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 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Claims 1, 9 and 15 are allowable over the art of record based on the applicant’s arguments. However, the applicant’s arguments as based on the claims as amended are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection:
Applicant’s representative argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea.
In response, it has been clearly enumerated that claims directed to an abstract idea are patent-ineligible. Abstract ideas are characterized as concepts identified by the courts which include (1) mathematical concepts, (2) mental processes and (3) certain methods of organizing human activity.
Among those concepts performed as being identified in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” are “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Here, it is noted that the remaining limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106. 04(a}(2), such as managing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
The BRI of these limitations describes steps or functions of “determining, in real-time, and using the transaction data and the context data, a question associated with the user account and a corresponding expected answer, the expected answer providing additional context data for verifying the transaction, providing, a request including the question, receiving, an input from the electronic device, and generating, and based on comparing the input and the additional context data, a digital indication of fraudulent activity associated with the user account”.
Therefore the claims recite a commercial or legal interaction as such is an abstract concept.
Each of these independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a “processor”, “server” or “electronic device”, “network interface” or “machine interface” or “machine learning model” ) for receiving, generating, determining 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").
As such, claims 1, 9 and 15 recite receiving, determining, and generating data or information, as these functions are not a technological implementation or improvement of a technological field.
Applicant is to be reminded that a system, apparatus, machine or method for performing business, however, novel, useful, or commercially successful, is not patentable apart from the means for making the system practically useful or carrying it out. The applicant is making use of generic devices to finally provide from a user input received via a screen display and to a computing system, a second portion of identifying information in response to the request to correct the one or more errors, wherein the second portion of identifying information corrects the one or more errors in the first portion of identifying information.
Accordingly, the additional elements (“processor”, “server” or “electronic device”, “network interface” or “machine interface” or “machine learning model” ) do not improve (1) the processor or database and user interface, 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.
None of the steps, functions and/or elements recited in the claims provide, and nowhere in the applicant’s shows any description or explanation as to how the claimed computing device, processor with memory are intended to provide: (1) a “solution . . . necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” as explained by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (2) “a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” as explained in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336; or (3) an “unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem” that “improve[s] the performance of the system itself,” as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14-19, 21-24 are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s representative then states and argues that even assuming arguendo that the Office could satisfy the "abstract idea" analysis in Step 2A Prong One, which Applicant does not concede, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, as amended, are integrated into a practical application under the analysis in Step 2A Prong Two. At Step 2A Prong Two. Applicant argues that the determine or determining functions and the function of generating, by the processor and based on comparing the input and the additional context data, a digital indication of fraudulent activity associated with the user account" integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application that applies machine learning for determining fraudulent activity.
In response, the claims as amended still fail to recite technological implementation details
of how the claimed functions are being realized. Claims of this nature are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101." Beteiro, LLC V. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The specification does not even provide details of a specific architecture or means or structures or specific computer executed modules for performing the claimed functions.
The claims do not recite or contain an improvement in computer-related technology which is allowing computers to produce in a manner similar to Finjan which provides "accurate and realistic lips synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters' that previously could only be produced by human animators. The court in Finjan further reviewed the related applicant's specification and relied on the specification to conclude that humans did not use the claimed rules as were used to improve on computer animation technology on a specific manner to solve the problem of producing more accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions. Such specific rules "improved [the] existing technological process, unlike cases such as Alice in which a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.
Similarly, here, the claimed processor being used merely for “receiving”, “determining”, “generating” and “transmitting” data as claimed, involves no technological advancement. The claimed processor merely acts as a tool to effect the abstract idea. Each of the independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a generic processor or device with a memory) for receiving data or information, and determining of a score, 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 applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative then states “in Step 2B of the analysis, the Office Action alleges that "the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more." (Office Action, page 8.) Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 9, and 15 recite a non-generic arrangement of features that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea” and then .
Applicant’s representative then concludes that the Office has not established a prima facie case of patent ineligibility with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 15, as amended, and to dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16-20, and requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12, and 14-20.
In response, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
The reliance of a computer or computing system with a processor and memory 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 "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions and issue simultaneous instructions" was not an inventive incept. 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.
As noted in the applicant’s specification, there is not a specific structure or computer components to perform the claimed functions. The generic computing system can be any known server or computer processor or software or hardware components. However, there is not a specific or new algorithm noted in the applicant’s specification to generate the claimed functions. The claimed computing system noted in the applicant's specification is a routine computer processor or computer performing generic computer functions.
Furthermore, there is not a showing or description of receiving, generating, determining, data or information, and providing the data to a computing system to effect specific improvements to the computing system o processor. Furthermore there is a lacking of evidence that the claims improve the manner in which the computing system receives, determines, and generates data or information, and provides data to the computing system, as the claims in Enfish had performed their claimed invention via a “self-referential table” for a computer database. Applicant is being referred to Enfish, 822, F.3d at 1327, 1337.
The instant claims merely receive, determine, generate and provide data or information, and provide the data to a computing system. These are routine and generic computer functions for processing or effecting the abstract idea. Hence, there is not a significant improvement of the computing system or the architecture of the overall system.
The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, are merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
A rejection of the claims as now amended is found 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 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14-19, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
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 15 are directed to a method. Claim 9 is directed to a system. Each of the claims 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).
The claims, when the bolded limitations are removed, recite the following abstract concept.
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for improving accuracy of fraudulent activity
account indications associated with one or more electronic transactions, comprising:
receiving, by a processor:
transaction data associated with a plurality of electronic transactions,
an indication of fraudulent activity associated with a transaction of the plurality of electronic transactions, and
context data corresponding to the transaction, the context data indicating a user account;
determining, by the processor, in real-time, and using the transaction data and the context data as inputs to a machine learning (ML) model, a question associated with the user account and a corresponding expected answer, the expected answer providing additional context data for verifying the transaction;
providing, by the processor, and via network to an electronic device separate from the processor, a request including the question;
receiving, by the processor, via the network the request, an input from the electronic device; and
generating, by the processor and based on comparing the input and the additional context data, a digital indication of fraudulent activity associated with the user account.
Claim 2 recites: wherein the fraudulent activity comprises one of:
an unauthorized withdrawal; or
an unauthorized credit transaction.
Claim 4 recites: wherein the plurality of electronic transactions includes one or more past transactions related to the user account.
Claim 5 recites:
updating, by the processor an external memory associated with a transaction processing server to provide the digital indication.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the processor is communicatively coupled to one or more network interfaces, the method further comprising:
retrieving by the processor and from an external server, via the one or more network interfaces, the ML model.
Claim 8 recites: wherein the ML model is trained using sample data comprising one or more of other context data, image data, device data, or third-party data, and the method further comprises:
updating, by the processor, the ML model using the additional context data and the digital indication.
Claim 9 recites: A computer system for improving accuracy of fraudulent activity account indications associated with one or more electronic transactions, comprising a processor configured to:
receive, via a network;
transaction data associated with a plurality of electronic transactions,
an indication of fraudulent activity associated with a transaction of the plurality of electronic transactions, and
context data corresponding to the transaction indicating a user account;
determine, in real-time, and using the transaction data and the context data as inputs to a machine learning (ML) model, a question associated with the user account and a corresponding expected answer, the expected answer providing additional context data for verifying the transaction;
provide, via the network to an electronic device separate from the processor, a request for additional context data including the question.
receive, via the network and in response to the request, an input from the electronic device; and
generate, based on comparing the input and the additional context data, a digital indication of fraudulent activity associated with the user account.
Claim 10 recites: wherein the fraudulent activity comprises one of:
an unauthorized withdrawal, or
an unauthorized credit transaction.
Claim 12 recites: wherein the transaction data comprises one or more past transactions related to the user account.
Claim 14 recites: wherein the processor accesses the ML model via one or more of a network interface or a machine interface communicatively coupled to the processor.
Claim 15 recites: A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising computer readable instructions for improving accuracy of fraudulent activity account indications associated with one or more electronic transactions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receive, via a network:
transaction data associated with a plurality of electronic transactions,
an indication of fraudulent activity associated with a transaction of the plurality of electronic transactions, and
context data corresponding to the transaction, the context data indicating a user account;
determine, in real-time, and using the transaction data and the context data as inputs to a machine learning (ML) model, a question associated with the user account and a corresponding expected answer, the expected answer providing additional context data for verifying the transaction;
provide via the network to an electronic device separate from the at least one processor, a request including the question;
receive, via the network and in response to the request, an input from the electronic device; and
generate, based on comparing the input and the additional context data, a digital indication of fraudulent activity associated with the user account.
Claim 16 recites: wherein the at least one processor accesses the ML model via one or more of a network interface or a machine interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor.
Claim 17 recites: wherein the at least one processor updates a memory associated with an external transaction server, the update causing the external transaction server to halt the transaction.
Claim 18 recites: wherein the fraudulent activity comprises one of:
an unauthorized credit transaction or
an unauthorized withdrawal.
Claim 19 recites: wherein the transaction data further comprises one or more past transactions related to the user account.
Claim 21 (New) recites: wherein the context data includes natural language input relating to one or more transactions indicated in a portion of the transaction data, the portion being associated with the user account.
Claim 22 (New) recites: encoding, by the processor, the context data to generate encoded data; and
providing, by the processor, as inputs to the ML model, the encoded data,
wherein the ML model outputs the question and the corresponding expected
answer based at least in part on the encoded data.
Claim 23 (New) recites:
determining, by the processor, a value indicative of a difference between data included in the input and the additional context data; and
determining, by the processor, that the value exceeds a threshold,
wherein the processor generates the digital indication based on the value
exceeding the threshold.
Claim 24 (New) recites:
determine a value indicative of a difference between data included in the input and the
additional context data;
determine that the value exceeds a threshold,
wherein the processor generates the digital indication based on the value
exceeding the threshold; and
provide the digital indication to a transaction processing system, wherein the digital
indication causes the transaction processing system to cancel, in real-time, the transaction.
Here, the claimed concept still falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as managing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
The BRI of the claimed limitations describe functions of:
“determining, in real-time, and using the transaction data and the context data, a question associated with the user account and a corresponding expected answer, the expected answer providing additional context data for verifying the transaction, providing, a request including the question, receiving, an input from the electronic device, and generating, and based on comparing the input and the additional context data, a digital indication of fraudulent activity associated with the user account”.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the bolded limitations noted above as understood to be the additional limitations:
The claimed “processor”, “memory”, “machine learning model”, “processing system”, “network interface”, “electronic device” or “machine interface” are similarly 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 or functions by a “processor” or “server” or “electronic device” or “machine learning model” merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05.
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.
The receiving, determining, generating and updating functions 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 functions of the claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors or computing system which receives, determines, generates and updates data.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps or functions are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions of finally generating based on comparing input data and the additional context data, a digital indication of fraudulent activity associated with a user account.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim 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 claims 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.
Receiving, determining, generating, providing and updating data by electronic means or hardware over a network has 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”, “server” or “electronic device”, “network interface” or “machine interface” or “machine learning model” 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 the additional element 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. Each of the claimed electronic device, processor or server or machine learning model is noted to a be a generic computer for performing routine and conventional functions therein. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as the additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic processor, electronic device or server.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processor”, “machine learning model” and “electronic device” are 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.
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.
The claimed elements are also seen as generic computer components receiving data performing generic functions without an inventive concept as such do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These elements are interpreted as being recited at a high level of generality and even if the claims recited in the affirmative.
The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination, the elements do not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 claim 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; the 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.
Accordingly, claims 1, 9 and 15 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.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine 2. grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970);and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 remain rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,816. Although the patenting conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are directed to a similar subject matter contained in claims 1-20 of the '816 patent. The only difference between the instant application and the '816 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claims 1-20 are contained in claims 1-20 of the '816 patent.
Claims 1-20 remain rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,810,593. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are directed to a similar subject matter contained in claims 1-20 of the '593 patent. The only difference between the instant application and the '593 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claims 1-20 are contained in claims 1-20 of the '593 patent.
Claims 1-20 remain rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness -type as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,556,934. Although the patenting conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are directed to a similar subject matter contained in claims 1-20 of the '934 patent. The only difference between the instant application and the '934 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claims 1-20 are contained in claims 1-20 of the '934 patent.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“determining, by the processor, in real-time, and using the transaction data and the context data as inputs to a machine learning (ML) model, a question associated with the user account and a corresponding expected answer, the expected answer providing additional context data for verifying the transaction, providing, by the processor, and via network to an electronic device separate from the processor, a request including the question, receiving, by the processor, via the network the request, an input from the electronic device, and generating, by the processor and based on comparing the input and the additional context data, a digital indication of fraudulent activity associated with the user account” as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 15.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights