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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not abstract, but instead are directed to a novel improvement to a specific technology. While a generic processor is present in the claims, the Applicant’s representative is arguing that “…a generic computer would not be able to be altered to perform each and all the steps without modification…and that the claims do not provide generic functionality, but rather provide innovation in the field of data processing.
In response, it cannot be stated that the claims are directed to any technology when there is only a generic claimed processor performing generic mathematical functions of determining data values and calculating settlement values for at least two outright contracts.
After determining that claims fall within at least one of the four statutory classes of invention, the Examiner then determines whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, namely whether the claim applies, relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55. To this end, it must (1) identify whether there are any additional recited elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those elements individually and collectively to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Applicant is directed to In re Grams, 888 F .2d 835, 837 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989) in stating that ("Words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, are essentially mental processes; Applicant is also directed to the 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental processes including observations, evaluations, and judgments).
Applicant’s representative then argues that the claims are not abstract because the claims are integrated into a practical application of the exception, and that because the claims are integrated into an application of data stored in a memory for subsequent use in settlement calculations by a transaction processing system. Applicant’s representative further states that the claims involve both a practical application that is novel and useful.
In response, storing data in a memory is a generic computer function that does not improve the functioning of the computer or the memory. It should be noted that most data are usually stored in a memory that is later retrieved to be processed or to be performed a function therein.
The claimed concept falls into the category of functions of fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance or mitigating risks) and performing mathematical functions.
The additional elements (such as a generic processor) performing mathematical functions for calculating settlement values of remaining combinations of possible values for at least two outright contracts do not improve (1) the processor or (2) another technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (computing device or system) ; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
The claimed processor is seen as a generic computer performing generic functions without an inventive concept as such does not amount to significantly more. These devices are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular environment. The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Furthermore, in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., the Courts held that claims to a method for making websites easier to navigate on a small-screen device were not directed to an abstract idea. 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the claims are not drafted in the format CoreWireless. Rather than providing a technical solution that improves the way the computing device, the applicant is merely using alternate ways of using a processor for performing mathematical functions for calculating settlement values of remaining combinations of possible values for at least two outright contracts. The computer or processor is then applied to the abstract idea. The claims do not provide sufficient details to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. See, e.g. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (explaining that claims that “amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea…using some unspecified, generic computer” is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention” (quoting Mayo, 566, U.S. at 77, 79)); Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Capital One Fin.Corp., 850 F. 3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim language here provides only a result-oriented-solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it”).
Each of the independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a generic computing system or processor) for providing, processing and calculating data values, as such do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s representative then argues that the claims provide an inventive concept vis-à-vis step 2B of the Mayo-Alice test.
In response, the claims merely recite obtaining data values, calculating data values and assigning data values using a generic processor as noted in the applicant’s specification. The claimed computing system or processor is seen as a generic type processor.
Using a known or conventional capturing device to perform mathematical calculations for performing a financial activity is not an inventive concept as was found in Alice at 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (emphasis added). The same principle is applied here.
Similarly, the claimed calls for a processor that compares, calculates, remove data values for settling a transaction. The claimed processor does not add a significant more than the abstract idea. As noted in the applicant’s specification, the generic processing unit can be any known server or computer processor or software or hardware components. There is not a specific or new algorithm noted in the applicant’s specification perform the claimed functions. The listed “processor” noted in the applicant's specification is a generic processor performing generic computer functions such as comparing data, removing data and performing mathematical functions to settle data values regarding outright contracts.
The reliance of a computer or processor to perform its routine tasks even more accurately is not sufficient to transform a claim into patent eligible subject matter as noted in Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2359. As indicated by the court, the "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions and issue simultaneous instructions" was not an inventive concept. The claims or even the applicant's specification does not support or provide or claim any specifically inventive technology or algorithm for performing the claimed functions.
A specific type of data or data values as such are within the realm of abstract data, See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform mathematical calculations for determining data values and calculating settlement values for at least two outright contracts amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
The prior Office action is repeated below.
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 remain 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
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.
Specifically, claims 1 and 5 are directed to a method. Claim 16 is directed to a system. Each of claims 1, 5 and 16 falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
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).
Claim 1 recites :
A computer implemented method comprising:
“iteratively, by a processor, reducing a data size of a set of combinations of possible
values for at least two outright contracts related by a spread instrument by applying values for each of a set of other outright contracts to the set of combinations, removing one or more of the set of combinations from a memory in which they are stored based on a comparison of each of the set of combinations with a value of the spread instrument, and, subsequent to the iterative reductions, identifying one combination remaining in the memory and removing all other values from the memory; and
calculating, by the processor, settlement values for each of the at least two outright contracts using the possible values of the remaining combination stored in the memory.
Claim 2 recites:
The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one combination comprises: determining, by the processor, that the set of combinations includes zero combinations of values of outright contracts, and, based thereon, reverting the set of combinations to a previous version thereof which includes at least one combination of values of outright contracts;
determining, by the processor, that previous version of the set of combinations includes one combination of values of outright contracts; and identifying, by the processor, the determined one combination.
Claim 3 recites: The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying one combination comprises:
determining, by the processor, that the set of combinations includes zero combinations of values of outright contracts, and, based thereon, reverting the set of combinations to a previous version thereof including at least one combination of values of outright contracts;
determining, by the processor, that the previous version of the set of combinations includes at least two combinations of values of outright contracts;
applying, by the processor, a tiebreaker until the previous version of the set of combinations is determined to include one combination of values of outright contracts; and identifying, by the processor, the determined one combination.
Claim 4 recites: The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying one combination comprises:
determining, by the processor, that the set of combinations includes at least two combinations of values of outright contracts; applying, based thereon by the processor, a tiebreaker until the set of combinations is determined to include one combination of values of outright contracts; and identifying, by the processor, the determined one combination.
Claim 5 recites: A computer implemented method comprising:
iteratively, by a processor, reducing a data size of a matrix data structure storing data indicative of a set of combinations of possible values for at least two outright contracts related by a spread instrument by applying values for each of a set of other outright contracts to the set of combinations, removing one or more of the set of combinations from a memory in which they are stored based on a comparison of each of the set of combinations with a value of the spread instrument, adding thereto combinations of the values of the at least two outright contracts and values of another
outright contract and reducing the data size by removing one or more combinations therefrom based on a comparison of each of the combinations stored in the matrix structure to values for at least one tradeable spread instrument related to the at least two and the other outright contracts until all outright contracts of a set of outright contracts have been added, and, subsequent to the iterative reductions, identifying one combination remaining in the memory and removing all other values from the memory; and
calculating, by the processor, settlement values for each of the at least two outright contracts using the possible values of the remaining combination stored in the memory.
Claim 6 recites: The computer implemented method of claim 5, wherein identifying the one combination comprises:
determining, by the processor, that the matrix data structure includes no combinations of values of outright contracts, and, based thereon, reverting the matrix data structure to a previous version thereof including at least one combination of values of outright contracts;
determining, by the processor, that previous version of the matrix data structure includes one combination of values of outright contracts; and identifying, by the processor, the determined one combination.
Claim 7 recites: The computer implemented method of claim 5, wherein identifying one combination comprises:
determining, by the processor, that the matrix data structure includes no combinations of values of outright contracts, and, based thereon, reverting the matrix data structure to a previous version thereof including at least one combination of values of outright contracts;
determining, by the processor, that the previous version of the matrix data structure includes at least two combinations of values of outright contracts;
applying, by the processor, a tiebreaker until the previous version of the matrix data
structure is determined to include one combination of values of outright contracts; and
identifying, by the processor, the determined one combination.
Claim 8 recites: The computer implemented method of claim 7, wherein the memory includes a pre- programmed value for each outright contract, and wherein the tiebreaker comprises: for each combination of values of outright contracts:
for each outright contract in the respective combination of values of outright contracts, calculating, by the processor, an absolute difference between each value and the corresponding pre-programmed value;
multiplying, by the processor, each absolute difference by a weighting factor to generate a weighted difference; and
summing, by the processor, all of the weighted differences to calculate a total weighted difference from pre-programmed values;
comparing, by the processor, the total weighted differences from pre-programmed values for the at least two combinations of values; and
removing, by the processor, from the memory, all the values of each outright contract other than the values in the combination of values of outright contracts having the lowest total weighted difference from pre-programmed values.
Claim 9 recites: The computer implemented method of claim 8, wherein each outright contract value is multiplied by a different weighting factor.
Claim 10 recites: The computer implemented method of claim 8, wherein the pre-programmed value is a volume weighted average value.
Claim 11 recites: The computer implemented method of claim 8, further comprising: assigning, by the processor, the values in the combination of values of outright contracts having the lowest total weighted difference from pre-programmed values remaining in the memory as the final values of the respective outright contracts.
Claim 12 recites: The computer implemented method of claim 5, wherein identifying the one combination comprises:
determining, by the processor, that the matrix data structure includes at least two combinations of values of outright contracts;
applying, by the processor, a tiebreaker until the matrix data structure is determined to include one combination of values of outright contracts; and
identifying, by the processor, the determined one combination.
Claim 13 recites: The computer implemented method of claim 5, wherein the reducing comprises: comparing each combination of values in the matrix data structure to a range of values of a tradeable spread instrument related to the combination; and
removing combinations of values that are outside the range of values.
Claim 14 recites: The computer implemented method of claim 5, wherein the reducing comprises eliminating from the matrix data structure possible combinations with implied spreads that are not valid for a tradable spread for the combination.
Claim 15: The computer implemented method of claim 5, wherein the outright contracts each have a delivery date, and wherein the contracts differ only in delivery date.
Claim 16 recites: A system comprising:
a processor coupled with a memory, the memory storing computer executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
iteratively reduce a data size of a set of combinations of possible values for at least two outright contracts related by a spread instrument by applying values for each of a set of other outright contracts to the set of combinations,
removing one or more of the set of combinations from a memory in which they are stored based on a comparison of each of the set of combinations with a value of the spread instrument, and, subsequent to the iterative reductions, identifying one combination remaining in the memory and removing all other values from the memory; and
calculate settlement values for each of the at least two outright contracts using
the possible values of the remaining combination stored in the memory.
Claim 17 recites: The system of claim 16, wherein the computer executable instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to:
determine that the set of combinations includes no combinations of values of outright contracts, and, based thereon, revert the one or more combinations to a previous version thereof including at least one combination of values of outright contracts;
determine that previous version of the set of combinations includes one combination of values of outright contracts; and identify the determined one combination.
Claim 18 recites: The system of claim 16, wherein the computer executable instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to:
determine that the set of combinations includes no combinations of values of outright contracts, and, based thereon, revert the set of combinations to a previous version thereof including at least one combination of values of outright contracts;
determine that the previous version of the set of combinations includes at least two combinations of values of outright contracts;
apply a tiebreaker until the previous version of the set of combinations is determined to include one combination of values of outright contracts; and
identify the determined one combination.
Claim 19 recites: The system of claim 16, wherein the computer executable instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to:
determine that the set of combinations includes at least two combinations of values of outright contracts;
apply, based thereon, a tiebreaker until the set of combinations is determined to include one combination of values of outright contracts; and identify the determined one combination.
Claim 20 recites: The system of claim 16, wherein the outright contracts each have a delivery date, and wherein the contracts differ only in delivery date.
The claimed concept falls into the category of functions of fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance or mitigating risks). The claims also fall into the category of a mathematical concept.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the above noted bolded limitations understood to be additional limitations.
The claimed “processor” and “memory” of claims 1, 5 and 16 are understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system.
Performing steps by a generic machine, computing device or one or more processors with memories merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Reducing a data size of a matrix and removing combinations of data from a memory are similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors or computing device with a memory for reducing data and removing data from possible data values.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions of calculating settlement values for each of at least two outright contracts using possible values of remaining combinations.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claims does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
The functions of determining, removing, identifying and storing of data have been recognized by the courts as routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)UD, citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, Lis USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Positively reciting a “processor” and a “memory” does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer for receiving data and performing routine and conventional functions. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
Applicant is reminded that a statutory claim would recite an automated machine implemented method or system with specific structures for performing the claimed invention so as to provide an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Each of independent claims 1, 5 and 16 as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because each claim does not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; each claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processors” and “memory” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1, 5 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“iteratively, by a processor, reducing a data size of a set of combinations of possible values for at least two outright contracts related by a spread instrument by applying values for each of a set of other outright contracts to the set of combinations, removing one or more of the set of combinations from a memory in which they are stored based on a comparison of each of the set of combinations with a value of the spread instrument, and, subsequent to the iterative reductions, identifying one combination remaining in the memory and removing all other values from the memory, and calculating, by the processor, settlement values for each of the at least two outright contracts using the possible values of the remaining combination stored in the memory” ” as recited in independent claim 1.
“iteratively, by a processor, reducing a data size of a matrix data structure storing data indicative of a set of combinations of possible values for at least two outright contracts related by a spread instrument by applying values for each of a set of other outright contracts to the set of combinations, removing one or more of the set of combinations from a memory in which they are stored based on a comparison of each of the set of combinations with a value of the spread instrument, adding thereto combinations of the values of the at least two outright contracts and values of another outright contract and reducing the data size by removing one or more combinations therefrom based on a comparison of each of the combinations stored in the matrix structure to values for at least one tradeable spread instrument related to the at least two and the other outright contracts until all outright contracts of a set of outright contracts have been added, and, subsequent to the iterative reductions, identifying one combination remaining in the memory and removing all other values from the memory” as recited in independent claim 5.
“iteratively reduce a data size of a set of combinations of possible values for at least two outright contracts related by a spread instrument by applying values for each of a set of other outright contracts to the set of combinations, removing one or more of the set of combinations from a memory in which they are stored based on a comparison of each of the set of combinations with a value of the spread instrument, and, subsequent to the iterative reductions, identifying one combination remaining in the memory and removing all other values from the memory” as recited in independent claim 16.
Jaberg (US 20150154701 A1) discloses a system and method for creating an execution risk transfer ("ERT") by transferring the risk of fulfilling a spread trade from a user or trader to another entity such as a trading firm or another user account. The described technology delivers or reports electronic market fills, proxy fills representing synthetic price risk transfers, or other instruments to users, which are executed at a desired spread level. The risk associated with the execution of the spread is managed by the technology and reduced at the electronic market(s), internal transfers, or other methods of risk reduction.
Rogerson et al ( US 11386486 B1) disclose a system and method which relate to computing a forward interest rate for a select future time period subsequent to a current date, such as 1 month, 3 month, 6 month or 12 month term, utilizing data observed or otherwise derived from the trading of futures contracts having short term interest rate based underliers, e.g. based on overnight interest rates, and, in one embodiment, are integrated with an electronic transaction processing system, e.g. an electronic trading system, to access data indicative of the trading thereof, and therefore avoid reliance upon subjective/opinion inputs. The system and method generate a model of expected interest rates for every day of the time period for which a forward interest rate is desired based on a set of interest rate futures contract whose expiration periods cover the period. The system and method enable automated determination of a stable, replicable and risk-free short term forward reference rate which further eliminates the inherent issues with LIBOR discussed above.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights