DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed 5/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Claims 21-40 have been examined.
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 Amendment/Arguments
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, applicant states the claims do not recite “certain methods of organizing human activity,” because the claims describe a computerized authorization architecture involving multiple devices, components, and verification operations, rather than a mere method of organizing human activity. Applicant further states that the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application and cites Example 35. Applicant states that, like Example 35, the claims provide a technical solution for securing delegated transactions from accounts with restricted capabilities, as the claims involve generating a thin account which constrains system operations to be routed to through a linked account and provides a structural link to a parent account. Applicant states the claims provide a model for interaction using this thin account, and cites the transaction request, verifying the validity of the link, and obtaining approval of the transaction, as describing how the thin account is a technical solution to an existing problem. Applicant also states that the claims recite an interaction between multiple devices structured similarly to claims 2 and 3 of example 35, and that the claims rely on a defined, multi-device verification loop. Applicant states that the common elements between example 35 and the claims include a multi-device interaction with a verification loop, and the enabling of secure transactions delegated to a second account. Further, applicant states that the claimed features also operate in a non-generic non-conventional way to produce a technical improvement that is more than the conventional operation of an account-based payment system alone. Applicant also states that the ordered combination of elements recite significantly more than any alleged judicial exception because they form a specific, non-conventional transaction authorization method that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Examiner notes that the claims recite the steps of “generating . . . a first account associated with a first [entity], wherein the first account comprises an indication of the linked account, wherein the first account is a thin account without access to deposited funds or a line of credit,” “receiving, . . . from the first [entity] associated with the first account, a transaction request based on the transaction, the transaction request comprising a cash value, an indication of a merchant service provider, a transaction detail, and an indication of the linked account.” “verifying, . . . validity of the transaction request based on the first account,” “verifying . . . a link between the first account and the linked account, wherein the link provides authorization for the first account to request the funds from the linked account,” “transmitting . . . a notification comprising the cash value, the indication of the merchant service provider, and the transaction detail to a second [entity] associated with the linked account,” “receiving . . . a response to the notification, the response comprising an indication of approval of the transaction request,” “generating . . . a first payment token comprising an indication of the linked account and the indication of the approval of the transaction request by the linked account,” “transmitting . . . the first payment token to the first [entity],” “receiving . . . from the merchant service provider, a set of transaction data,” “verifying . . . a match between the set of transaction data and the transaction request,” “in an instance in which the match is verified, transmitting . . . an indication of success of the transaction,” and “causing . . . settlement of the transaction,” which describe a business or accounting process for carrying out a payment which involves generating a first thin account without access to funds, and a user associated with the first account carrying out the payment using a linked account associated with another user or entity. The functions of generating a first thin account without access to deposited funds or a line of credit, receiving and verifying the transaction request, verifying the link between the first and linked account, requesting and obtaining approval from the user or entity associated with the linked account, providing information indicating approval for use of the linked account and for the transaction back to the first user, and then obtaining and verifying transaction information from a merchant for the transaction before settling payment, describe a business process for carrying out a financial transaction, rather than a technical process or a solution to a technical problem. Therefore, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The fact that the process is carried out using computers which represents the entities does not preclude it from being a method of organizing human activity. Nor does the use of computers provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Rather, the use of computers to carry out the financial or business process only involves using a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Further, the fact that the method uses a thin account also only involves a financial or accounting concept, rather than any technical solution.
Regarding the comparison to Example 35, examiner notes that although the present claims communicate with more than one device, the device only represent the respective account holders or parties to the transaction, and the communication only involves communicating information that is needed for making a payment, rather than performing any technical operation that would provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Further, even if the combination of claimed steps was considered as operating in a non-generic non-conventional way, they would not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea, because all of the steps are part of the abstract idea. The additional elements of the claims, such as the first and second devices, an apparatus comprising communication hardware, account security circuitry, communication hardware, transaction circuitry, and settlement circuitry, as well as the use of a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not provide practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s remaining remarks have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 21-27 are directed to a method, claims 28-34 are directed to an apparatus comprising communications hardware and settlement circuitry, and claims 35-40 are directed to a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite generating a thin account and performing a payment transaction using a linked account linked to the thin account which involves receiving and verifying the transaction request, obtaining approval for the transaction from a user associated with the linked account, providing payment information the requesting user, and then settling the transaction by receiving and verifying transaction data for the transaction from a merchant, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “generating . . . a first account associated with a first [entity], wherein the first account comprises an indication of the linked account, wherein the first account is a thin account without access to deposited funds or a line of credit,” “receiving, . . . from the first [entity] associated with the first account, a transaction request based on the transaction, the transaction request comprising a cash value, an indication of a merchant service provider, a transaction detail, and an indication of the linked account.” “verifying, . . . validity of the transaction request based on the first account,” “verifying . . . a link between the first account and the linked account, wherein the link provides authorization for the first account to request the funds from the linked account,” “transmitting . . . a notification comprising the cash value, the indication of the merchant service provider, and the transaction detail to a second [entity] associated with the linked account,” “receiving . . . a response to the notification, the response comprising an indication of approval of the transaction request,” “generating . . . a first payment token comprising an indication of the linked account and the indication of the approval of the transaction request by the linked account,” “transmitting . . . the first payment token to the first [entity],” “receiving . . . from the merchant service provider, a set of transaction data,” “verifying . . . a match between the set of transaction data and the transaction request,” “in an instance in which the match is verified, transmitting . . . an indication of success of the transaction,” and “causing . . . settlement of the transaction,” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (MPEP 2106.04 & 2106.04(a)) because the claims describe a payment transaction. Specifically, the claims describe performing a payment in which a first thin account is generated without access to funds, and a user associated with the first account seeks to carry out the payment using a linked account associated with another user or entity, where the method involves receiving and verifying the transaction request, verifying the link between the first and linked account, requesting and obtaining approval from the user or entity associated with the linked account, providing information indicating approval for use of the linked account and for the transaction back to the first user, and then obtaining and verifying transaction information from a merchant for the transaction before settling payment, which is a commercial interaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as first and second devices, an apparatus comprising communication hardware, account security circuitry, communication hardware, transaction circuitry, and settlement circuitry, as well as the use of a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of “generating . . . a first account associated with a first [entity], wherein the first account comprises an indication of the linked account, wherein the first account is a thin account without access to deposited funds or a line of credit,” “receiving, . . . from the first [entity] associated with the first account, a transaction request based on the transaction, the transaction request comprising a cash value, an indication of a merchant service provider, a transaction detail, and an indication of the linked account.” “verifying, . . . validity of the transaction request based on the first account,” “verifying . . . a link between the first account and the linked account, wherein the link provides authorization for the first account to request the funds from the linked account,” “transmitting . . . a notification comprising the cash value, the indication of the merchant service provider, and the transaction detail to a second [entity] associated with the linked account,” “receiving . . . a response to the notification, the response comprising an indication of approval of the transaction request,” “generating . . . a first payment token comprising an indication of the linked account and the indication of the approval of the transaction request by the linked account,” “transmitting . . . the first payment token to the first [entity],” “receiving . . . from the merchant service provider, a set of transaction data,” “verifying . . . a match between the set of transaction data and the transaction request,” “in an instance in which the match is verified, transmitting . . . an indication of success of the transaction,” and “causing . . . settlement of the transaction.” Viewed as a whole, the use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional elements of using first and second devices, an apparatus comprising communication hardware, account security circuitry, communication hardware, transaction circuitry, and settlement circuitry, as well as the use of a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of generating a thin account and performing a payment transaction using a linked account linked to the thin account which involves receiving and verifying the transaction request, obtaining approval for the transaction from a user associated with the linked account, providing payment information the requesting user, and then settling the transaction by receiving and verifying transaction data for the transaction from a merchant. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of “generating . . . a first account associated with a first [entity], wherein the first account comprises an indication of the linked account, wherein the first account is a thin account without access to deposited funds or a line of credit,” “receiving, . . . from the first [entity] associated with the first account, a transaction request based on the transaction, the transaction request comprising a cash value, an indication of a merchant service provider, a transaction detail, and an indication of the linked account.” “verifying, . . . validity of the transaction request based on the first account,” “verifying . . . a link between the first account and the linked account, wherein the link provides authorization for the first account to request the funds from the linked account,” “transmitting . . . a notification comprising the cash value, the indication of the merchant service provider, and the transaction detail to a second [entity] associated with the linked account,” “receiving . . . a response to the notification, the response comprising an indication of approval of the transaction request,” “generating . . . a first payment token comprising an indication of the linked account and the indication of the approval of the transaction request by the linked account,” “transmitting . . . the first payment token to the first [entity],” “receiving . . . from the merchant service provider, a set of transaction data,” “verifying . . . a match between the set of transaction data and the transaction request,” “in an instance in which the match is verified, transmitting . . . an indication of success of the transaction,” and “causing . . . settlement of the transaction.” These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of generating a thin account and performing a payment transaction using a linked account linked to the thin account which involves receiving and verifying the transaction request, obtaining approval for the transaction from a user associated with the linked account, providing payment information the requesting user, and then settling the transaction by receiving and verifying transaction data for the transaction from a merchant. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-27, 28-34, and 36-40 further describe the abstract idea of generating a thin account and performing a payment transaction using a linked account linked to the thin account which involves receiving and verifying the transaction request, obtaining approval for the transaction from a user associated with the linked account, providing payment information the requesting user, and then settling the transaction by receiving and verifying transaction data for the transaction from a merchant. Specifically, claims 22, 29, and 36 further describe releasing funds during settlement. This further describes the transfer of funds, which is part of the abstract idea. Claims 23, 25, 30, 32, 37, and 39 describe the data included in the transaction detail and the first payment token, but do not require any steps or functions to be performed. Claims 24, 31, and 38 describe the use of an API to receive the transaction request and displaying a graphical representation of the transaction request on a chat UI. The use of an API and chat UI to carry out the steps of receiving the transaction request and transmitting a notification do not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they only involve using a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Claims 26-27, 33-34, and 40 describe the manner of generating the payment token and verifying the match between the set of transaction data and the transaction request. These steps are also directed to the abstract idea as they describe generation of the information provided to the first user and the manner of verifying the transaction. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 21-25, 27-32, and 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheehan, et al. (US 2017/0046716) (“Sheehan”) in view of Good, et al. (US 2017/0262841) (“Good”) and D’Angelo (US 2007/0168279).
Regarding claims 21, 28, and 35, Sheehan discloses a method, apparatus, and computer program product for authorizing funds for a linked account to perform a transaction, wherein the apparatus is associated with the linked account and performs the method, and the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that, when executed, cause a system associated with the linked account to the perform the method, the method comprising:
generating, by account security circuitry, a first account associated with a first device, wherein the first account comprises an indication of the linked account (Sheehan ¶¶ 44-45, 88, 93);
receiving, by communication hardware and from a first device associated with a first account, a transaction request based on the transaction, the transaction request comprising a cash value, an indication of a merchant service provider, a transaction detail, and an indication of the linked account (Sheehan ¶¶ 45-46, 73-75, 88-89, 92-93, 131, 134);
verifying, by the account security circuitry, validity of the transaction request based on the first account (Sheehan ¶¶ 46, 130, 134);
verifying, by the account security circuitry, a link between the first account and the linked account, wherein the link provides authorization for the first account to request the funds from the linked account (Sheehan ¶¶ 45, 130, 134);
transmitting, by the communication hardware, a notification comprising the cash value, the indication of the merchant service provider, and the transaction detail to a second device associated with the linked account (Sheehan Figure 6; ¶¶ 47, 76, 94-95, 135);
receiving, by the communication hardware, a response to the notification, the response comprising an indication of approval of the transaction request (Sheehan ¶¶ 76-77, 94-95, 135);
receiving, by the communication hardware and from the merchant service provider, a set of transaction data (Sheehan ¶¶ 99, 125);
verifying, by the transaction circuitry, a match between the set of transaction data and the transaction request (Sheehan ¶¶ 99, 125);
in an instance in which the match is verified, transmitting, by the communication hardware, an indication of success of the transaction (Sheehan ¶¶ 99, 125);
and
causing, by settlement circuitry, settlement of the transaction (Sheehan ¶ 137).
Sheehan does not specifically disclose that the first account is a thin account without access to deposited funds or a line of credit. Sheehan also does not specifically disclose generating, by transaction circuitry, a first payment token comprising an indication of the linked account and the indication of the approval of the transaction request by the linked account, and transmitting, by the communication hardware, the first payment token to the first device.
Good discloses generating a first payment token comprising an indication of the linked account and the indication of the approval of the transaction request by the linked account and transmitting the first payment token to the first device (Good ¶¶ 26-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Sheehan to include generating a first payment token comprising an indication of the linked account and the indication of the approval of the transaction request by the linked account and transmitting the first payment token to the first device, as disclosed in Good, in order to allow family members sharing an account to all use the account using their mobile phone, without compromising the security of the account (Good ¶¶ 3-5).
Sheehan in view of Good does not specifically disclose that the first account is a thin account without access to deposited funds or a line of credit.
D’Angelo discloses that the first account is a thin account without access to deposited funds or a line of credit (D’Angelo ¶¶ 30, 32, 34-35, 40-41, 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Sheehan in view of Good to include the first account being a thin account without access to deposited funds or a line of credit, as disclosed in D’Angelo, in order to avoid the possibility that funds may be stolen by unauthorized individuals (D’Angelo ¶¶ 3-6, 11).
Regarding claims 22, 29, and 36, Sheehan does not specifically disclose that causing the settlement of the transaction comprises causing, by the settlement circuitry, release of the funds from the linked account equal to the cash value.
Good discloses that causing the settlement of the transaction comprises: causing, by the settlement circuitry, release of the funds from the linked account equal to the cash value (Good ¶¶ 35-37, 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Sheehan to include causing, by the settlement circuitry, release of the funds from the linked account equal to the cash value, as disclosed in Good, in order to in order to allow family members sharing an account to all use the account using their mobile phone, without compromising the security of the account (Good ¶¶ 3-5).
Regarding claims 23, 30, and 37, Sheehan discloses that the transaction detail is a text description of a reason for the transaction (Sheehan Figure 3A; ¶¶ 89, 107).
Additionally, examiner notes that the limitation of “wherein the transaction detail is a text description of a reason for the transaction” only describes a characteristic of the transaction detail, which is stored data. As the particular characteristic described in this limitation is not processed or used to carry out any steps or functions that rely on this characteristic, this limitation recites nonfunctional descriptive material, and therefore does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Regarding claims 24, 31, and 38, Sheehan discloses that the transaction request is received via an application programming interface (API) (Sheehan ¶¶ 66), wherein transmitting the notification to the second device causes display of a graphical representation of the transaction request on a chat UI (Sheehan Figures 6-8; ¶¶ 76-77, 94).
Regarding claims 25, 32, and 39, Sheehan does not specifically disclose that the first payment token comprises a payment card number.
Good discloses that the first payment token comprises a payment card number (Good ¶¶ 35-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Sheehan to include the first payment token comprising a payment card number, as disclosed in Good, in order to in order to allow family members sharing an account to all use the account using their mobile phone, without compromising the security of the account (Good ¶¶ 3-5).
Additionally, examiner notes that the limitation of “wherein the first payment token comprises a payment card number” only describes a characteristic of the first payment token, which is stored data. As the particular characteristic described in this limitation is not processed or used to carry out any steps or functions that rely on this characteristic, this limitation recites nonfunctional descriptive material, and therefore does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Regarding claims 27 and 34, Sheehan discloses that the first payment token comprises a timestamp, wherein verifying the match between the set of transaction data and the transaction request comprises comparing the timestamp to a transaction time reported by the merchant service provider (Sheehan ¶¶ 49, 60-61, 81, 99).
Claims 26, 33, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheehan in view of Good and D’Angelo as applied to claims 21, 28, and 35 above, and further in view of Patel, et al. (US 2015/0170136) (“Patel”).
Regarding claims 26, 33, and 40, Sheehan in view of Good and D’Angelo does not specifically disclose that the first payment token is a data object, wherein the first payment token is encrypted, wherein generating the first payment token comprises encrypting, by encryption circuitry, a first data structure comprising the indication of the linked account and the indication of the approval of the transaction request by the linked.
Patel discloses that that the first payment token is a data object, wherein the first payment token is encrypted, wherein generating the first payment token comprises encrypting, by encryption circuitry, a first data structure comprising the indication of the linked account and the indication of the approval of the transaction request by the linked account (Patel ¶¶ 74, 127, 153-158).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Sheehan in view of Good and D’Angelo to include the first payment token being a data object, wherein the first payment token is encrypted, wherein generating the first payment token comprises encrypting, by encryption circuitry, a first data structure comprising the indication of the linked account and the indication of the approval of the transaction request by the linked account, as disclosed in Patel, in order to allow a user to make preauthorized cashless purchases from devices such as kiosks or vending machines using their mobile phone (Patel ¶¶ 4-7, 9, 11, 55, 74).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bondesen, et al. (US 2017/0243184) (“Bondesen”) discloses generating an encrypted token representing an account based on authorization of a transaction (Bondesen ¶¶ 88-90, 118).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad A. Nilforoush whose telephone number is (571)270-5298. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-7pm.
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, John W. Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/Mohammad A. Nilforoush/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights