) for theme identification. This is seen as using computer technology in its ordinary capacity to perform the abstract ideas.
Claim 5 recites the candidate list ordering by similarity degrees between memo themes and candidate’s past transactions; weighing a ranking of recipients based on the degrees. Claim 6 recites further analysis of a second degree of similarity between recipient ID and candidate recipient user profile.
Claims 7 and 14 are addressed in Step 2A Prong 1.
Claim 15 recites further ordinary use of the GUI. Claims 9 and 16 recite further use of NLP in its ordinary capacity to determine a degree of similarity between candidate recipients’ past memo themes and present transfer memo information theme. The combination of computer hardware and software and NLP to determine similarity degrees between transfer data does not provide an improvement in computing technology.
Claim 10 recites security action options including request denial, a GUI prompt, and a partial transfer. Claim 11 recites NLP of word conversion to word embeddings as vectors; and vector comparison to known meanings of vectors to determine memo meanings. Claim 12 recites NLP by applying a clustering algorithm to the known meaning vectors and identifying clusters. This is a central concept in NPL and is seen as using NLP in its ordinary capacity to perform the mental process associated with the risk mitigation.
Claims 13 and 20 recite privacy filter input for recipient of a private theme designated by recipient and removing the theme prior to theme comparison.
Claim 17 recites the similarity degree between two thresholds initiating a security action. Claim 18 recites said action is one of: splitting the transfer amount between a delayed time, or transmit an authorization request to a user device associated with the transfer and withhold transfer until affirmation is received. Claim 19 recites initiating transfer if similarity exceeds both thresholds. Claim 21 recites further information displayed on a GUI. This addition of a user device in combination with the NLP, computer, software and GUI does not render the claims eligible.
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 1-7, 9-10, 14-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costilla (US 11,854,013) in view of Trotter (US 2010/0100817).
Claim 1. Costilla teaches system comprising:
one or more processors; and (column 2, lines 25-46 showing processor…
a memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the system to: (…memory and software for embodiment of teachings)
receive recipient identification information from a user device; (column 17, lines 21-46 showing reception of recipient identification information from their device)
identify a list of one or more candidate recipients based on the recipient identification information; (column 18, lines 9-37 showing determination of candidate recipient based on user data; see also recipient information used in column 17, lines 21-46)
output the list of the one or more candidate recipients for display via a graphical user interface (GUI) of the user device; (column 19, lines 17-36 showing output of candidate recipient)
for each candidate recipient of the one or more candidate recipients, identify one or more themes associated with past transactions associated with the candidate recipient; and (column 9, lines 34-51 showing themes regarding payments and memos for potential intended users; see also lines 52-64)
responsive to dynamically receiving transfer memo information from the user device, dynamically display an order of the list of the one or more candidate recipients for display via the GUI of the user device based on comparing the one or more themes and the transfer memo information. (column 19, lines 17-36 showing output of candidate recipient based on recipient information, historical memo themes and current memo)
Costilla teaches identifying an intended recipient of payments based on historical trends involving memos in past payments, and outputting the curated data for user selection (column 19, lines 17-36). It teaches receiving transfer memo information, displaying candidate recipients on a GUI based on comparison of themes and transfer memo information.
Costilla does not teach the following, but Trotter does: responsive to dynamically receiving information from the user device, dynamically adjust an order of the list of the one or more candidate recipients for display via the GUI of the user device based on comparing data; and wherein the transfer memo information is dynamically received as each character, word, or phrase is entered via the GU, and the order of the list of the one or more candidate recipients is dynamically adjusted as each character, word, or phrase is received; and modify the GUI to include a status indicator for each candidate recipient of the one or more candidate recipients based on a similarity score, wherein the status indicator dynamically updates as the transfer memo information is received (Trotter paras. 57 and 58 showing results ordered by similarity being adjusted as a user types; paras. 70 and 71 showing green, yellow and grey as status colors for similarity indicators in results)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of recipient recommendation in Costilla, with the known technique of ranking best choices in Trotter, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for easier user selection for error mitigation. (See para. 70 of Trotter showing highlighting of results.)
Claim 2. Said modified Costilla teaches the system of claim 1. Costilla teaches wherein the recipient identification information comprises one of: a phone number; an address; an email address; or a name. (column 17, lines 21-46 showing name and email as recipient identification)
Claim 3. Said modified Costilla teaches the system of claim 1. Costilla teaches wherein identifying the list of the one or more candidate recipients comprises: identifying one or more user profiles having associated identification information within a predetermined threshold level of similarity to the recipient identification information. (column 18, lines 38-63 showing threshold determination of similarity for recipient green light)
Claim 4. Said modified Costilla teaches the system of claim 1. Costilla teaches wherein identifying one or more themes associated with past transactions associated with the candidate recipient comprises:
identifying a plurality of past transactions in which the candidate recipient was a recipient; (column 8, lines 1-30 showing historical data such as transaction to a particular person)
obtaining past memo information, wherein past memo information comprises information entered into a memo line associated with each transaction of the plurality of past transactions; and (column 8, lines 1-30 showing historical data such as transaction memo)
applying natural language processing (NLP) to the past memo information to identify the one or more themes associated with past transactions. (column 7, lines 34-46 showing NLP for identifying “contextual information” for the purposes of said theme structuring)
Claim 5. Said modified Costilla teaches the system of claim 1. Costilla teaches wherein dynamically ordering the list of the one or more candidate recipients for display via the GUI of the user device based on the one or more themes and the transfer memo information comprises:
determining a degree of similarity between one or more transfer memo themes derived from the transfer memo information and the one or more themes associated with past transactions for each candidate recipient of the one or more candidate recipients; (column 18, lines 38-63 showing threshold determination of similarity for recipient green light)
Costilla does not, but Trotter teaches:
weighting a ranking of each candidate recipient of the one or more candidate recipients based on the degree of similarity between the one or more transfer memo themes and the one or more themes associated with past transactions associated with the candidate recipient; and dynamically order the list of the one or more candidate recipients based on the ranking of each candidate recipient. (Trotter paras. 57 and 58 showing results ordered by similarity being adjusted as a user types; paras. 70 and 71 showing green, yellow and grey as status colors for similarity indicators in results)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of recipient recommendation in Costilla, with the known technique of ranking best choices in Trotter, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for easier user selection for error mitigation. (See para. 70 of Trotter showing highlighting of results.)
Claim 6. Said modified Costilla teaches the system of claim 5. Costilla teaches wherein each ranking of each candidate recipient of the one or more candidate recipients is further weighted based on a second degree of similarity between the recipient identification information and identification information associated with a user profile associated with the candidate recipient. (column 5, line 53 through column 6 line 27 showing user profile’s variables such as financial accounts and images analyzed for similarity to determine a ranked candidate; column 7 lines 47-67 showing online profiles ranked as well)
Claims 7 and 14. Costilla teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors; and (column 2, lines 25-46 showing processor…
a memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the system to: (…memory and software for embodiment of teachings)
receive intended recipient information and transfer memo information, wherein the transfer memo information is dynamically received as each character, word, or phrase is entered via a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device; (column 17, lines 21-46 showing reception of recipient identification information including person name and transaction description from their device)
identify, based on the intended recipient information, a recipient; (column 18, lines 9-37 showing determination of candidate recipient based on user data; see also recipient information used in column 17, lines 21-46)
identify, by applying natural language processing (NLP) to the transfer memo information, one or more transfer memo themes; (column 7, lines 34-46 showing NLP for identifying “contextual information” for the purposes of said theme structuring) (column 9, lines 34-51 showing themes regarding payments and memos/transaction descriptions for potential intended users, see also lines 52-64)
receive a transfer request, wherein the transfer request indicates a request to initiate a transfer to the recipient; (column 8, lines 31-38 showing request for funds transfer to recipient)
obtain historical memo information associated with one or more past transfers to the recipient; (column 8, lines 1-30 showing historical memo images of past transfers being obtained)
identify, by applying NLP to the historical memo information, one or more recipient themes; (column 7, lines 34-46 showing NLP for identifying “contextual information” for the purposes of said theme structuring)
responsive to determining that the one or more transfer memo themes do not exceed a predetermined similarity threshold when compared to the one or more recipient themes, initiate a security action; (column 19, line 5 through column 20, line 5 showing similarity below a threshold and initiating user input prompt for transfer disapproval and data deletion
Costilla does not teach, but Trotter teaches:
and modify the GUI to include a status indicator for each of one or more candidate recipients based on a degree of similarity, wherein the status indicator dynamically updates between a first color indicator, a second color indicator, and a third color indicator as the degree of similarity is recalculated. (Trotter paras. 57 and 58 showing results ordered by similarity being adjusted as a user types; paras. 70 and 71 showing green, yellow and grey as status colors for similarity indicators in results)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of recipient recommendation in Costilla, with the known technique of ranking best choices in Trotter, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for easier user selection for error mitigation. (See para. 70 of Trotter showing highlighting of results.)
Claim 14 additionally:
determine, based on a comparison of the one or more transfer memo themes to the one or more recipient themes, a degree of similarity; (column 7, lines 34-46 showing NLP for identifying “contextual information” for the purposes of said theme structuring; column 19, lines 5-15 showing similarity threshold determination)
responsive to determining that the degree of similarity does not exceed a first predetermined similarity threshold, automatically deny the transfer request; (column 19, lines 5-15 showing skipping transfer approval step if similarity is below threshold)
and the degree of similarity is dynamically recalculated as each character, word, or phrase is received; and wherein the status indicator is assigned based on a position of the candidate recipient on a list ordered by similarity score. (Trotter paras. 57 and 58 showing results ordered by similarity being adjusted as a user types; paras. 70 and 71 showing green, yellow and grey as status colors for similarity indicators in results)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of recipient recommendation in Costilla, with the known technique of ranking best choices in Trotter, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for easier user selection for error mitigation. (See para. 70 of Trotter showing highlighting of results.)
Claims 9 and 16. Said modified Costilla teaches the system of claim 7. Costilla teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the system to:
responsive to determining that the one or more transfer memo themes do not exceed the predetermined similarity threshold when compared to the one or more recipient themes: (column 17, lines 21-46 showing scenario when present contextual data is insufficient for determination)
identify one or more candidate recipients based on the intended recipient information, wherein each of the one or more candidate recipients has an associated set of past memo information associated with past transfers made to the candidate recipient; (column 17, lines 46-63 showing pulling historical transaction data for multiple users to determine an intended recipient
for each of the one or more candidate recipients, identify, by applying NLP to the associated set of past memo information, one or more recipient memo themes associated with the past transfers made to the candidate recipient; (column 7, lines 34-46 showing NLP for identifying “contextual information” for the purposes of said theme structuring)
for each of the one or more candidate recipients, determine an associated degree of similarity between the one or more recipient memo themes and the one or more transfer memo themes; and (column 18, lines 43-51 showing threshold similarity determination)
transmit data to the user device that is configured to cause the GUI of the user device to display a list of the one or more candidate recipients (column 19, lines 50-57 showing user device displaying candidate for transfer)
Costilla does not teach displaying an associated respective degree of similarity. Trotter does: (Trotter paras. 57 and 58 showing results ordered by similarity being adjusted as a user types; paras. 70 and 71 showing green, yellow and grey as status colors for similarity indicators in results)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of recipient recommendation in Costilla, with the known technique of ranking best choices in Trotter, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for easier user selection for error mitigation. (See para. 70 of Trotter showing highlighting of results.)
Claim 10. Said modified Costilla teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the security action comprises one or more of: automatically denying the request; causing the GUI of the user device to prompt the user to re-enter the intended recipient information; and initiating a transfer of only a portion of a total transfer amount. (column 8, line 63 through column 9, line 8 teaching denying and user prompting for corrections)
Claim 15. Said modified Costilla teaches the system of claim 14. Costilla teaches wherein the intended recipient information and the transfer memo information are received via a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device. (column 5, lines 31-52 showing user device inputting transaction data)
Claim 17. Said modified Costilla teaches the system of claim 14. Costilla teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the system to: responsive to determining that the degree of similarity exceeds the first predetermined similarity threshold and does not exceed a second predetermined similarity threshold, initiate a security action. (column 13, lines 22-32 showing correlation threshold; column 18, line 38 through column 19, line 16 showing an autonomous threshold not being met and transfer paused)
Claim 18. Said modified Costilla teaches the system of claim 17. Costilla teaches wherein the security action comprises one of: initiating a transfer of a first amount and waiting a predetermined amount of time before initiating a transfer of a second amount, wherein the first amount and second amount are portions of a total amount associated with the transfer request; and transmit an authorization request to a user device associated with the transfer request and withhold the initiation of the initiation of the transfer to the recipient until an affirmative response to the authorization request is received from the user device. (column 19, lines 16-36 showing manual approval due to low threshold of affirmation)
Claim 19. Said modified Costilla teaches the system of claim 17. Costilla teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the system to: responsive to determining that the degree of similarity exceeds the first predetermined similarity threshold and the second predetermined similarity threshold, initiate the transfer to the recipient. (column 13, lines 22-32 showing correlation threshold; column 18, line 38 through column 19, line 16 showing an autonomous threshold being met and transfer initiated)
Claim 21. Said modified Costilla teaches the system of claim 14. Costilla does not, but Trotter teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the system to modify the GUI to display the degree of similarity for the recipient. (Trotter paras. 57 and 58 showing results ordered by similarity being adjusted as a user types; paras. 70 and 71 showing green, yellow and grey as status colors for similarity indicators in results)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of recipient recommendation in Costilla, with the known technique of ranking best choices in Trotter, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for easier user selection for error mitigation. (See para. 70 of Trotter showing highlighting of results.)
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costilla (US 11,854,013) in view of Trotter, and in further view of Hamilton (US 2023/0023630).
Claim 11. Said modified Costilla teaches the system of claim 7. It does not, but Hamilton teaches wherein identifying one or more transfer memo themes by applying NLP to the transfer memo information comprises: (paragraphs 42 and 44 showing NLP for transaction descriptions)
converting one or more words included in the transfer memo information into one or more word embeddings that are represented as one or more vectors; and (paras. 44 and 45 showing work embeddings from descriptions of transactions for vector creation)
comparing the one or more vectors to other vectors associated with known meanings to determine one or more meanings of the transfer memo information. (para. 46 showing vocabulary used to determine work embedding vectors including themes and categories of descriptions, see also para. 48)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of recipient recommendation in Costilla, with the known technique of clustering algorithms in Hamilton, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved NLP by asserting NLP techniques to categorize unstructured data. See Hamilton, paras 42 and 44.
Claim 12. Costilla as modified by Trott and Hamilton teaches the system of claim 11. Costilla does not, but Hamilton teaches identifying one or more transfer memo themes by applying NLP to the transfer memo information further comprises:
applying a clustering algorithm to the other vectors associated with known meanings; and (para. 49 showing clustering algorithm for vector classification)
identifying one or more clusters that the one or more vectors correspond to when plotted. (para. 49 showing classification of vectors into known categories)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of recipient recommendation in Costilla, with the known technique of clustering algorithms in Hamilton, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved NLP by asserting NLP techniques to categorize unstructured data. See Hamilton, paras 42 and 44.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costilla (US 11,854,013) in view of Trotter, and in further view of Gilliam (US 2008/0147501).
Claims 13 and 20. Said modified Costilla teaches the system of claim 7. It teaches matching recipient themes to transfer memo themes. It does not, but Gilliam teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the system to:
receive a privacy filter input associated with the recipient, wherein the privacy filter input represents a private theme designated by the recipient; and (para. 30 showing selection of user demographics in content matching by user preference)
remove the private theme from the one or more recipient themes prior to comparing the one or more recipient themes to the one or more outside themes. (para. 30 showing removal of user demographics in content matching by user preference)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of recipient recommendation in Costilla, with the known technique of user-controlled data usage settings in Gilliam, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in improved user preferences. See Gilliam para. 30.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is made final. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights