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 .
Priority
This application is a national phase application of International Patent Application No. PCT/CN2023/081218, filed on March 14, 2023, which claims the priority to and benefits of the Chinese Patent Application, No. 202210359812.X, which was filed on April 6, 2022. All the aforementioned patent applications are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an Amendment Application received on 04/07/2026. In the application, claims 1, 5, and 9-16 have been amended. Claims 2, and 8 have been cancelled. Claims 17-19 have been added as new claims.
For this Office Action, claims 1, 3-7, and 9-19 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s remarks regarding amended claims have been reviewed, however, amendments do not overcome the raised 35 USC § 101 Abstract Idea rejection. Under established USPTO MPEP 2106 guidelines and Supreme Court precedent, these amended claim limitations continue to recite an abstract idea. The steps describe fundamental "mental processes" (e.g., assessing associations, verifying identity) and "commercial interactions" (e.g., enforcing access/authorization rules) performed using generic computer functions. Abstract Idea Analysis Applying the Alice v. CLS Bank two-step framework highlights why these limitations are typically rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Step 2A (Judicial Exception): The core of the method is gathering information, comparing credentials against a database, making a determination of relationship/authorization, and transmitting data. Courts consistently group these actions under mental processes MPEP 2106.04(a) or commercial interactions, which can practically be performed by a person using a pen and paper or standard logic.
Step 2B (Inventive Concept): The claim uses conventional hardware terms like "at least one processor," "server memory," and "communication network" to execute these data management tasks. Supreme Court rules establish that reciting mere computer implementation of otherwise unpatentable abstract ideas does not provide an inventive concept.
In order to potentially overcome an Eligibility Rejection to render this claim patent-eligible, Applicant would need to integrate it into a practical application that solves a technological problem. This would typically requires adding meaningful limitations to the claim, such as: Reciting a specific, unconventional technological architecture that improves the functioning of the computer itself. Describing a novel, specific method of encryption, transformation, or hardware-based tokenization (rather than generic token information verification) that fundamentally changes data transmission.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 9-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract Idea without significantly more analyzed according to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The independent claims 1, 9, and 10 fall into one of the four statutory categories of “a method,” “a server”, and “a storage medium containing a computer executable instruction” claims. Nevertheless, the claims still are considered as Abstract Idea (i.e., Mental Process) for the following prongs and reasons.
Step 2A: Prong 1: The limitations of the independent claims 1, 9, and 10 recite the abstract idea of:
“acquiring a data acquisition request sent from a third-party application through a communication network; wherein the data acquisition request comprises Token information of a first user and identification information of an access object (Mental process: a human administrator receives data access request from a third-party wherein the data access request comprises token information containing a first user and identification information of an access object);
acquiring an IP address of the data acquisition request, and determining whether the IP address is in an address whitelist (Mental process: the human administration receives an IP address and analyze whether the IP address is in an address whitelist);
in response to determining the IP address is in the address whitelist, acquiring Token information from a server memory, and verifying the Token information of the first user by comparing the Token information of the first user with the Token information acquired from the server memory (Mental process: based on the positive determination of the IP address, the human administrator obtains and verify Token information related to the user),
in response to that the Token information of the first user passes a verification, according to the identification information of the access object, determining whether the access object has an association relationship with the first user (Mental process: the human administrator verifies the token information and based on successful verification, the human administrator determines whether the access object has an association relationship with the first user); and
based on a determining result that the access object has the association relationship with the first user, sending business data of the access object to the third-party application (Mental process: once the human administrator verifies/determines the association relationship between the access object and the first user, the human administrator sends business data to the third-party)”.
The claim generically recites the concept of Mental process where a human administrator observes and determine a request from a third-party regarding data access for a user. The request contains a token comprising user information and identification information of an access object. Based on verification of the token information, the human administrator sends business related data of the access object to the third-party.
The above limitations are steps which clearly fall into the Mental Process - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) bucket which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind and / or with pen and paper.
As mentioned above, the steps of claim can be performed by a human administrator observes and determine a request from a third-party regarding data access for a user. The request contains a token comprising user information and identification information of an access object. Based on verification of the token information, the human administrator sends business related data of the access object to the third-party.
Step 2A: Prong 2: The judicial exception (i.e., a method, a server, a storage medium) are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional element to perform beyond routine steps. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.5(a) II).
In this particular case, the additional elements of the claims are:
“a communication network, a server comprising a memory, a processing apparatus, and a computer program stored in the memory”, and “a storage medium”.
Recitation of these additional elements do not improve the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic terms performing generic computer functions (Instant spec. [0018] & [0109] discloses that generic processor and memory is used to execute the steps of the invention) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the 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. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims do not reflect improvement in the technology.
The recitation of additional items in the claim fails to recite a practical application that goes beyond the abstract concept itself. To be patentable, the claims must be more than just the abstract idea of using machine learning for visual analysis. Instead, they need to be anchored to concrete improvements, specific hardware, novel data structures, unique data processing, or measurable gains in computational performance. Therefore, the underlying steps of business activity is viewed as an abstract idea, similar to a mental process.
Further, mere automated instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the above identified additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer.
To support this factual conclusion, the examiner takes Official Notice that one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found processors and/or software well-known and routine in technology that involves computers (PgPub instant spec. [0018] & [0109]) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the 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. Thus, the examiner asserts that the above noted elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not constitute as “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-7, and 11-19 recite “a communication network, a server comprising a memory, a processing apparatus, and a computer program stored in the memory”, and “a storage medium” claims and hence falls into one of the statutory categories and therefore passes step 1 analysis. However, under step 2, 2A & 2B analysis, the claim fails to recite any limitations that create a difference in the 101 analyses as indicated for claims 1, 9, and 10 because dependent claims merely recite steps which fall under a mental process where human users can perform the steps of these dependent claims and thus dependent claims are ineligible as well.
Overall analysis of the claims 1-7, and 9-16 demonstrates that limitations are directed to a mental process performable by a human being in their head using a pen and paper in a methodical and orderly manner. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunjic et al., (US20200382510A1) in view of Kuperman et al., (US20180278624A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dunjic discloses:
A data management method performed by at least one processor, the data management method, comprising:
acquiring [i.e., receiving by custodian system from third-party system] a data acquisition request sent from a third-party (i.e., a third-party system send request to custodian system) application through a communication network ([0021] FIG. 1 illustrate components of an exemplary computing environment 100, in accordance with some exemplary embodiments. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 1, environment 100 may include one or more computing devices, such as client device 102 operated by user 101. Environment 100 may also include one or more computing systems, such as, but not limited to, a third-party system 110, a custodian system 130, a centralized authority (CA) system 160, and one or more peer systems 190, including peer system 190. In some instances, each of client device 102, third-party system 110, custodian system 130, CA system 160, and peer systems 190 (including peer system 192), may be interconnected across one or more wired or wireless communications networks, such as communications network 120);
wherein the data acquisition request comprises Token information of a first user and identification information of an access object ([0015] In some instances, and in response to the received request, the corresponding custodian system may establish a direct communications channel with the client device, and may transmit a notification to the client device that, when presented within a digital interface, identifies the access requested by the third-party system; [0144] Referring to FIG. 4, custodian system 130 may receive data requesting one or more elements of confidential data maintained within a local data repository or within an accessible could-based data repository (e.g., in step 402). In some instances, the received data may be generated by executed third-party application engine 112, and the received data may include one or more identifiers of the requested data (e.g., the requested account balance of the credit card account issued to user 101));
verifying the Token information of the first user, in response to that the Token information passes a verification, according to the identification information of the access object, determining whether the access object has an association relationship with the first user ([0145] In some instances, custodian system 130 may perform operations that validate the received OAuth token against a locally maintained copy of the OAuth token generated during any of the exemplary token-based authentication and consent protocols described herein (e.g., in step 404); [0146] Alternatively, if custodian system 130 were to establish a consistency between the received OAuth token and the locally maintained OAuth token (e.g., step 404; YES), custodian system 130 may perform additional operations that determine whether executed third-party application engine 112 should be trusted to manage the requested elements of confidential data in accordance with the user-specified consent (e.g., based on the received OAuth token) and/or terms and conditions imposed by custodian system 130); and
based on a determining result that the access object has the association relationship with the first user, sending business data of the access object to the third-party application through the communication network ([0148] Alternatively, if custodian system 130 were to determine that the recorded elements of permissioning data fail to specify any restrictions or limitations, or that none of the restrictions or limitations are applicable to the received request, the requested elements of confidential data, or executed third-party application engine 112 (e.g., step 412; NO), custodian system 130 may perform any of the exemplary processes described herein to access and extract the requested elements of confidential data from one or more locally accessible or cloud-based data repositories (e.g., in step 414); [0149] Custodian system 130 may perform any of the exemplary processes described herein to transmit the encrypted elements of confidential data (and in some instances, the applied digital signature and a public key certificate of custodian system 130) across network 120 to third-party system 110, e.g., via a secure, programmatic interface of executed third-party application engine 112 (e.g., in step 418)).
Dunjic does not disclose:
acquiring an IP address of the data acquisition request, and determining whether the IP address is in an address whitelist; in response to determining the IP address is in the address whitelist, acquiring Token information from a server memory and comparing the Token information of the first user with the Token information acquired from the server memory.
However, Kuperman discloses:
acquiring an IP address of the data acquisition request, and determining whether the IP address is in an address whitelist ([0044] One example embodiment of the proxy 205 includes an authenticator 210, token verifier 217, whitelist 218, and blacklist 208. As described above, the proxy 205 receives API requests from clients 101, 105. When the proxy 205 receives an API request (e.g., over HTTP) from a client, 101, 105, the authenticator 210 inspects the received API request. For example, the authenticator 210 checks a header of the received API request for any token and checks for an IP address associated with the client from which the API request was received. For example, the authenticator 210 may determine the IP address associated with the client/API request by examining an HTTP request/response path for the API request. In other words, the authenticator 210 may examine the API request for a source IP address of the API request and/or destination IP address for any response to the API request (e.g., a destination for a transmitted challenge) to utilize as an IP address associated with the client/received API request. If the IP address does not exist within the whitelist 218, but a token is identified in the header, the authenticator 210 may call the token verifier 217 to verify the token. If the token verifier 217 verifies the token, the authenticator 210 passes the API request to the host 145. The token verifier 217 may whitelist the IP address associated with a verified token by adding it to the whitelist 218, thus identifying that a token associated with the IP address was verified to allow future API requests to proceed through to the host 145. In turn, in some embodiments, the authenticator 210 may perform a simple initial check to determine whether the IP address associated with an API request exists within the whitelist 218. If the IP exists within the whitelist 218, the authenticator 210 may pass the request through to the host 145. In some example embodiments, the authenticator 210 only passes the API request to the host 145 when the IP address is whitelisted (e.g., a token was previously verified for the IP address) and the API request also includes a token (e.g., the client presents the token with each API request));
in response to determining the IP address is in the address whitelist, acquiring Token information from a server memory and comparing the Token information of the first user with the Token information acquired from the server memory ([0045] In some example embodiments, the authenticator 210 may call the token verifier 217 to verify a token every time a token is presented in association with an API request. In some embodiments, the whitelist 218 includes a token store 219. Accordingly, when the token verifier 217 verifies a token, the token verifier may store the token in the token store 219 in association with the IP address associated with the API request within the whitelist 218. Thus, the token verifier 217 need not fully verify the token on every request when a token-IP pair exists in a whitelist 218 including a token store 219. Rather, the authenticator 210 passes the token-IP pair associated with an API request to the token verifier 217, which checks for a matching, existing IP-Token pair within the whitelist 218 including the token store 219).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of dynamically manage consent, permissioning, and trust between computing systems that maintain confidential data and unrelated third-party applications of Dunjic and include a proxy system which is able to receive IP address and Token of the user and compare it, as disclosed by Kuperman.
The motivation to include the proxy system which compare the received IP address and Token is to authorize client access to an application programming interface (API) of a host device (Kuperman: Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, it is a server claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 10, it is a non-transitory storage medium claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dunjic and Kuperman discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein in response to determining that the access object has the association relationship with the first user, sending business data of the access object to the third-party application, comprises:
in response to determining that the access object has the association relationship with the first user, acquiring a business association region of the access object and a data acquisition region of the third-party application, and determining whether the business association region of the access object is consistent with the data acquisition region of the third-party application; and based on a determining result that the business association region of the access object is consistent with the data acquisition region of the third-party application, sending the business data of the access object to the third-party application (Dunjic: [0052] & [0101]).
Regarding claim 12, it is a server claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 3 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dunjic and Kuperman discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the according to the identification information of the access object, determining whether the access object has an association relationship with the first user, comprises:
according to the identification information of the access object, determining whether a target object exists in the access object that has an authorization binding relationship with the third-party application; and in response to determining that the access object has the association relationship with the first user, sending business data of the access object to the third-party application, comprises: in response to that the target object that has the authorization binding relationship with the third-party application exists in the access object, sending the business data of the target object to the third-party application (Dunjic: [0069-0070] & [0145-0146]).
Regarding claim 13, it is a server claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 4 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dunjic and Kuperman discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein before the according to the identification information of the access object, determining whether the access object has an association relationship with the first user, further comprises:
determining whether the identification information of the access object is a null value; based on a determining result that the identification information of the access object is the null value, sending business data of all objects that have authorization binding relationships with the third-party application in objects having the association relationships with the first user to the third-party application; and the according to the identification information of the access object, determining whether the access object has an association relationship with the first user, comprises: based on a determining result that the identification information of the access object is not the null value, according to the identification information of the access object, determining whether the access object has the association relationship with the first user (Dunjic: [0069-0070] & [0145-0146]).
Regarding claim 14, it is a server claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 5 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dunjic and Kuperman discloses:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
acquiring an authorization request sent by the first user; wherein the authorization request comprises the Token information of the first user and identification information of the third-party application to be authorized; verifying the Token information, as to verify whether the Token information is valid; in response to that the Token information is invalid, displaying an authorization login interface to the first user, as to guide the first user to update the Token information; in response to that the Token information is valid, displaying an authorization information interface to the first user; in response to acquiring an authorization instruction sent by the first user through the authorization information interface, acquiring the number of objects having the association relationships with the first user; and in response to determining that one object having the association relationship with the first user, authorization-binding the object having the association relationship with the first user and the Token information of the first user to the third-party application to be authorized (Dunjic: [0122-0123]).
Regarding claim 15, it is a server claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 6 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Dunjic and Kuperman discloses:
The method according to claim 6, wherein after the acquiring the number of objects having the association relationships with the first user, further comprises:
in response to that a plurality of the objects having the association relationships with the first user, displaying an object operation interface to the first user; and in response to acquiring binding information of at least one candidate object by the object operation interface, authorization-binding the at least one candidate object and the Token information of the first user to the third-party application (Dunjic: [0015]).
Regarding claim 16, it is a server claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 7 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Dunjic and Kuperman discloses:
The server according to claim 9, wherein when the processing apparatus executes the computer program, the processing apparatus further implements at least one of the following:
acquiring a sending region of the data acquisition request, and determining whether the sending region is a designated region; based on a determining result that the sending region is not the designated region, not responding to the data acquisition request; acquiring a belonging region of the access object, and determining whether the belonging region of the access object is the designated region; based on a determining result that the belonging region of the access object is not the designated region, not responding to the data acquisition request; acquiring an IP address of the data acquisition request, and determining whether the IP address is located in an address whitelist; and based on a result that the IP address is not located in the address whitelist, not responding to the data acquisition request (Dunjic: [0052] & [0101]).
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunjic et al., (US20200382510A1) in view of Kuperman et al., (US20180278624A1) and further in view of Ip et al., (US20220271938A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Dunjic and Kuperman fails to disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first user is a seller user, the access object is a store, and the according to the identification information of the access object, determining whether the access object has an association relationship with the first user comprises:
determining the store has an ownership relationship with the seller user according to identification information of the store; or the first user is a buyer user, the access object is an order, and the according to the identification information of the access object, determining whether the access object has an association relationship with the first user comprises: determining the order has an ownership relationship with the buyer user according to identification information of the order.
However, Ip discloses:
wherein the first user is a seller user, the access object is a store, and the according to the identification information of the access object, determining whether the access object has an association relationship with the first user comprises:
determining the store has an ownership relationship with the seller user according to identification information of the store ([0022] While the disclosure throughout contemplates that a ‘merchant’ and a ‘customer’ may be more than individuals, for simplicity the description herein may generally refer to merchants and customers as such. All references to merchants and customers throughout this disclosure should also be understood to be references to groups of individuals, companies, corporations, computing entities, and the like, and may represent for-profit or not-for-profit exchange of products. Further, while the disclosure throughout refers to ‘merchants’ and ‘customers’, and describes their roles as such, the e-commerce platform 100 should be understood to more generally support users in an e-commerce environment, and all references to merchants and customers throughout this disclosure should also be understood to be references to users, such as where a user is a merchant-user (e.g., a seller, retailer, wholesaler, or provider of products), a customer-user (e.g., a buyer, purchase agent, or user of products), a prospective user (e.g., a user browsing and not yet committed to a purchase, a user evaluating the e-commerce platform 100 for potential use in marketing and selling products, and the like), a service provider user (e.g., a shipping provider 112, a financial provider, and the like), a company or corporate user (e.g., a company representative for purchase, sales, or use of products; an enterprise user; a customer relations or customer management agent, and the like), an information technology user, a computing entity user (e.g., a computing bot for purchase, sales, or use of products), and the like; [0038] The e-commerce platform 100 may provide a financial facility 120 for secure financial transactions with customers, such as through a secure card server environment. The e-commerce platform 100 may store credit card information, such as in payment card industry data (PCI) environments (e.g., a card server), to reconcile financials, bill merchants, perform automated clearing house (ACH) transfers between an e-commerce platform 100 financial institution account and a merchant's bank account (e.g., when using capital), and the like … The financial facility 120 may also provide merchants with financial support, such as through the lending of capital (e.g., lending funds, cash advances, and the like) and provision of insurance. In addition, the e-commerce platform 100 may provide for a set of marketing and partner services and control the relationship between the e-commerce platform 100 and partners. They also may connect and onboard new merchants with the e-commerce platform 100); or
the first user is a buyer user, the access object is an order, and the according to the identification information of the access object, determining whether the access object has an association relationship with the first user comprises: determining the order has an ownership relationship with the buyer user according to identification information of the order.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dunjic in view of Kuperman and include an e-commerce system which discloses various relationship between the consumer and e-commerce system, as disclosed by Ip.
The motivation to combine the teachings into the e-commerce system is to provide a centralized system for providing merchants with online resources and facilities for managing their business.
Regarding claim 18, it is a server claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 17 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 19, it is a non-transitory storage medium claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 7 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, William Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights