DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application has a claim of priority to a provisional application, Application No. 63/352,805, filed June 16, 2022. Priority is provisionally granted in view of the fact that the current Application is not identical (rather, much longer) that the provisional application.
Claims 1 - 49 are pending and examined as set forth below.
A preliminary Amendment was filed December 13, 2024 to correct multiple dependent claim issues.
NOTE: interviews are welcome at any stage of prosecution. Please use the AIR form, the link for which can be found at the end of this action, to schedule the interview.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
2. 35 USC § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
A. Rejection Based on Abstract Idea
Claims 1 - 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Furthermore, this rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
B. Statutory Categories
Claim 1 is a method Claim and therefore falls into the category of a process. Claim 16 is a method Claim and therefore falls into the category of a process. Claim 31 is a method Claim and therefore falls into the category of a process. Claim 39 is a method Claim and therefore falls into the category of a process.
C. The Claim Recites an Abstract Idea
Claim 1 is illustrative of the rejection of all claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation:
“5receiving, over a network, an identifier of a user device and information indicative of a price of a requested item for purchase from a network-accessible merchant by the user device;determining, based on the user device identifier, a credit worthiness indicator associated with the user device; transmitting an authorization signal to the network-accessible merchant for the requested item without concurrently requiring payment for the purchase when the creditworthiness indicator satisfies predetermined conditions;”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, constitutes a method of organizing human activity, specifically, fundamental economic principles or practices. That is, analyzing this limitation in the context of the claim as a whole, it recites a process that falls within the grouping of abstract ideas comprising certain methods of organizing human activity. Fundamental economic principles or practices are examples of such methods. In this case, the fundamental economic principle or practice is the common practice of receiving from a merchant an identifier of a user/customer device and a price and requesting authorization for the purchase, after conducting an appropriate credit worthiness check such as checking the account status of the customer. This is a highly common commercial practice. It literally occurs billions of times each day, if not each hour.
Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of terms - such as “network” or “signal,” - does not remove the claim from the category of common or abstract methods of organizing human activity.
Thus, Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, namely, an abstract idea.
D. The Claim Does Not Integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
Moreover, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The possible “additional limitations” recited in the Claim that must be considered are as follows:
monitoring a total outstanding purchase balance associated with the user device;
transmitting a request signal to the user device for settlement of at least a part of the total outstanding purchase balance associated with the user device identifier when the total outstanding purchase balance exceeds a predetermined threshold amount;
in response to receiving a cancelation request from the user device, performing a determination of a cancelation abuse indicator associated with the user device identifier based on a least one of a time duration since acceptance of a grant of the purchase request for the item, number of prior cancelations time period over which the number of prior cancelations has occurred, time interval since last cancelation, the credit worthiness indicator, frequency of prior cancelations, and whether the user device identifier is included in a maintained list of abuser device identifiers;
based on the determined cancelation abuse indicator, performing a determination of whether to grant or deny such cancelation request.
These steps simply and merely comprise broad ideas or concepts. They are recited as such, without specificity. No additional computer components are mentioned in these limitations, and those quoted above are recited at a high level of generality. No other particular computer functions or computer component interactions within this system are recited.
Making determinations, monitoring, and transmitting are among the most common and generic computer functions. This is what computers do. There is no specificity nor special functionality assigned to these steps in the claim. Many of these functions can be performed in the mind.
Analyzing these additional limitations individually, and taking the claim as a whole and as an ordered combination, it is clear that these additional limitations do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They do not recite a technological solution to a technological problem. They do not improve the functioning of the computer system itself. In fact, there are very few computerized system components or functions recited. Thus, these limitations fail to recite with specificity any technical function or any improvement to the functioning of the computer system itself – if any. Therefore, the claim lacks the specificity required to transform the claim from one claiming only an outcome or a result – processing payments - to one claiming a specific way of achieving that outcome or result.
Accordingly, the recitation of these generic components amounts to no more than mere instructions “to apply” the abstract idea exception using generic computer components. That is, the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s) have been evaluated to determine whether those additional elements, considered individually and in combination, integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application. They do not.
E. Step 2B: The Claim Does Not Recite Significantly More than the Abstract Idea
This step involves the search for an “inventive concept.” However, it is clear from the case law and the MPEP that the considerations at issue are the same as those considered above with respect to the analysis of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a) – (c) and (e). In other words, these analyses sharply overlap.
Therefore, based on the above analysis, the identified additional limitations do not provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea. The claim is therefore ineligible under §101. The other independent claims are, likewise, ineligible for the same reasons as they are virtually identical to Claim 10.
F. The Dependent Claims Do Not Recite Meaningful Additional Limitations
Similarly, Claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as Claim 1 by virtue of its dependency on Claim 1. Like Claim 1, this claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 2 merely recites the abstract concept of denying the cancellation request.
Claim 3 merely recites the abstract concept of obtaining additional information.
Claim 4 merely recites the abstract concept of basing a determination on additional information
Claim 5 merely recites the abstract concept of user feedback.
Claim 6 merely recites the abstract concept of an outstanding balance.
Claim 7 merely recites the abstract concept of adjusting a balance.
Claim 8 merely recites the abstract concept of adjusting a balance without confirming deletion.
Claim 9 merely recites the abstract concept of cancellation of the transaction without a log in or registration.
Claim 10 merely recites the abstract concept of cancellation without user identification.
Claim 11 merely recites the abstract concept of cancellation without merchant submission of an identifier.
Claim 12 merely recites the abstract concept of cancellation based on a user request.
Claim 13 merely recites the abstract concept of granting the cancellation.
Claim 14 merely recites the abstract concept of the issuance of trust tokens.
Claim 15 merely recites the abstract concept of using a ration to determine the abuse indicator.
Claims 16 – 49 are virtually identical to various of the aforementioned claims and are ineligible for the same reasons as set forth above.
None of these claims provide any additional meaningful limitations, non-generic computer components, or specific assignments of functionality among those components. Likewise, if at all, these claims recite only generic, computer-related limitations which are recited at such a high level of generality as to be devoid of any meaningful limitations. These limitations do not recite improvements in the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Therefore, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, constitute only a mere instruction to “apply” the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1 - 49 constitute ineligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 – 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0068310 to Ene (hereinafter “Ene”) in view of French Patent Publication No. FR 2956233 to Bernard et al., (hereinafter “Bernard”).
Ene is Applicant’s own publication and should be very familiar to Applicant.
It teaches the basic features of Claim 1.
Therefore, Ene teaches:
1. (Original) A computer-implemented method for a payment system comprising the steps of: (See at least Abstract)
receiving, over a network, an identifier of a user device and information indicative of a price of a requested item for purchase from a network-accessible merchant by the user device; (See at least Abstract and 0023.)
determining, based on the user device identifier, a credit worthiness indicator associated with the user device; (See at least [0037].)
transmitting an authorization signal to the network-accessible merchant for the requested item without concurrently requiring payment for the purchase when the creditworthiness indicator satisfies predetermined conditions; (See at least [0011] and [0037]..)
monitoring a total outstanding purchase balance associated with the user device; transmitting a request signal to the user device for settlement of at least a part of the total outstanding purchase balance associated with the user device identifier when the total outstanding purchase balance exceeds a predetermined threshold amount; (See at least [0037] – [0037].)
in response to receiving a cancelation request from the user device, performing a determination of a cancelation abuse indicator associated with the user device identifier based on a least one of a time duration since acceptance of a grant of the purchase request for the item, number of prior cancelations time period over which the number of prior cancelations has occurred, time interval since last cancelation, the credit worthiness indicator, frequency of prior cancelations, and whether the user device identifier is included in a maintained list of abuser device identifiers; and (See at least [0007] – [0009]. With regard to cancellation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in 0007, settling “at least part of the total payable,” would indicate that some portion is being cancelled. In addition, the teachings regarding a “blacklist” in 0014 and 0039, and the exclusion of certain payers, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that certain transactions should be cancelled at the outset – at the initiation of the transaction – since those persons have abused cancellation in the past by failing or refusing to pay.)
based on the determined cancelation abuse indicator, performing a determination of whether to grant or deny such cancelation request. (See at least [0038].)
Therefore, Ene appears to teach all of the basic and essential limitations of Claim 1; however, out of an abundance of caution, and subject to further broadest reasonable interpretation, Bernard is cited for its teachings relating to cancellation of an instant payment transaction such as those at issue in this case.
Bernard Abstract reads as follows:
“The method involves sending a digital check to a seller (VEN) by activation of active display by a buyer (CLI), where the digital check is received by the seller from a payment operator (OP). Rules are applied to forbid, reduce or limit the payment by utilizing parameters. Information is exploited by the payment operator and related to cancellation operations for limiting error usage of the cancellation.” (Emphasis Added)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of filing the claimed invention to have modified the instant payment system of Ene, which teaches that a transaction should be authorized under certain time-dependent conditions, to add the cancellation teachings of Bernard. The motivation to do so comes from Ene. As quoted above, Ene teaches that certain transactions should not be authorized under certain conditions that are dependent on time. It would greatly enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the system of Ene, as well as enhance the avoidance of fraud and abuse, to implement use the cancellation teachings of Bernard.
With regard to Claims 2 - 15, Ene in view of Bernard teaches:
2. (Original) The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the step of performing a determination of a cancelation abuse indicator associated with the user device identifier such that it will be more likely that the cancelation request will be denied as the number of prior cancelations requests increases for such user device identifier. (See at least Ene: 0060 wherein a total of debits indicates that too many transactions have been executed over time. See also Bernard: wherein the following teachings are found: “Tracking cancellations and their nature helps build a reputation for users and, by limiting abuse, sellers and buyers.” “To limit abuse, the present invention relies on behavioral rules that prohibit too many cancellations per time period.” “The trader maintains a history of canceled and un-canceled trades that he operates on a statistical basis to maintain the reputation of buyers and sellers by detecting abuse and fraud. He uses these results to limit the cancellation possibilities for some customers and to encourage salespeople to improve their quality of service.”)
3. (Currently Amended) The computer implemented method of claim 1, prior to the step of performing the determination of granting or denying the cancelation request, performing the step of determining whether additional information is required from the user device based on the determined cancelation abuse indicator. (See at least [0060] – [0061]
4. The computer implemented method of claim 3, further comprising transmitting one or more inquiries to the user device based on a result of performing the determination of whether additional information is required from the user device prior to granting or denying such cancelation request, wherein the step of performing the determination of whether to grant or deny such cancelation request is based on at least based on additional information received from the user device. (See at least [0060] – 0064].)
5. The computer implemented method of claim 3, wherein the one or more inquiries to the user device is for user feedback concerning the item. (See at least [0017] and [0057].)
6. The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein when granting such cancelation request, adjusting the total outstanding purchase balance associated with the user device identifier accordingly for such canceled item and transmitting a notification to the merchant of such cancelation. (See at least Ene: 0064 and Bernard: “This cancellation constitutes a "satisfied or refunded" guarantee. This guarantee contributes to the security of the payment since the buyer can cancel his operation; suspicion of fraud: by choosing this reason, the buyer indicates that he is not at the origin of the purchase in question. When this reason is invoked, the user is prompted to change his password. The number of reasons that can be invoked by the buyer can be enriched by the payment operator. The cancellation results in the refund of the buyer, except when the reputation system causes the payment operator to limit the right of cancellation of some users. The cancellation may or may not result in the cancellation of the credit on the seller's account. For example, when the reason for cancellation invoked by the buyer is a technical problem, the seller's credit is canceled.”)
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein when such cancelation request is granted, adjusting the total outstanding purchase balance associated with the user device identifier accordingly in substantial absence of receipt of payment by the payment system, wherein said item is digital content. (See at least sections quoted above with respect to Claim 6.)
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the total outstanding purchase balance associated with the user device identifier is adjusted in substantial absence of a signal from the user device confirming deletion of the item. (See at least Ene: 007 and 0064, wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that “monitor’ of a balance would require a running total and a real time adjustment of the total when a transaction is cancelled, in accordance with the cancellation teachings of Bernard.)
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the step of performing the determination of whether to grant or deny such cancelation request is performed in substantial absence of registration or login to the payment system or to the network-accessible merchant computer by a user associated with the user device. (See at least Ene: 0007 – 0009, wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that many transactions may be executed, paid for, and even cancelled before registration is required.)
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the step of performing the determination of whether to grant or deny such cancelation request is performed in substantial absence of identifying a user associated with the user device. (See at least Ene: 0007 – 0009, wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that many transactions may be executed, paid for, and even cancelled before registration is required, which registration would require identification of the user. This is also evident from the teachings of Ene which clearly teaches the avoidance of requiring PII, such as found at 0003.)
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the step of performing the determination of whether to grant or deny such cancelation request is performed in substantial absence of whether the network-accessible merchant transmitted the item to the user device, wherein the item is digital content or subscription to a digital service. (See at least Bernard: “Three reasons may for example be proposed: technical problem: by choosing this reason, the buyer indicates that he did not have access to the desired good or service. In this case it is refunded, and the credit of the seller is canceled; unsatisfactory service in choosing this reason, the buyer indicates that the good or service described prior to the purchase did not correspond to what was delivered after the payment. This cancellation constitutes a "satisfied or refunded" guarantee.” Thus, Bernard teaches that a transaction may be cancelled whether or not the item was accessed by the purchaser.)
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising the step of inviting the user to at least one of (a) answer certain questions related or unrelated to the digital content to be canceled; (b) share his/her payment system account or certain purchased digital content with friends and/or family and providing the payment system with their contact information; (c) take a third party survey; and/or (d) take some other or further action. (See at least the quotation from Bernard with respect to Claim 11. The “reasons” is considered to constitute the recited term “feedback.”)
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 12 wherein to the extent that the user agrees to and successfully follows through with one or more of the invited items, granting to the user at least one of (i) the user's request for cancelation; and/or (ii) a number of trust tokens. (See at least the quotation above with respect to Claim 11 wherein it is clear that a refund is granted, meaning that the request for cancellation was granted.)
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 13 wherein the trust tokens may be exchanged for free or discounted digital content and/or subscriptions, and/or enabling a future cancelation one or more purchases of digital content/or subscriptions, and/or other benefits. (See at least Bernard: “ It integrates price offers (2.1) to (2.n) in its page. These price offers are 35 non-displayable information. Figure 3 represents a displayed page as seen by the potential buyer: the price offers of Figure 2 are transformed into active displays (3.1) to (3.n). Figure 4 shows the decision flow diagram of the content of the active display according to whether the terminal is registered or not.” Such price offers are considered to constitute the recited term “trust token”)
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the step of performing a determination of a cancelation abuse indicator associated with the user device identifier is based on a ratio of the number of requested cancelations associated with a user device identifier in at least one of a predetermined duration of time and a session of time that the user device is interacting with a website or group of websites, relative to the number of purchases made during such session using the payment system. (See at least Bernard: “The trader maintains a history of canceled and un-canceled trades that he operates on a statistical basis to maintain the reputation of buyers and sellers by detecting abuse and fraud. He uses these results to limit the cancellation possibilities for some customers and to encourage salespeople to improve their quality of service.” Wherein it is clear that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such “statistical” analysis would include ratios.)
With regard to Claim 16, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 1 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim. The price offers taught in Bernard are considered to constitute the recited term “user satisfaction indicator.”)
With regard to Claim 17, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 2 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 18, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 3 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 19, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 4 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 20, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 5 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 21, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 12 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 22, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 13 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 23, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 14 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 24, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 6 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 25, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 7 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 26, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 8 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 27, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 9 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 28, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 10 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 29, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 11 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 30, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 15 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 31, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 1 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim. See also reasons for obvious with respect to Claim 16.
With regard to Claim 32, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 2 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 33, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 15 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim
With regard to Claim 34, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 15 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim, wherein, , wherein it is clear that all kinds of transactions are contemplated include digital publishing.
With regard to Claim 35, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 32 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 36, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 14 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim, wherein it would be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art that refunds and price offers are a clear teaching of user satisfaction.
With regard to Claim 37, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 36 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 38, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 15 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim, wherein the statistical analysis would clearly include ranking.
With regard to Claim 39, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 1 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim, wherein it is clear from Ene that merchants receive signals based on approval or denial of the transaction.
With regard to Claim 40, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 32 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 41, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 33 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 42, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 32 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 43, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 32 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 44, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 32 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 45, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 32 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 46, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 38 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 47, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 15 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 48, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 15 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 49, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 15 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
Conclusion
5. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action:
A. Search and Prior Art
The search conducted in connection with this Office Action, as well as any previous Actions, encompassed the inventive concepts as defined in the Applicant’s specification. That is, the search(es) included concepts and features which are defined by the pending claims but also pertinent to significant although unclaimed subject matter. Accordingly, such search(es) were directed to the defined invention as well as the general state of the art, including references which are in the same field of endeavor as the present application as well as related fields (e.g. micropayment systems). Indeed, there is a plethora of prior art in these fields.
Therefore, in addition to prior art references cited and applied in connection with this and any previous Office Actions, the following prior art is also made of record but not relied upon in the current rejection:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0265683 to da Silva et al. This reference relates to the concept of subscription cancellation services.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0144099 to Deb et al. This reference relates to the concept of billing for small amounts.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0324796 to Karamchedu et al. This reference relates to the concept of device based payment systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0057383 to Groarke et al. This reference relates to the concept of chargeback prevention.
B. Responding to this Office Action
In view of the foregoing explanation of the scope of searches conducted in connection with the examination of this application, in preparing any response to this Action, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the entire disclosures of the above-cited, unapplied references, as well as any previously cited references. It is likely that one or more such references disclose or suggest features which Applicant may seek to claim. Moreover, for the same reasons, Applicant is encouraged to review the entire disclosures of the references applied in the foregoing rejections and not just the sections mentioned.
C. Interviews and Compact Prosecution
The Office strongly encourages interviews as an important aspect of compact prosecution. Statistics and studies have shown that prosecution can be greatly advanced by way of interviews. Indeed, in many instances, during the course of one or more interviews, the Examiner and Applicant may reach an agreement on eligible and allowable subject matter that is supported by the specification.
Interviews are especially welcomed by this examiner at any stage of the prosecution process. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool (e.g. TEAMS).
To facilitate the scheduling of an interview, the Examiner requests the use of the AIR form as follows:
USPTO Automated Interview Request http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Other forms of interview requests filed in this application may result in a delay in scheduling the interview because of the time required to appear on the Examiner's docket. Thus, the use of the AIR form is strongly encouraged.
D. Communicating with the Office
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BUNKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0017. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30AM - 5:30PM, Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached at 571-270-1836. Information regarding the status of an application, whether published or unpublished, may be obtained from the “Patent Center” system. For more information about the Patent Center system, https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/William (Bill) Bunker/
U.S. Patent Examiner
AU 3691
william.bunker@uspto.gov
(571) 272-0017
March 15, 2026
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691