DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to application no. 19/008,532, filed 2 January 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 14, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 7 and 14, “in past” should read “in the past”. Claims 19 and 20 purport to depend from the “system of claim 15”, but claim 15 is directed to a computer storage medium. Appropriate correction is required.
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. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a method (process), system (machine) or computer storage medium (manufacture), and the specification is clear, e.g. ¶ 47, that such a “storage medium” does not include transitory embodiments. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving data, noting certain information in the data, making a comparison to determine whether an address is in an allowed list, and if so, displaying a number (“risk score”), receiving further data, and either producing output or terminating a transaction.
First, much of this recites determining whether to proceed with a transaction based on risk, which is both a fundamental business practice and a commercial interaction. Second, the steps could, in the absence of computers, be performed mentally and using paper records.
A lender or insurance agent could receive a proposed transaction, e.g. by written application or by being told of it verbally. The proposal could include an address which the lender or agent could note mentally, and could compare it to allowed lists from memory or by consulting paper records; e.g. a lender who only writes loans in North Carolina could note the “NC” on an address to determine the address is within the domain of her business. The lender or agent could communicate any number at all, verbally or on paper, and refer to it as a risk score; the customer could then decide whether or not to proceed and inform the lender or agent, after which the lender or agent could confirm verbally that the score had been acknowledged and, if the customer or lender/agent wished not to proceed, simply do nothing further, which would have the effect of aborting any proposed transaction.
None of this presents any practical difficulty; in fact, much of it is quite routine, and none requires any technology beyond the use of paper records.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of generic, networked computers. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As the claims only manipulate data relating to a proposed transaction, recipient addresses, risk scores and the like, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim to patent eligibility.
Claim 9, which has the most, include a processor and memory storing instructions. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification is clear, ¶ 54, that nothing more than a “general-purpose computer” is required. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating information and sharing information with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claims refer to a data store as a “cryptocurrency wallet”, which is mere labeling; no claim actually does anything at all with cryptocurrency. Even if it were otherwise, cryptocurrency was well-understood, routine and conventional before the filing of the claimed invention.
For example, Van Rooyen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0324764), writing several years before the present application, could say at that early date that the “principles and functioning” of “cryptocurrencies” were by then “well understood by those skilled in the art”. [0042]
The claim limitations when considered in ordered combination – a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps – do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually. The other independent claims are simply different embodiments but are likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process.
The dependent claims further do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide additional elements sufficient to confer patent eligibility. Claims 2, 7, 10, 14, 16 and 20 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 3, 8, 11 and 17 simply recite a source of data; claims 4, 12 and 18 simply recite the use of APIs. Claim 5 simply recites further, abstract manipulation of data, and claims 6, 13 and 19 simply require not performing a transaction, which is essentially a nullity, but in any case abstract.
The claims are not patent eligible. The Examiner has thoroughly reviewed the originally filed application, including the specification and drawing sheets, and finds nothing likely sufficient to overcome this rejection.
For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0055618) in view of Leddy et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0067861).
In-line citations are to Jakobsson.
With regard to Claim 1:
Jakobsson teaches: A computerized method for securing a cryptocurrency wallet, [0025; a computer is used including software stored on a medium for execution by a processor; 0129; it uses secure storage for digital wallets] the computerized method comprising:
intercepting, using an interface of a cryptocurrency wallet of a user, a transaction proposed by the user of the cryptocurrency wallet; [0138; a “media wallet application” may be used to “initiate the change of ownership” of, among other things, “cryptocurrency”; 0139; this may involve “accessing multiple blockchains”; 0152; servers may take part in the transaction data management]
extracting, from the proposed transaction, an address of a counterparty to which a payment is to be made from the cryptocurrency wallet… [0035; it may “parse” the data “for an address of the at least one potential recipient”]
comparing the address of the counterparty with a plurality of addresses in an allow list… [0405; an “anonymizer” may have “whitelists corresponding to what traffic to permit”]
a risk score for the proposed transaction; [0345; “risk scores can be determined” and provided to content providers, which may “cause some content providers and/or transaction managers to refuse to interact” or to “require additional assurance before an interaction takes place”]
in response to… the risk score, receiving an indication whether to submit or abort the proposed transaction; [id.; refusing to interact reads on aborting; requiring additional assurance reads on submitting]
upon determining that the indication is to submit the proposed transaction, generating an alert that the risk score has been acknowledged; [id.; the requiring of additional assurance reads on this; 0221; the “systems may alert users”; at most this differs on the content of the information output, which is nonfunctional printed matter which is considered but given no patentable weight] and
upon determining that the indication is to abort the proposed transaction, aborting the proposed transaction. [id.; no further processing is done if the provider refuses to interact, which reads on aborting]
Jakobsson does not explicitly teach causing display of a score, the plurality of addresses representing addresses allowed for transactions using the cryptocurrency wallet, based on the comparison, determining whether the address of the counterparty is in the allow list, or performing a step upon determining that the address of the counterparty is in the allow list, but it is known in the art. Leddy teaches a scam evaluation system [title] in which a “URL” is associated with a “whitelisted brand”. [0102] It may compare the whitelisted brand to a suspicious address. [0106] It determines a score representing a likelihood of fraud, [0104-09] which may be output. [0160] It may determine a “message is valid” based on the sender being on a whitelist. [0259] It may facilitate a user making a purchase. [1762] Leddy and Jakobsson are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using whitelists and risk scores to facilitate transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Leddy with that of Jakobsson in order to protect users, as taught by Leddy; [0004] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using a whitelist in the manner of Leddy in place of, or in addition to, that of Jakobsson; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 2:
The computerized method of claim 1, further comprising modifying the cryptocurrency wallet to include a risk attribution application, that includes the allow list. [0035; the system which maintains the wallet includes a “transmitter”; 0041; the transmitter may include an anonymizer; 0405; the anonymizer may include the whitelist]
With regard to Claim 3:
The computerized method of claim 2, wherein the risk attribution application is provided by a first entity different from a second entity providing a cryptocurrency wallet application having the cryptocurrency wallet of the user. [0152; the blockchain which manages the cryptocurrency is maintained by “peer-to-peer networks and distributed timestamping servers”; at least one of these must be different from the system which includes the transmitter]
With regard to Claim 9:
Jakobsson teaches: A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions that upon execution by the processor cause the processor to: [0025; a computer is used including software stored on a medium for execution by a processor]
intercept a transaction proposed by a user of a cryptocurrency wallet; [0138; a “media wallet application” may be used to “initiate the change of ownership” of, among other things, “cryptocurrency”; 0139; this may involve “accessing multiple blockchains”; 0152; servers may take part in the transaction data management]
extract, from the proposed transaction, an address of a counterparty to which a payment is to be made from the cryptocurrency wallet… [0035; it may “parse” the data “for an address of the at least one potential recipient”]
compare the address of the counterparty with a plurality of addresses in an allow list… [0405; an “anonymizer” may have “whitelists corresponding to what traffic to permit”]
a risk score for the proposed transaction; [0345; “risk scores can be determined” and provided to content providers, which may “cause some content providers and/or transaction managers to refuse to interact” or to “require additional assurance before an interaction takes place”]
in response to… the risk score, automatically receive an indication whether to submit or abort the proposed transaction; [id.; refusing to interact reads on aborting; requiring additional assurance reads on submitting]
upon determining that the indication is to submit the proposed transaction, generate an alert, in real-time before the payment associated with the proposed transaction, that the risk score has been acknowledged; [id.; the requiring of additional assurance reads on this; this occurs before any payment would have been made; 0221; the “systems may alert users”; at most this differs on the content of the information output, which is nonfunctional printed matter which is considered but given no patentable weight] and
upon determining that the indication is to abort the proposed transaction, aborting the proposed transaction. [id.; no further processing is done if the provider refuses to interact, which reads on aborting]
Jakobsson does not explicitly teach cause display of a score, the plurality of addresses representing addresses allowed for transactions using the cryptocurrency wallet, based on the comparison, determining whether the address of the counterparty is in the allow list, or performing a step upon determining that the address of the counterparty is in the allow list, but it is known in the art. Leddy teaches a scam evaluation system [title] in which a “URL” is associated with a “whitelisted brand”. [0102] It may compare the whitelisted brand to a suspicious address. [0106] It determines a score representing a likelihood of fraud, [0104-09] which may be output. [0160] It may determine a “message is valid” based on the sender being on a whitelist. [0259] It may facilitate a user making a purchase. [1762] Leddy and Jakobsson are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using whitelists and risk scores to facilitate transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Leddy with that of Jakobsson in order to protect users, as taught by Leddy; [0004] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using a whitelist in the manner of Leddy in place of, or in addition to, that of Jakobsson; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 15:
Jakobsson teaches: A computer storage medium storing instructions that upon execution by a processor [0025; a computer is used including software stored on a medium for execution by a processor] cause the processor to:
intercept a transaction proposed by a user of a cryptocurrency wallet; [0138; a “media wallet application” may be used to “initiate the change of ownership” of, among other things, “cryptocurrency”; 0139; this may involve “accessing multiple blockchains”; 0152; servers may take part in the transaction data management]
extract, from the proposed transaction, an address of a counterparty to which a payment is to be made from the cryptocurrency wallet… [0035; it may “parse” the data “for an address of the at least one potential recipient”]
compare the address of the counterparty with a plurality of addresses in an allow list… [0405; an “anonymizer” may have “whitelists corresponding to what traffic to permit”]
a risk score for the proposed transaction; [0345; “risk scores can be determined” and provided to content providers, which may “cause some content providers and/or transaction managers to refuse to interact” or to “require additional assurance before an interaction takes place”]
in response to… the risk score, automatically receive an indication whether to submit or abort the proposed transaction; [id.; refusing to interact reads on aborting; requiring additional assurance reads on submitting]
upon determining that the indication is to submit the proposed transaction, generate an alert, in real-time before the payment associated with the proposed transaction, that the risk score has been acknowledged; [id.; the requiring of additional assurance reads on this; this occurs before any payment would have been made; 0221; the “systems may alert users”; at most this differs on the content of the information output, which is nonfunctional printed matter which is considered but given no patentable weight] and
upon determining that the indication is to abort the proposed transaction, aborting the proposed transaction. [id.; no further processing is done if the provider refuses to interact, which reads on aborting]
Jakobsson does not explicitly teach cause display of a score, the plurality of addresses representing addresses allowed for transactions using the cryptocurrency wallet, based on the comparison, determining whether the address of the counterparty is in the allow list, or performing a step upon determining that the address of the counterparty is in the allow list, but it is known in the art. Leddy teaches a scam evaluation system [title] in which a “URL” is associated with a “whitelisted brand”. [0102] It may compare the whitelisted brand to a suspicious address. [0106] It determines a score representing a likelihood of fraud, [0104-09] which may be output. [0160] It may determine a “message is valid” based on the sender being on a whitelist. [0259] It may facilitate a user making a purchase. [1762] Leddy and Jakobsson are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using whitelists and risk scores to facilitate transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Leddy with that of Jakobsson in order to protect users, as taught by Leddy; [0004] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using a whitelist in the manner of Leddy in place of, or in addition to, that of Jakobsson; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson et al. in view of Leddy et al. further in view of Shuster (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0145040).
With regard to Claim 4:
The computerized method of claim 3, further comprising:
adding the interface into the cryptocurrency wallet application, wherein the interface is an application programming interface.
Jakobsson and Leddy teach the method of claim 3 but do not explicitly teach using an API, but it is known in the art. Shuster teaches a system for using QR codes to provide users with experiences [title] that uses a “wallet pass” available to an “API client” for the “insertion of [] content into [a] native wallet application”. [0030] The system may be used to make a “purchase of an item”. [0061] Shuster and Jakobsson are analogous art as each is directed to the use of electronic wallets for financial transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Shuster with that of Jakobsson and Leddy in order to provide customization, as taught by Shuster; [0012] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing functionality via an API as in Shuster rather than, or in addition to, by the means of Jakobsson; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 5, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson et al. in view of Leddy et al. further in view of Kang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0065193).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 5:
The computerized method of claim 1, further comprising:
collecting data on an interaction history of the user based on a plurality of risk scores, the collected data including an action taken by the user for at least a threshold percentage of the plurality of risk scores;
training an interaction model based on the collected data on the interaction history of the user; and
predicting, using the trained interaction model, an action for the displayed risk score, the action comprising automatically submitting or automatically aborting the proposed transaction.
With regard to Claim 10:
The system of claim 9, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor further cause the processor to:
collect data on an interaction history of the user based on a plurality of risk scores associated with a plurality of transactions, the collected data including an action taken by the user for at least a threshold percentage of the plurality of risk scores;
train an interaction model based on the collected data on the interaction history of the user; and
predict, using the trained interaction model, an action for the displayed risk score, the action comprising automatically generating the alert or automatically aborting the proposed transaction.
With regard to Claim 16:
The computer storage medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor further cause the processor to:
collect data on an interaction history of the user based on a plurality of risk scores associated with a plurality of transactions, the collected data including an action taken by the user for at least a threshold percentage of the plurality of risk scores;
train an interaction model based on the collected data on the interaction history of the user; and
predict, using the trained interaction model, an action for the displayed risk score, the action comprising automatically generating the alert or automatically aborting the proposed transaction.
Jakobsson and Leddy teach the method of claim 1, system of claim 9, and medium of claim 15, including keeping track usage history, [e.g. Jakobsson, 0051] and not completing a transaction based on a risk score as cited above, but do not explicitly teach using usage history to train a model, but it is known in the art. Kang teaches a system for detecting payment fraud [title] in which machine learning algorithms may be trained on “historical transaction data”, [0030] and may determine the predictability of “features of the historical transaction data” that best correlate with “fraud detection scores”. [0032] The system “prevents completion of the purchase transaction if the purchase transaction is determined to be fraudulent”. [abstract] Kang and Jakobsson are analogous art as each is directed to assessment of risk in regard to financial transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kang with that of Jakobsson and Leddy in order to allow merchants to identify fraudulent transactions before they have been completed, as taught by Kang; [0004] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply detecting a transaction which ought not to be completed in the manner of Kang rather than, or in addition to, that of Jakobsson; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson et al. (here, “Jakobsson ‘618”) in view of Leddy et al. further in view of Jakobsson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0006976, here “Jakobsson ‘976”)
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 6:
The computerized method of claim 1, further comprising:
upon determining that the address of the counterparty is not in the allow list, blocking the proposed transaction.
With regard to Claim 13:
The system of claim 9, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor further cause the processor to: upon determining that the address of the counterparty is not in the allow list, block the proposed transaction.
With regard to Claim 19:
The system of claim 15, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor further cause the processor to: upon determining that the address of the counterparty is not in the allow list, block the proposed transaction.
Jakobsson ‘618 and Leddy teach the method of claim 1, system of claim 9, and medium of claim 15, and implicitly teach blocking a disallowed transaction and using a whitelist, do not explicitly teach linking the two in this manner, but it is known in the art. Jakobsson ‘976 teaches a system for fraud prevention using blockchain storage [abstract] which may “deny transfers to a wallet address that is not whitelisted”. [0330] Jakobsson ‘976 and Jakobsson ‘618 are analogous art as each is directed to the use of blockchain storage and whitelists in the context of transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Jakobsson ‘976 with that of Jakobsson ‘618 and Leddy in order to prevent fraud, as taught by Jakobsson ‘976; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply not performing a transaction on the basis of Jakobsson ‘976 rather than that of Jakobsson ‘618; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson et al. in view of Leddy et al. further in view of Rudraraju et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0088840).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 7:
The computerized method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the address of the counterparty is in the allow list comprises determining that the address of the counterparty matches more than a threshold percentage of the plurality of addresses in the allow list that have been used for transactions in past.
With regard to Claim 14:
The system of claim 9, wherein determining whether the address of the counterparty is in the allow list comprises determining that the address of the counterparty matches more than a threshold percentage of the plurality of addresses in the allow list that have been used for transactions in past.
With regard to Claim 20:
The system of claim 15, wherein determining whether the address of the counterparty is in the allow list comprises determining that the address of the counterparty matches more than a threshold percentage of the plurality of addresses in the allow list that have been used for historical transactions before more than a predetermined time period.
Jakobsson and Leddy teach the method of claim 1, system of claim 9, and medium of claim 15, including determining a whitelist as cited above, but do not explicitly teach using matching of addresses to transactions, but it is known in the art. Rudraraju teaches a cryptocurrency transaction management system [title] which determines whether an “IP address” satisfies certain conditions based on, e.g., “cryptocurrency purchases exceeding a threshold quantity” either in “quantity” or “frequency”. [0047] Rudraraju and Jakobsson are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using cryptocurrency and managing financial transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Rudraraju with that of Jakobsson and Leddy in order to detect fraudulent transactions, as taught by Rudraraju; [0001] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply determining a condition on Rudraraju’s basis instead of, or in addition to, the bases of Jakobsson; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
In regard to claim 20, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “historical transactions before more than a predetermined time period” includes those before the present day, which is to say all historical transactions.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson et al. in view of Leddy et al. further in view of Greevy (U.S. Patent No. 10,904,266).
With regard to Claim 8:
The computerized method of claim 1, wherein the allow list is created by a supervisor of an organization of which the user is a member.
Jakobsson and Leddy teach the method of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach this limitation, but in addition to being of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Greevy teaches a system for improving e-mail security. [title] A user may attempt to “complete a purchase”. [Col. 3, line 5] An “email administrator” may “generate a whitelist” containing profiles of employees within an organization. [Col. 17, lines 30-31, 34] Greevy and Jakobsson are analogous art as each is directed to the use of whitelists and managing information about financial transactions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Greevy with that of Jakobsson and Leddy in order to improve security, as taught by Greevy; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply obtaining a whitelist in the manner of Greevy rather than, or in addition to, that of Jakobsson; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1. The nature of a person who may perform a task in a computerized method consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the method and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694