DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a regular application with a claim of priority to an Israeli patent application filed June 25, 2024.
The IDS filed June 24, 2025 in this Application has been considered.
NOTE: Interviews are encouraged, especially in this case given four (4) previously issued patents. Please use the AIR form, the link for which is found at the end of this Action, for scheduling an interview if such is desired.
Claims 1 – 28 were cancelled by way of a preliminary amendment filed May 24, 2025. Thus, new claims 29 – 37 are pending and examined as follows:
Claim Objections
Claims 30, 35, and 37 are objected to because they use the transitional phrase “held true.” This is not a typical transitional phrase. Accordingly, the Claims are rendered vague and unclear as to their scope. See MPEP §2111.03
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
2. 35 USC § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
A. Rejection Based on Abstract Idea
Claims 29 - 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Furthermore, this rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
B. Statutory Categories
Independent Claim 29 is a method claim and therefore falls into the statutory category of a “process.” Claim 34 is a system claim which recites various computer hardware components such as a computing device and a server and it therefore falls into the statutory category of “machine/manufacture.”
C. The Claim Recites an Abstract Idea
Claim 29 is illustrative of the rejection of all claims on the grounds of abstract idea.
Claim 29 recites the limitation:
“a computing device (330), comprising a digital wallet application installed thereon and a user interface; a management server (340), configured to administrate a client payment account (345) comprising at least one currency balance (346) securely accessible via said digital wallet application.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, constitutes a method of organizing human activity, specifically, fundamental economic principles or practices. That is, analyzing this limitation in the context of the claim as a whole, it recites a process that falls within the grouping of abstract ideas comprising certain methods of organizing human activity. Fundamental economic principles or practices are examples of such methods. In this case, the fundamental economic principle or practice is the common practice of using a digital wallet to make purchases at a POS. This practice occurs millions of times every day.
Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a “processor” or “server” or “computing device” does not remove the claim from the category of common or abstract methods of organizing human activity. These terms are recited at such a high level of generality as to not alter the designation of reciting an abstract idea.
Thus, Claim 29 recites a judicial exception, namely, an abstract idea.
D. The Claim Does Not Integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
Moreover, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The possible “additional limitations” recited in the Claim that must be considered are as follows:
a trusted entity server (350), configured to administrate a client brokerage account (355) comprising an at least one security (356);
wherein the client brokerage account and the client payment account are associated with a client (320) and the management server is configured to:
receive a request to authorize a transaction of the client initiated at a POS payment system (310) via the computing device;
initiate a secure connection with the trusted entity server;
retrieve data (361) pertaining to the client brokerage account from the trusted entity server;
perform an analysis of the at least one security in the client brokerage account and the at least one currency in the client payment account;
formulate at least one financing suggestion for financing the transaction by at least one of partial sale of the at least one security in the client brokerage account and partial payment using the at least one currency in the client payment account;
obtain confirmation of one of the at least one financing suggestion, being a confirmed financing suggestion, from the client via the user interface;
issue an instruction (362) to the trusted entity server to perform a sale of the at least one security in the client brokerage account according to the confirmed financing suggestion;
transmit an authorization of the transaction to the POS payment system, to be initially paid by the client payment account; and recover (363) from the trusted entity server the proceeds from the sale of the at least one security according to the selected financing suggestion, and apply the proceeds to the client payment account.
1. Lack of Computer Components and Interaction Among Same
Other than one additional server, no additional computerized components are mentioned in these limitations. The only computer terms are recited only at a high level of generality. No other particular computer functions or computer component interactions within this system are recited. The few computer-related limitations are wholly generic in nature and are recited at such a high level of generality as to not provide any meaningful limitations on the claim.
The Claim merely recites a server checking a brokerage account for a security and making a financing suggestion for using a sale of securities in the financing decision to complete the purchase at a POS. These are high level, broad and abstract concepts. Furthermore, the claim lacks concrete assignments of specific functions among these various components. One example of such concrete assignment is to assign, in the claim, certain functions to specific components and recite them as interacting in specific ways. This is not the case with this Claim.
2. No Technical Solution to a Technical Problem
Analyzing these additional limitations individually, and taking the claim as a whole and as an ordered combination, it is clear that these additional limitations do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They do not recite a technological solution to a technological problem. They do not improve the functioning of the computer system itself or represent an improvement to any technology or technical field. In fact, there are very few computerized system components or functions recited.
Thus, these limitations fail to recite with specificity any technical function or any improvement to the functioning of the computer system itself. Therefore, the claim lacks the specificity required to transform the claim from one claiming only an outcome or a result – completing the purchase using proceeds from a security sale - to one claiming a specific way of achieving that outcome or result. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(I); 2106.04(d)(1); 2106.05(a)
3. The Claim Recites Mere Instructions to Apply the Abstract Idea
The recitation of these generic components amounts to no more than mere instructions “to apply” the abstract idea exception using generic computer components. It is clear that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Furthermore, the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As noted above, the only possible computer components are recited at a high level of generality. This means that the abstract idea can be applied to an extremely general field of devices and systems. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor does not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the abstract idea exception, or claims every mode of accomplishing that idea, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f)
Accordingly, the additional elements or limitations listed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. That is, the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s) have been evaluated to determine whether those additional elements, considered individually and in combination, integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application. They do not.
E. Step 2B: The Claim Does Not Recite Significantly More than the Abstract Idea
This step involves the search for an “inventive concept.” However, it is clear from the case law and the MPEP that the considerations at issue are the same as those considered above with respect to the analysis of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a) – (c) and (e). In other words, these analyses sharply overlap.
Therefore, based on the above analysis, the identified additional limitations do not provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea. The claim is therefore ineligible under §101. The other independent claims are, likewise, ineligible for the same reasons as they are virtually identical to Claim 29.
F. The Dependent Claims Do Not Recite Meaningful Additional Limitations
Similarly, Claim 30 recites the same abstract idea as Claim 29 by virtue of its dependency on Claim 29. Like Claim 29, this claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 30 merely recites the abstract concept of a change in value.
Claim 31 merely recites the abstract concept of a current value and a change in value over time.
Claim 32 merely recites the abstract concept of an interface that allows the user to change the composition of the purchase.
Claim 33 merely recites the abstract concept of an interface that is generated via app software.
Claims 34 - 37 are virtually identical or analogous variations to various of the aforementioned claims and are ineligible for the same reasons as set forth above.
None of these claims provide any additional meaningful limitations, non-generic computer components, or specific assignments of functionality among those components. Likewise, if at all, these claims recite only generic, computer-related limitations which are recited at such a high level of generality as to be devoid of any meaningful Limitations. These limitations do not recite improvements in the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Therefore, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, constitute only a mere instruction to “apply” the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 29 - 37 constitute ineligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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 29 - 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0205983 to Gurunathan et al. (hereinafter “Gurunathan”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0309493 to Stipech et al. (hereinafter “Stipech”).
The Gurunathan reference is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention – financing a purchase at a POS using securities.
The title is: Computer system and computer-implemented method for using financial assets
Gurunathan teaches as follows in the Abstract:
“A server for processing a payment transaction initiated by a customer using various financial assets is described. The server comprising a transaction module, an inquiry module and an authorisation module. The transaction module is configured to: (i) receive a transaction authorisation request comprising at least a payment amount and an account identifier associated with the customer; and (ii) transmit a transaction authorisation response indicating if the payment transaction is approved or refused. The inquiry module is configured to: (i) determine if an available balance of a primary account associated with the account identifier is less than the payment amount; and (ii) determine if the account identifier is associated with a secondary account if the available balance of the primary account is less than the payment amount, the secondary account being associated with a customer financial asset. The authorisation module is configured to: (i) transmit, to a customer electronic device, an authorisation request if it is determined that the customer is associated with the secondary account, the authentication request comprising a request to process the payment transaction using the customer financial asset; and (ii) receive, from the customer electronic device, an authorisation response indicating if the payment transaction is to be processed using the customer financial asset..” (Emphasis Added)
The purpose of Gurunathan is on point with the claimed invention - to use the value of a customer’s securities to finance a purchase at the POS in the event the funds in a “primary account’ are insufficient.
The problem recognized by the claimed invention is the same as addressed in Gurunathan – the untapped value of a consumer’s brokerage account:
“[0017] Embodiments of the invention therefore provide a server that can be used for processing a payment transaction initiated by a customer using various financial assets. In particular, in processing the payment transaction, if it is determined that a primary account associated with the customer and used to initiate the payment transaction has insufficient funds (i.e. an available balance in the primary account is less than a payment amount associated with the payment transaction), the server is configured to determine if the customer (via the account identifier) is associated with a secondary account. The secondary account is associated with a customer financial asset. If it is determined that the customer is associated with the secondary account, the server is configured to transmit an authorisation request to the customer via a customer electronic device comprising a request to process the payment transaction using the customer financial asset. If an authorisation response indicating that the payment transaction is to be processed using the customer financial asset is received from the customer, the payment transaction may proceed by utilising the customer financial asset. This advantageously provides a new fallback option for the customer to pay for the payment transaction which would otherwise be rejected due to insufficient funds in the primary account (e.g. cash or a credit limit of a payment card etc.). Moreover, with the ease of using other financial assets (e.g. shares, commodities, bonds etc.) readily as a liquid asset (e.g. cash), embodiments of the invention advantageously improve customer experience and provide options in investing in various financial assets which would otherwise limit a liquidity/cash flow of the customer.” (Emphasis Added)
Thus, Gurunathan solves the problem in the exact manner as the claimed invention – a server of an issuer 110 stores data in an issuer database 112 pertaining to both the primary account and the secondary (securities) account:
PNG
media_image1.png
486
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As noted above, the consumer may initiate the transaction via an application executing on the consumer’s mobile phone as shown as 102, which is considered to constitute the recited term “digital wallet:”
“[0106] In a step 314, the issuer server 110 is configured to transmit, to the customer electronic device 102, the registration response as discussed in the step 304. The registration response serves to notify the customer if the registration has been successful. In some embodiments, the customer profile stored in a mobile application of the customer electronic device 102 is updated upon successful registration of the customer to use various financial assets for processing the payment transaction.” (Emphasis Added)
A person of ordinary skill in the art will readily understand that the “notification” referenced above is via an interface on the mobile phone. See also 0082 and 0114. It also clear in Gurunathan that an analysis is carried out by the issuer server to determine the best time to sell the securities in order to complete the transaction, and that the consumer is again notified via the mobile device:
“[0110] In some embodiments, processing the payment transaction through sale of the shares or the commodities is available during relevant trading windows associated with the shares or the commodities to be sold. The shares or the commodities may be sold and money derived from the sale of the shares or the commodities may be transferred to the primary account before the payment transaction can proceed using funds made available to the primary account. The money derived from the sale may be less than the actual market value of the shares or the commodities due to fees involved during processing of the sale of the shares or the commodities. In some embodiments, the customer is notified of current values of the shares or the commodities by the server 108, 110. This may be comprised in the authorisation request transmitted from the server 108, 110 to the customer via the customer electronic device 102 at the step 208. In some embodiments, the shares or the commodities are sold at the market value immediately. In other embodiments, the shares or the commodities may be held by the issuer institution associated with the secondary account and sold at a later time based on market trends. In these cases, the customer may receive money derived from the sale based on the market value of the shares or the commodities presented to him/her at the time of authorisation (e.g. in the step 208), while the issuer institution associated with the secondary account may bear the risk of selling the shares or the commodities at a later time. Various conditions may be defined by the customer and/or the issuer institution in regards to the sale of the shares or the commodities (see e.g. description below).” (Emphasis Added)
Accordingly, with regard to Claim 29, as outlined above, Gurunathan teaches:
Broadest reasonable interpretation:
The Claims of a patent application must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP §2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification (e.g. the specification gives the term a special meaning). The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.
Here, no specialized meaning is detected from the specification; therefore, the plain and ordinary meaning of the Claim terms will be given.
Discussion of Cited References:
29. (New) A method for making payments at a point of sale, the method comprising:
a computing device (330), comprising a digital wallet application installed thereon and a user interface; (See at least Fig. 1 reproduced above and 0106 quoted above.)
a management server (340), configured to administrate a client payment account (345) comprising at least one currency balance (346) securely accessible via said digital wallet application; and (See at least Fig. 1, and issuer server 110)
a trusted entity server (350), configured to administrate a client brokerage account (355) comprising an at least one security (356);wherein the client brokerage account and the client payment account are associated with a client (320) and the management server is configured to: (See at least Fig. 1 and server 106 and or issuer server 110)
receive a request to authorize a transaction of the client initiated at a POS payment system (310) via the computing device; (See at least 0008-0009 relative to an transaction authorization request)
initiate a secure connection with the trusted entity server; (See at least 0141 – 0143, wherein due to the financial nature of the transactions being processed and the required registration by consumers, the connection will undoubtedly be secure.)
retrieve data (361) pertaining to the client brokerage account from the trusted entity server; (See at least 0084 relating to the customer “profile”)
perform an analysis of the at least one security in the client brokerage account and the at least one currency in the client payment account; (See at least 0110 – reproduced above - relating to a market trend that determines when the stock should be sold.)
formulate at least one financing suggestion for financing the transaction by at least one of partial sale of the at least one security in the client brokerage account and partial payment using the at least one currency in the client payment account; (See at least 0110 reproduced above wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the securities should be sold at an opportune time, as taught by Gurunathan as “relevant trading windows.” Such windows are considered to constitute the recited term “financing suggestion.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that only a partial sale is necessary in order to complete the transaction and that a mix of cash from the primary account can be combined with proceeds from the sale of securities using the secondary account. Thus, these options are authorized by the consumer at the time of the purchase, as indicated by the following quotation from 0110: “presented to him/her at the time of authorisation (e.g. in the step 208)”)
obtain confirmation of one of the at least one financing suggestion, being a confirmed financing suggestion, from the client via the user interface; (See at least 0110 as described above in the preceding Claim limitation. Such “confirmation” is clear from the teaching in Gurunathan regarding “authorization.”)
issue an instruction (362) to the trusted entity server to perform a sale of the at least one security in the client brokerage account according to the confirmed financing suggestion; (See at least 0110 – 0112)
transmit an authorization of the transaction to the POS payment system, to be initially paid by the client payment account; and (See at least 0112)
recover (363) from the trusted entity server the proceeds from the sale of the at least one security according to the selected financing suggestion, and apply the proceeds to the client payment account. (See at least 0017 – 0028)
Therefore, Gurunathan appears to teach all of the essential limitations of Claim 29; however, out of an abundance of caution, Stipech is cited for its teachings related to a relevant interface for the consumer to view and act on recommendations and suggestions.
Thus, Stipech is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Gurunathan – using brokerage accounts to complete purchases at a POS.
The title of Stipech is: Expediting transaction settlement
The Abstract is as follows:
“In one embodiment, a method includes obtaining, by a payment service system, an amount of security assets via a securities exchange system. The method includes determining amounts of security assets owned by the payment service system and users of the payment service system. The method includes receiving, via an application of the payment service system executing on a device of a user of the payment service system, a request from the user to sell an amount of a security asset owned by the user. The method includes facilitating execution of a sale of the amount of security assets. The method includes, prior to the sale request settling, depositing, by the payment service system, a currency account of the user with an amount of funds associated with a determined value of the security asset requested to be sold by the user..” (Emphasis Added)
In Stipech, the system makes recommendations or suggestions for the sale of securities. (See at least 0010, 0015, and 0019). Furthermore, user interfaces are presented for executing these transactions and presenting an analysis of the value of the securities:
PNG
media_image2.png
517
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
522
657
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See also other interface teachings of Stipech.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the payment platform of Gurunathan, wherein a securities/secondary account is linked to a cash/primary account for paying for purchases at a POS, to add the recommendation and interface features of Stipech. The motivation to make this modification comes from Gurunathan. It teaches, as quoted and illustrated above, that the consumer is notified via a mobile computing device about the sale of securities. It would greatly enhance the efficiency and convenience of the system of Gurunathan to add the recommendation and display/interface features of Stipech.
With regard to Claims 2 – 7, Gurunathan in view of Stipech teaches:
30. (New) The method of claim 29, wherein at least one of the following is held true:a. said management server, when formulating said at least one financing suggestion, is configured to consider at least change in value of at least one of said at least one security in said brokerage account over time, estimate a potential change in the current value of said at least one security in said brokerage account, and include in said at least one financing suggestion at least one of said at least one security whose value is estimated to decrease.;b. at least one of the following: total current value of said at least one brokerage account,current value of each of the at least one security in said at least one brokerage account, type of each of the at least one security, taxes imposed on sale of the at least one security, amount of said transaction, available amount in any other payment method and account associated with said client; andc. said management server is configured to receive a set of rules (196) from the trusted entity server applying to said sale of the at least one security; and wherein said management server is configured to formulate said at least one financing suggestion in accordance with said set of rules. (See at least Gurunathan: 0110, which teaches that the platform may sell the securities at a later time based on “market trends.” This is clearly a teaching regarding the consideration of a change in value of the security, as recited in the first section of this Claim 30. As to the recitation that the suggestion of a security that may decrease, this section of the reference teaches: “Various conditions may be defined by the customer and/or the issuer institution in regards to the sale of the shares or the commodities (see e.g. description below).” A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a suggestion could be to sell a security whose value may decrease, i.e. it is obvious to sell high.)
31. (New) The method of claim 30, wherein current value and change in value over time of said at least one security included in said at least one financing suggestion are presented to said client via said user interface (140). (See at least Gurunathan: 0110, which teaches that the platform may sell the securities at a later time based on “market trends.” This is clearly a teaching regarding a change in value being presented to the customer, since this section of Gurunathan teaches that “the customer may receive money derived from the sale based on the market value of the shares or the commodities presented to him/her at the time of authorisation (e.g. in the step 208) . . .” (Emphasis Added)
32. (New) The method of claim 29, wherein said user interface (140) allows said client to change the composition of said at least one security to be sold in said at least one financing suggestion. (See at least the following teaching of Gurunathan: “Various conditions may be defined by the customer and/or the issuer institution in regards to the sale of the shares or the commodities (see e.g. description below).” This reference also teaches throughout the publication that “rules” may be established with respect to the sale of securities. See at least 0054 -0057 and 0089.)
33. (New) The method of claim 29, wherein said user interface is provided via a software application (140) installed on said computing device. (See at least Gurunathan: 0082 and Stipech: 0014.)
With regard to Claim 34, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 29 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth in that claim.
With regard to Claim 35, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 30 and Claim 29 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth in those claims.
With regard to Claim 36, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 31 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth in that claim.
With regard to Claim 37, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 32 and 33 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth in those claims.
Conclusion
4. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action:
A. Search and Prior Art
The search conducted in connection with this Office Action, as well as any previous Actions, encompassed the inventive concepts as defined in the Applicant’s specification. That is, the search(es) included concepts and features which are defined by the pending claims but also pertinent to significant although unclaimed subject matter. Accordingly, such search(es) were directed to the defined invention as well as the general state of the art, including references which are in the same field of endeavor as the present application as well as related fields (e.g. using securities to finance a purchase of goods or products at the POS). Indeed, there is a plethora of prior art in these fields.
Therefore, in addition to prior art references cited and applied in connection with this and any previous Office Actions, the following prior art is also made of record but not relied upon in the current rejection:
U.S. Patent Publication No.2023/0115953 to Brock et al. This reference relates to the concept of using a ledger to store securities for use in purchase at the POS.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0113033 to Dhodapkar et al. This reference relates to the concept of making recommendations for the sale of securities.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0242949 to Phillips IV. This reference relates to the concept of the use of a credit card backed by securities.
B. Responding to this Office Action
In view of the foregoing explanation of the scope of searches conducted in connection with the examination of this application, in preparing any response to this Action, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the entire disclosures of the above-cited, unapplied references, as well as any previously cited references. It is likely that one or more such references disclose or suggest features which Applicant may seek to claim. Moreover, for the same reasons, Applicant is encouraged to review the entire disclosures of the references applied in the foregoing rejections and not just the sections mentioned.
C. Interviews and Compact Prosecution
The Office strongly encourages interviews as an important aspect of compact prosecution. Statistics and studies have shown that prosecution can be greatly advanced by way of interviews. Indeed, in many instances, during the course of one or more interviews, the Examiner and Applicant may reach an agreement on eligible and allowable subject matter that is supported by the specification.
Interviews are especially welcomed by this examiner at any stage of the prosecution process. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool (e.g. TEAMS). To facilitate the scheduling of an interview, the Examiner requests the use of the AIR form as follows:
USPTO Automated Interview Request http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Other forms of interview requests filed in this application may result in a delay in scheduling the interview because of the time required to appear on the Examiner's docket. Thus, the use of the AIR form is strongly encouraged.
D. Communicating with the Office
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BUNKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0017. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30AM - 5:30PM, Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached at 571-270-1836. Information regarding the status of an application, whether published or unpublished, may be obtained from the “Patent Center” system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/William (Bill) Bunker/
U.S. Patent Examiner
AU 3691
(571) 272-0017 - office
william.bunker@uspto.gov
July 4, 2026
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights