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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 05 May 2025 and 02 July 2025.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are cancelled in the preliminary amendment filed 02 July 2025.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are newly added in the preliminary amendment filed 02 July 2025.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21 and 31 contains the trademark/trade name “QR code”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe 2D barcodes made by Denso Wave and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Examiner will interpret them to recite “2D barcode” for purposes of examination.
Any remaining claims not expounded upon are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 32-36 recite the check elements comprising data (i.e. a name, a date, an amount, an endorsement, and a signature) which are already recited as being included in independent Claim 31 "…whether check elements are present, wherein check elements include a name, a date, an amount, an endorsement, and a signature;". As such, Claims 32-36 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites two methods for Check Image Deposit. These are processes which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 21 and 31:
Claim 21:
“capturing,…, a video comprising a series of images of a plurality of check images for a plurality of checks;”
“wherein the plurality of check images comprises a first image of a first front side of a first check of the plurality of checks,”
“wherein the first image comprises a first back side of a second check of the plurality of checks,”
“wherein a second image comprises a second back side of the first check of the plurality of checks,”
“wherein the second image comprises a second front side of the second check of the plurality of checks;”
“sending,…,the plurality of check images to a financial institution backend…”
“matching,…, the first image of the first side of the checks with the second image of the second sides of the checks based on a sequence of the checks in the first and second images,”
“wherein the first front side, the second front side, the first back side, and the second back side each comprise a QR code, and the first front side and the first back side and the second front side and the second back side are further matched using the QR code;”
“validating,…, the matched images for each of the checks by determining whether an image score of the plurality of check images is above an acceptability threshold based on image quality, whether each of the plurality of checks is a duplicate, and whether check elements are present;”
“depositing,…, the validated checks.”
Claim 31:
“capturing,…, a video comprising a series of images of a plurality of check images for a plurality of checks, the plurality of check images comprising a single first image of a first side of the plurality of checks and a single second image of a second side of the plurality of checks;”
“sending,…,the plurality of check images to a financial institution backend…”
“matching,…,the first image of the first side of the checks with the second image of the second sides of the checks based on a sequence of the checks in the first and second images, wherein the first side of a first check of the plurality of checks is a first check front side and the first side of a second check of the plurality of checks is a second check back side, wherein the first side and the second side each comprise a QR code, and the first image of the first side and the second image of the second side are further matched using the QR code;
“validating,…, the matched images for each of the checks by determining whether an image score of the plurality of check images is above an acceptability threshold based on image quality, whether the check is a duplicate, and whether check elements are present, wherein check elements include a name, a date, an amount, an endorsement, and a signature;”
“depositing,…, the validated checks.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer application executed by a check scanner”, “a check recognition computer program”, and “a deposit service computer program executed by a backend” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes agreements in the form of contracts. Agreements in the form of contracts is described when submitting checks, checking the validity of the submitted checks, and depositing the checks. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claim 21:
“…by a computer application executed by a check scanner,…”
“…executing a check recognition computer program;”
“…by the check recognition computer program…”
“…by a deposit service computer program executed by the backend…”
“…by the deposit service computer program…”
“…by a deposit service computer program executed by the backend…”
Claim 31:
“…by a computer application executed by a kiosk…”
“…by the computer application…”
“…executing a check recognition computer program;”
“…by the check recognition computer program…”
“…by a deposit service computer program executed by the backend…”
“…by the deposit service computer program…”
The computer components (computer application, check scanner, computer programs and a kiosk) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer applications, a generic scanner, generic computer programs, and a generic kiosk) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Accordingly, these 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 independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claim 21:
“…by a computer application executed by a check scanner,…”
“…executing a check recognition computer program;”
“…by the check recognition computer program…”
“…by a deposit service computer program executed by the backend…”
“…by the deposit service computer program…”
“…by a deposit service computer program executed by the backend…”
Claim 31:
“…by a computer application executed by a kiosk…”
“…by the computer application…”
“…executing a check recognition computer program;”
“…by the check recognition computer program…”
“…by a deposit service computer program executed by the backend…”
“…by the deposit service computer program…”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The claims recite no elements which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 22-30 and 32-40 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
The claims are 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21-29 and 31-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff et al. (US 2012/0030117 A1 hereinafter Huff) in view of Ballout (US 2014/0058944 A1 hereinafter Ballout).
Claim 21
A method for bulk check image deposit, comprising:
capturing, by a computer application executed by a check scanner, a video comprising a series of images of a plurality of check images for a plurality of checks, (Huff discloses capturing images of multiple deposit items wherein an image may show multiple deposit items. See at least paragraph [0054] and Fig. 3. Huff discloses capturing may be with video and scanner. See at least paragraphs [0039] and [0092]. Huff discloses deposit items may be checks. See at least paragraph [0002]. Huff discloses embodiments using remote capture applications (i.e. computer application). See at least paragraph [0088].)
wherein the plurality of check images comprises a first image of a first front side of a first check of the plurality of checks, (Huff discloses capturing images of the front and back of the multiple deposit items. See at least paragraph [0054].)
wherein the first image comprises a first back side of a second check of the plurality of checks, (Huff discloses capturing images of the front and back of the multiple deposit items. See at least paragraph [0054].)
wherein a second image comprises a second back side of the first check of the plurality of checks, (Huff discloses capturing images of the front and back of the multiple deposit items. See at least paragraph [0054].)
wherein the second image comprises a second front side of the second check of the plurality of checks; (Huff discloses capturing images of the front and back of the multiple deposit items. See at least paragraph [0054].)
sending, by the computer application, the plurality of check images to a financial institution backend executing a check recognition computer program; (Huff discloses sending the images to a deposit server (i.e. financial institution backend). See at least paragraph [0052]. Huff discloses embodiments using remote capture applications (i.e. computer application). See at least paragraph [0088]. Huff discloses performing check recognition. See at least paragraph [0101]. Huff discloses the deposit server may perform each and every portion of the process flow. See at least paragraph [0036].)
matching, by the check recognition computer program, the first image of the first side of the checks with the second image of the second sides of the checks based on a sequence of the checks in the first and second images, (Huff discloses matching front and back sides based on the images (i.e. sequence of checks in the images). See at least paragraphs [0054] and [0057].)
wherein the first front side, the second front side, the first back side, and the second back side each comprise a QR code, and the first front side and the first back side and the second front side and the second back side are further matched using the QR code; (Huff discloses “As another example, in some embodiments, the apparatus having the process flow 300 is configured to make a collective front and back determination by determining that an identifier (e.g., a watermark, a logo, etc.) located on a deposit item shown in the first image corresponds to an identifier located on a deposit item shown in the second image.” See at least paragraph [0057]. Huff does not disclose the identifier being a QR code.)
validating, by a deposit service computer program executed by the backend, the matched images for each of the checks by determining whether an image score of the plurality of check images is above an acceptability threshold based on image quality, whether each of the plurality of checks is a duplicate, and whether check elements are present; and (Huff discloses determining satisfactory or unsatisfactory (i.e. validating based on an image score) for an image based on image quality. See at least paragraph [0060]. Huff discloses determining if deposit item information is present. See at least paragraph [0034] and [0057]. Huff does not disclose determining duplicate checks.)
depositing, by the deposit service computer program the validated checks. (Huff discloses crediting the identified account using the deposit item information (i.e. depositing the checks). See at least paragraph [0047].)
Huff does not disclose the matched identifier being a QR code. Huff does not disclose determining duplicate checks. Ballout teaches that transactions may be coded into QR codes. See at least paragraph [0042]. Ballout teaches preventing duplication of payments. See at least paragraph [0180].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to encode the identifiers of Huff using QR codes as taught by Ballout because Ballout additionally teaches the motivation that QR codes enable reading of transactions by scanners. See at least paragraph [0042]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perform duplication detection as taught by Ballout in the system of Huff because Ballout also teaches the motivation that detecting duplication prevents unauthorized duplications of the payment or the user’s information. See at least paragraph [0180].
Claim 22
The method of claim 21, wherein the check elements comprise a name. (Huff discloses deposit item information including payee and payor identities (i.e. name). See at least paragraph [0005].)
Claim 23
The method of claim 22, wherein the check elements comprise a date. (Huff does not disclose check comprising a date. Ballout teaches a check financial information comprising a date. See at least paragraph [0208]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the checks of Huff include a date as taught by Ballout because Ballout additionally teaches the motivation that this is relevant information. See at least paragraph [0208].)
Claim 24
The method of claim 23, wherein the check elements comprise an amount. (Huff discloses deposit item information including a deposit amount. See at least paragraph [0005].)
Claim 25
The method of claim 24, wherein the check elements comprise an endorsement. (Huff discloses deposit item information including an endorsement. See at least paragraph [0005].)
Claim 26
The method of claim 25, wherein the check elements comprise a signature. (Huff discloses determining that a signature is located on the deposit item. See at least paragraph [0057].)
Claim 27
The method of claim 21, wherein the plurality of images are submitted in a file. (Huff discloses transmitting the one or more images to the deposit server. See at least paragraph [0102] and Fig. 9. Examiner notes that sending electronic images necessarily is submitting them in at least one file format.)
Claim 28
The method of claim 21, wherein the check recognition program determines if a deposit amount matches an amount in the plurality of check images. (Huff discloses determining that a deposit item amount is a same type of deposit amount identified for each of the deposit items (i.e. determining if it matches). See at least paragraph [0044].)
Claim 29
The method of claim 21, wherein a deposit service computer program executed by the financial institution backend creates and submits a deposit transaction for the plurality of checks with valid images. (Huff discloses crediting the identified account using the deposit item information (i.e. deposit transaction). See at least paragraph [0047].)
Claim 31
A method for bulk check image deposit, comprising:
capturing, by a computer application executed by a kiosk, a video comprising a series of images of a plurality of check images for a plurality of checks, the plurality of check images comprising a single first image of a first side of the plurality of checks and a single second image of a second side of the plurality of checks; (Huff discloses capturing images of multiple deposit items wherein an image may show multiple deposit items. See at least paragraph [0054] and Fig. 3. Huff discloses capturing may be with video and scanner. See at least paragraphs [0039] and [0092]. Huff discloses deposit items may be checks. See at least paragraph [0002]. Huff discloses deposit location may be an automated teller machine (ATM; i.e. a kiosk). See at least paragraph [0002]. Huff discloses capturing images of the front and back of the multiple deposit items in one image. See at least paragraph [0054].)
sending, by the computer application, the plurality of check images to a financial institution backend executing a check recognition computer program; (Huff discloses sending the images to a deposit server (i.e. financial institution backend). See at least paragraph [0052]. Huff discloses performing check recognition. See at least paragraph [0101]. Huff discloses the deposit server may perform each and every portion of the process flow. See at least paragraph [0036].)
matching, by the check recognition computer program, the first image of the first side of the checks with the second image of the second sides of the checks based on a sequence of the checks in the first and second images, wherein the first side of a first check of the plurality of checks is a first check front side and the first side of a second check of the plurality of checks is a second check back side, wherein the first side and the second side each comprise a QR code, and the first image of the first side and the second image of the second side are further matched using the QR code; (Huff discloses matching front and back sides based on the images (i.e. sequence of checks in the images). See at least paragraphs [0054] and [0057]. Huff discloses “As another example, in some embodiments, the apparatus having the process flow 300 is configured to make a collective front and back determination by determining that an identifier (e.g., a watermark, a logo, etc.) located on a deposit item shown in the first image corresponds to an identifier located on a deposit item shown in the second image.” See at least paragraph [0057]. Huff does not disclose the identifier being a QR code.)
validating, by a deposit service computer program executed by the backend, the matched images for each of the checks by determining whether an image score of the plurality of check images is above an acceptability threshold based on image quality, whether the check is a duplicate, and whether check elements are present, wherein check elements include a name, a date, an amount, an endorsement, and a signature; and (Huff discloses determining satisfactory or unsatisfactory (i.e. validating based on an image score) for an image based on image quality. See at least paragraph [0060]. Huff discloses determining if deposit item information is present. See at least paragraph [0034] and [0057]. Huff discloses deposit item information including payee and payor identities (i.e. name), deposit amount, and endorsement. See at least paragraph [0005]. Huff discloses determining that a signature is located on the deposit item. See at least paragraph [0057]. Huff does not disclose determining duplicate checks. Huff does not disclose check comprising a date.)
depositing, by the deposit service computer program, the validated checks. (Huff discloses crediting the identified account using the deposit item information (i.e. depositing the checks). See at least paragraph [0047].)
Huff does not disclose the matched identifier being a QR code. Huff does not disclose determining duplicate checks. Huff does not disclose check comprising a date. Ballout teaches that transactions may be coded into QR codes. See at least paragraph [0042]. Ballout teaches preventing duplication of payments. See at least paragraph [0180]. Ballout teaches a check financial information comprising a date. See at least paragraph [0208].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to encode the identifiers of Huff using QR codes as taught by Ballout because Ballout additionally teaches the motivation that QR codes enable reading of transactions by scanners. See at least paragraph [0042]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perform duplication detection as taught by Ballout in the system of Huff because Ballout also teaches the motivation that detecting duplication prevents unauthorized duplications of the payment or the user’s information. See at least paragraph [0180]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the checks of Huff include a date as taught by Ballout because Ballout additionally teaches the motivation that this is relevant information. See at least paragraph [0208].
Claim 32
Claim 32 is substantially similar to the corresponding elements in Claim 22 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 33
Claim 33 is substantially similar to the corresponding elements in Claim 23 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 34
Claim 34 is substantially similar to the corresponding elements in Claim 24 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 35
Claim 35 is substantially similar to the corresponding elements in Claim 25 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 36
Claim 36 is substantially similar to the corresponding elements in Claim 26 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 37
Claim 37 is substantially similar to the corresponding elements in Claim 27 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 38
Claim 38 is substantially similar to the corresponding elements in Claim 28 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 39
Claim 39 is substantially similar to the corresponding elements in Claim 29 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim(s) 30 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff et al. (US 2012/0030117 A1 hereinafter Huff) in view of Ballout (US 2014/0058944 A1 hereinafter Ballout) further in view of Akdeniz et al. (WO 2016/076807 A1 hereinafter Akdeniz).
Claim 30
The method of claim 21, wherein a deposit service computer program executed by the financial institution backend returns an itemized list of the plurality of checks with a status of each check of the plurality of checks. (Huff/Ballout does not disclose the features of Claim 30. Magnus teaches displaying a report of e-cheques showing a listing of cheque information including cheque status. See at least page 45, lines 10-17.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the itemized listed reporting of Akdeniz in the system of Huff/Ballout because Akdeniz additionally teaches the motivation that this enables a user to access desired details of an e-cheque. See at least page 45, lines 10-17.)
Claim 40
Claim 40 is substantially similar to the corresponding elements in Claim 30 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kriegsfeld et al. (US 2021/0090372 A1) discloses submission of image files and validation based on date.
Magnus (US 9,240,088 B1) discloses check identifiers may include a QR code.
Oakes, III (US 8,708,227 B1) discloses processing an incoming check image to ensure it is not a duplicate.
Authors et al. (“System and Method for Enhanced and Personalized Remote Banking Activities Support”) discloses remote deposits of checks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights