DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Comments
Claims 1-20 presented for examination. Applicant filed an amendment on 05/26/2026 with arguments/remarks with respect to claim rejections. After careful consideration of the applicant’s remarks/arguments, Examiner maintains the ground of rejections of claims as set forth in detail below. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
In the instant case, Claims 1-20 are directed to send a correlation message to the comprising the payment data and the non-payment referent and send an authorization response with the payment data. The claims 1-20 are analyzed to see if claims are statutory category of invention, recites judicial exception and the claims are further analyzed to see if the claims are integrated into practical application if the judicial exception is recited and the claims provides an inventive as per 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility as set forth below:
Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 106.03.
Claims 1 and 8 are directed to a process i.e., a series of method steps or acts, , for generating a non-payment referent, which is a statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES)
Claim 20 is directed to a system comprising processor and memory for generating a non-payment referent. The claimed system is therefore directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (a combination of device) (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. There are no nature- based product limitations in this claim, and thus the markedly different characteristics analysis is not performed. However, the claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 20 are similar and they are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recite plurality of steps “receive a message from an issuer, generate a non-payment referent, send a correlation message informing the issuer that the non-payment referent is associated with the payment data, receive a first authorization request message, send a second authorization request message to the issuer.”
The limitations of receive a message, generate a non-payment referent, send a correlation message, receive a first authorization request send a second authorization request message, covers performance of the limitation in the mind similar to Mortgage Grader, Inc., v. First Choice Loan Servcs with computer implemented method and system for anonymous shopping loan packages but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor and memory ,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and thus fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. For example, but for the “a processor and memory” language, “sending message and authorization in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the recited steps. The recitation of a processing apparatus in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the above limitations of recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (YES).
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract idea as described in Prong 1, the claim recites the additional elements of performing “receive a first authorization response message and send a second authorization response message.”
An evaluation of whether the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation (a) is well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, this additional element represents mere sending and receiving authorization which does not amount to an inventive concept (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358) and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Processing apparatus is also an additional element which is configured to carry out limitations in steps described in Prong 1. But the processing device is recited so generically without any details that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the computer does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive concept? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, there are two additional elements.
The first is the processor, which is configured to perform all the limitations recited. As explained previously, the processing device is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The second additional element is limitation of “receive a first authorization response message and send a second authorization response message”, which as explained previously is extra-solution activity, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. Under the 2019 PEG, however, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. 2019 PEG Section III(B), 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the recitation of a processing device being configured to receive a first authorization response message and send a second authorization response message is mere receiving and sending authorization based on provided data that is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation (a) does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Further, Applicant specifically described invention receive a first authorization response message and send a second authorization response message in Fig. 4: paragraph [0045-0046]). The claimed additional elements of receive a first authorization response message and send a second authorization response message is implemented using examples of existing computer networking equipment, hardware, and software that are used to construct the claimed invention without apparent modification (see Fig. 5; Specification: paragraph [0052). Therefore, the additional element only recite generic components and steps are well-understood routine and conventional. Claims as recited do not provide any particular asserted inventive technology for performing those functions and therefore the claims are held patent ineligible (see Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims is not patent eligible. (NO).
Dependent Claims:
Examiner further reviewed the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 that could be added to the independent claims to make patent eligible. The dependent claims as recited pertains to additional steps which further describes “inclusion of payment data in future communication, non-referent payment data, Primary Account Information (PAI) and Payment data which appear to be a mental process using a generic computer component that been found to be an abstract idea as described above. These dependent claims do not provide additional elements significantly more than the purported abstract idea that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims as recited would not make the independent claim significantly more by incorporating them into the independent claims. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible (NO) because they do not recite a judicial exception as per 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and October 2019 Update of Subject Matter Eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Ravinathan et al., U.S. Pub No. 2023/0092733 (reference A in attached PTO-893).
As per claim 1, Ravinathan et al. teach a computer-implemented method for generating a non-payment referent associated with payment data related to a payment account (see abstract), the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a payment network, a message from an issuer, wherein the message comprises payment data relating to a payment account, and wherein the payment data is used as a payment instrument (see Fig. 10, Payment Network (334), Issuing Bank (330): Fig. 1, Issuer (330), Access Control Server/Payment Network (20): paragraph [0061]; where access Control Server/Payment Network as an intermediary between acquirer and issuer receive request related to payment data profile identifier 306 (see Fig. 3) from the issuer/bank which is used to make payment);
generating, by the payment network, a non-payment referent associated with the payment data based on the payment network receiving the payment data for a first time, wherein the non-payment referent is not a payment instrument (see Fig. 3, Obfuscated PAN (308), Obfuscated DPAN (310): Access ID (306): paragraph [0055-0058]; where single access non-payment ID is generated by access control server which is not payment instrument); and
sending, by the payment network, a correlation message to the issuer, wherein the correlation message comprises the payment data and the non-payment referent, and wherein the correlation message is configured to inform the issuer that the non-payment referent is associated with the payment data (see Fig. 4, Issuer (330), Identity Provider (Payment Network) (302), Access ID (304): paragraph [0060-0062]; where payment network correlated identity access ID related to user Personal ID and Obfuscated PAN sent to the issuer) .
As per claim 2, Ravinathan et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Ravinathan et al. further teach further the method, wherein
the payment data is not included in future communication between the payment network and the issuer based on the non-payment referent being generated (see Fig. 4, Obfuscated PAN (308) where Access ID is correlated to Personal ID and DPN that do not include payment data).
As per claim 3, Ravinathan et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Ravinathan et al. further teach further the method, wherein, wherein
the non-payment referent is permanently associated with the payment data (see Fig. 4, Payment Account Reference (PAR) (309): paragraph [0062]; where Access ID being corelated to Payment Account Reference is permanently associated with the payment account).
As per claim 4, Ravinathan et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Ravinathan et al. further teach further the method, wherein, wherein
the payment data comprises Primary Account Information (PAI) (see paragraph [0062; where payment account is represented by Payment Account Number (PAN), and wherein the non-payment referent comprises a PAI reference associated with the PAI (see Fig. 3., Access ID (306) -> Payment Account Reference (PAR) (309): paragraph [0062]; where non-payment reference of Access ID is corelated to PAR).
As per claim 5, Ravinathan et al. teach claim 4 as described above. Ravinathan et al. further teach further the method, wherein
the PAI comprises a Primary Account Number (PAN) (see paragraph [0062]).
As per claim 6, Ravinathan et al. teach claim 5 as described above. Ravinathan et al. further teach further the method, wherein
the PAI further comprises at least one of a card verification value (CVV2) or an expiration date relating to a payment card of the payment account (see paragraph [0129]).
As per claim 7, Ravinathan et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Ravinathan et al. further teach further the method, wherein
the payment data comprises a payment token associated with a Primary Account Number (PAN) (see Fig. 1, User Device (42), Tokenization Service (22), Terminal (30): paragraph [pp52 and oo62; where payment account or PAN maintains one-to many relationship with Payment Token), and
wherein the non-payment referent comprises a payment token reference associated with the payment token (see Fig. 3, Access ID (306) -> DPN (314): paragraph [0058]; where nonpayment references of DPAN is associated with payment token).
As per claim 8, Ravinathan et al. teach a computer-implemented method for authorizing or declining a transaction based on a non-payment referent associated with payment data related to a payment account (see Fig. 10) , the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a payment network, a first authorization request message from an acquirer, wherein the first authorization request message comprises payment data relating to a payment account, and wherein the payment data is used as a payment instrument; sending, by the payment network, a second authorization request message to an issuer, wherein the second authorization request message comprises a non-payment referent associated with the payment data, and wherein the non-payment referent is not a payment instrument; receiving, by the payment network, a first authorization response message from the issuer, wherein the first authorization response message authorizes or declines the transaction, and wherein the first authorization response message comprises the non-payment referent; and sending, by the payment network, a second authorization response message to the acquirer, wherein the second authorization response message authorizes or declines the transaction, and wherein the second authorization response message comprises the payment data (see Fig. 10, Acquiring Bank (332) <- Payment Network (334) -> Issuing Bank ( 330): paragraph [0109-0118]; where Payment Network intermediates between Acquirer and Issuer in receiving first authorization request from Acquirer, transmitting the first authorization request to issuer and receiving second authorization from the issuer and the transmitting received second authorization to the Acquirer, where User books the hotel using a payment card via central management server 14 sending authorization request to payment network 334 and all approval is based loyalty ID as non-payment referral associated with payment as described in the claim 1 above).
As per claim 9, Ravinathan et al. teach claim 8 as described above. Ravinathan et al. further teach further the method, wherein
the second authorization request message does not include the payment data, and wherein the first authorization response message does not include the payment data (see paragraph [0111-0114]; where user enrolled DPAN allows non-payment referent Loyalty ID linked to payment card used to send authorization request and receive authorization response).
As per claims 10-14, Ravinathan et al. teach claim 8 as described above. Claims 10-14 are rejected under same rational as the claims 3-7 as described above.
As per claim 15, Ravinathan et al. teach a payment network system for generating a non-payment referent associated with payment data related to a payment account and authorizing or declining a transaction based on the non-payment referent (see abstract), the payment network system comprising:
a server computer comprising a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing thereon machine executable instructions that when executed cause the processor (see Fig. 10, Payment Network (334): paragraph [0109]) to:
receive a message from an issuer, wherein the message comprises payment data relating to a payment account, and wherein the payment data is a payment instrument see Fig. 10, Payment Network (334), Issuing Bank (330): Fig. 1, Issuer (330), Access Control Server/Payment Network (20): paragraph [0061]; where access Control Server/Payment Network receive request related to payment data profile identifier 306 (see Fig. 3) which is used to make payment);
generate a non-payment referent associated with the payment data based on the processor receiving the payment data for a first time, wherein the non-payment referent is not a payment instrument (see Fig. 3, Obfuscated PAN (308), Obfuscated DPAN (310): Access ID (306): paragraph [0055-0058]; where single access non-payment ID is generated which is not payment instrument);
send a correlation message to the issuer, wherein the correlation message comprises the payment data and the non-payment referent, and wherein the correlation message is configured to inform the issuer that the non-payment referent is associated with the payment data (see Fig. 4, Issuer (330), Identity Provider (Payment Network) (302), Access ID (304): paragraph [0060-0061]; where payment network correlated identity access ID related to user Personal ID and Obfuscated PAN).;
receive a first authorization request message from an acquirer, wherein the first authorization request message comprises the payment data; send a second authorization request message to the issuer, wherein the second authorization request message comprises the non-payment referent; receive a first authorization response message from the issuer, wherein the first authorization response message authorizes or declines the transaction, and wherein the first authorization response message comprises the non-payment referent; and send a second authorization response message to the acquirer, wherein the second authorization response message authorizes or declines the transaction, and wherein the second authorization response message comprises the payment data see Fig. 10, Acquiring Bank (332) <- Payment Network (334) -> Issuing Bank ( 330): paragraph [0109-0118]; where Payment Network intermediates between Acquirer and Issuer in receiving first authorization request from Acquirer, transmitting the first authorization request to issuer and receiving second authorization from the issuer and the transmitting received second authorization to the Acquirer, where User books the hotel using a payment card via central management server 14 sending authorization request to payment network 334 and all approval is based loyalty ID as non-payment referral associated with payment as described above).
As per claims 16-20, Ravinathan et al. teach claim 15 as described above. Claims 16-20 are rejected under same rational as the claims 2, 9, 3, 4 and 7 respectively as described above.
Response to Arguments
Examiner maintains the ground of rejections of claims after careful consideration of the applicant’s remarks/arguments as presented above. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive.
The instant application’s specification in paragraph [0044] describes applicant claimed inventive term “non-payment referent” as:
[0044] According to at least one aspect, the payment data can include a payment token associated with a PAN, and the non-payment referent can include a payment token reference associated with the payment token. As stated above, the non-payment referent cannot be a payment instrument, and, thus, the payment token reference cannot hold any transactional value. Stated differently, the payment token reference cannot be decrypted and used as a payment instrument as it holds no transactional value.
Using a token in place primary account number or any identification such as social security number as a (non-payment) referent is not novel as illustrated by PAN affiliated PAN tokens in cited primary reference of Ravinathan et al. (see paragraph [0062])
Examiner respectively disagrees with applicant argument that the Ravindran failed to teach “receiving, by a payment network, a message from an issuer, wherein the message comprises payment data relating to a payment account, and wherein the payment data is used as a payment instrument” when the Ravinathan specifically teach issuing bank/issuer requests message to access Control Server/Payment Network payment to provide data profile identifier 306 (see Fig. 3) and generate access profile identifier to enable a payment approval as shown in steps 1326 and 1328 in Fig. 13 (see Fig. 10, Payment Network (334), Issuing Bank (330): Fig. 1, Issuer (330), Access Control Server/Payment Network (20): paragraph [0061]). With respect to applicant limitation of “generating, by the payment network, a non-payment referent associated with the payment data based on the payment network receiving the payment data for a first time, wherein the non-payment referent is not a payment instrument”, the Ravindran specifically teach generating by access control server/payment network, obfuscated identifier such as corresponding token of hash of the identifier (PAN) or plurality of tokens related to PAN when issuer communicated with access control server/payment network to cause generation of the access profile identifier associated with obfuscated version of the PAN (see Fig. 3, Obfuscated PAN (308), Obfuscated DPAN (310): Access ID (306): paragraph [0055-0062]).
Ravindran further teach non-payment referral mapping/correlation and their association as follows in cited paragraph [0056] in response to request by the issuer on paragraph [0061] as follows:
[0056] Each PAN 312 has an obfuscated form 308. The obfuscated PAN 308 may be a hash of the PAN 312, for example. Further, each PAN 312 may be mapped to a plurality of payment tokens 314, referred to in FIG. 3 as DPANs. Each of these payment tokens 314 may also have an obfuscated form 310, which may be a hash of the DPAN 314.
Examiner respectively disagrees applicant argument that the Ravindran failed to teach the limitation of the claims 8 and 15. Ravindran specifically teach Payment Network intermediates between Acquirer and Issuer in receiving first authorization request from Acquirer, transmitting the first authorization request to issuer and receiving second authorization from the issuer and the transmitting received second authorization to the Acquirer, where User books the hotel using a payment card via central management server 14 sending authorization request to payment network 334 and all approval or disapproval is based on loyalty ID as payment referral or registered non-payment referral associated with payment as described in the claims 1-7 (see Fig. 10, paragraph [0109-0118]). User requiring payment approval from issuing bank/issuer needs enrollment and PAN needs to be hashed or token needs to be generated for access control system to send payment request to payment network via gateway to issuer/issuing bank and non-payment referent, hashed or tokenized identifier is sent to issuing bank/issuer by the payment network (see Fig. 6-9, and 10). Payment Network sends authorization response from issuing bank/issuer acceptance or rejection of authorization to acquiring bank/acquirer where message is not a non-payment referent, i.e., it comprises payment data (see Fig. 10)).
The claims as recited is simply a process in which computer are invoked merely as a tool for implementing abstract ideas of known concept of correlating payment data with non-payment referent (see cited reference of Ravindran et al.) rather than specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities such as the self-reliant table for computer database in the Enfish. The recitation of computer component with mere instruction to implement an abstract idea would not impart patent eligibility and claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer would not provide a sufficient inventive concept (see Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012), Lending Tree v. Zillow, July 25, 2016, page 10-11). Further, automating conventional activities using generic technology does not amount to an inventive concept (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358) as these simply describes "automation of a mathematical formula/relationship through use of generic-computer computer function (see OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 788, F.3d at 1363).
It is to be noted that the court rejected abstract idea of "filtering content in the Internet" in BASCOM, which is similar to claims in the instant application. It is only the significantly more steps that enabled of "installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end” as described in step two analysis of Mayo of the court decision made the claims in BASCOM patent eligible. An inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot be simply an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosures. The following are pertinent to current invention, though not relied upon:
Aabye et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2024/0223538) teach technique for securely communicating sensitive data for disparate data messages.
Aissi et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2014/0013452) teach data protection hub.
Bordokan (U.S. Pub No. 2023/0367905) teaches obfuscated storage and transmission of personal identifiable information.
Haldenby et al. (U. S. Pub No. 2016/0012428) teach providing secured data transmission between networked computing systems.
Kamal (U.S. Pub No. 2018/0219680) teaches securely storing sensitive data on smart cards..
Laxminarayanan et al. (U,S. Pub No. 2015/0046338) teach multi-network tokenization.
Powell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,276,058) teach data protection with translation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1374. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully submitted,
/BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 August 12, 2026
