DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20, which are currently pending, are fully considered below.
Priority
The instant application is a CON of U.S. Patent Application 18/816,376, which is U.S. Patent 12,436,959.
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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 15, and 16 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,436,959. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Instant claims
U.S. Patent No. 12,436,959
An apparatus for generating an instruction set for a user, the apparatus comprising:
at least a processor;
a memory connected to the at least a processor, the memory containing instructions configuring the at least a processor to:
receive a client datum associated with a client;
receive a user datum associated with a user;
classify, using a classifier, the client datum and the user datum to a category of a plurality of categories;
determine, using the at least a processor, a target datum as a function of one or more outlier clusters and the category;
generate, using the at least a processor, a transfer datum as a function of the user datum and the client datum; generate, using the at least a processor, an instruction set for the user based on the target datum and the transfer datum; and generate, using a machine learning model, an interface query datum structure, wherein the interface query datum structure is configured to: display an input field; receive a user-input datum; and display the instruction set based on the user-input datum.
An apparatus for generating an instruction set for a user, the apparatus comprising:
at least a processor;
a memory connected to the processor, the memory containing instructions configuring the at least a processor to:
receive a client datum from a client device, wherein the client datum describes at least a resource of the client device;
receive a user datum from the user;
classify the client datum and the user datum to a category of a plurality of categories;
calculate a target datum wherein the target datum identifies an optimum confidence level;
generate a transfer datum as a function of the optimum confidence level; wherein generating the transfer datum further comprises generating an interface query data structure including an input field based on ranking the first transfer datum and the at least a second transfer datum; receive at least a user-input datum into an input field, wherein the user-input datum describes data for selecting a preferred attribute of resource transfer data associated the transfer datum; and display an instruction set including displaying the transfer datum based on the user-input datum wherein the instruction set is further configured to: generate a strategy recommendation as a function of at least the target datum wherein the strategy recommendation identifies a client relationship recommendation.
5. The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the at least a processor is further configured to generate, using the machine learning model, the interface query datum structure based on ranking a first transfer datum and at least a second transfer datum of the multiple instances of the transfer datum.
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein generating the transfer datum further comprises identifying a first transfer datum and at least a second transfer datum from transfer data.
10. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein generating the instruction set further comprises: classifying the client datum to one or more of the plurality of categories based on a pattern that is representative of client interaction with the user.
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein generating the instruction set further comprises: classifying the client datum to one or more of the plurality of categories based on a pattern that is representative of client interaction with the user.
10. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein generating the instruction set further comprises: classifying the client datum to one or more of the plurality of categories based on a pattern that is representative of client interaction with the user.
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the client datum further comprises a pattern that is representative of client interactions.
11. A method for generating an instruction set for a user, the method comprising: receiving, using at least a processor, a client datum; receiving, using the at least a processor, a user datum from the user; classifying, using a classifier, the client datum and the user datum to a category of a plurality of categories; determining, using the at least a processor, a target datum as a function of one or more outlier clusters and the category; generating using the at least a processor, a transfer datum as a function of the user datum and the client datum; generating, using the at least a processor, an instruction set for the user based on the target datum and the transfer datum; and generating, using a machine learning model, an interface query datum structure, wherein the interface query datum structure is configured to: display an input field; receive a user-input datum; and display the instruction set based on the user-input datum.
10. A method for generating an instruction set for a user, the method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, a client datum from a client device, wherein the client datum describes resources of the client device and a pattern that is representative of client interactions; receiving, by the computing device, a user datum from the user; classifying, by the computing device, the client datum and the user datum to a category of a plurality of categories; calculating, by the computing device, a target datum wherein the target datum identifies an optimum confidence level; generating, by the computing device, a transfer datum as a function of the optimum confidence level; wherein generating the transfer datum further comprises generating an interface query data structure including an input field based on ranking the first transfer datum and the at least a second transfer datum; receiving, by the computing device, at least a user-input datum into an input field, wherein the user-input datum describes data for selecting a preferred attribute of resource transfer data associated the transfer datum displaying, by the computing device, an instruction set including displaying the first transfer datum based on the user-input datum wherein the instruction set is further configured to: generate a strategy recommendation as a function of at least the target datum wherein the strategy recommendation identifies a client relationship recommendation.
20. The method of claim 11, further comprising generating the instruction set by: classifying the client datum to one or more of the plurality of categories based on a pattern that is representative of client interaction with the user.
15. The method of claim 10, wherein generating the instruction set further comprises: classifying the client datum to one or more of the plurality of categories based on the pattern that is representative of client interaction with the user.
20. The method of claim 11, further comprising generating the instruction set by: classifying the client datum to one or more of the plurality of categories based on a pattern that is representative of client interaction with the user.
16. The method of claim 10, wherein the client datum further comprises a pattern that is representative of client interactions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or
composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible
subject.
Claims 1 and 11 recite:
receive a client datum associated with a client;
receive a user datum associated with a user;
classify, using a classifier, the client datum and the user datum to a category of a plurality of categories;
determine, using the at least a processor, a target datum as a function of one or more outlier clusters and the category;
generate, using the at least a processor, a transfer datum as a function of the user datum and the client datum;
generate, using the at least a processor, an instruction set for the user based on the target datum and the transfer datum; and
generate, using a machine learning model, an interface query datum structure, wherein the interface query datum structure is configured to:
display an input field;
receive a user-input datum; and display the instruction set based on the user-input datum.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 1 and 11 limitations to “receive…” “classify…” and “display…” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind. Determining is drawn to collecting and analyzing data. Similarly, a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
MENTAL PROCESSES MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 1 and 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim limitations of “generate, using the at least a processor, an instruction set for the user based on the target datum and the transfer datum; and generate, using a machine learning model, an interface query datum structure, wherein the interface query datum structure is configured to…” fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations merely recite generic computer operations.
Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application 2106.04(d)
The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012) (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found ‘‘the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,’’ but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’). Similarly, in a growing body of decisions, the Federal Circuit has distinguished between claims that are ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception (which require further analysis to determine their eligibility) and those that are not (which are therefore patent eligible), e.g., claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.06(b) (summarizing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and other cases that were eligible as improvements to technology or computer functionality instead of being directed to abstract ideas).
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h).
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2); [AltContent: rect]
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
THE SEARCH FOR AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT MPEP 2106.05(I)
The second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)).
An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
Claims 2 and 12 recite:
generate the interface query datum structure on one or more attributes of the user datum.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 2 and 12 limitation to “generate…” recites abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitation may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 2 and 12 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 13 disclose:
determining, using the one or more outlier clusters, the target datum by identifying one or more behavioral outliers among the plurality of categories using a clustering algorithm, wherein the clustering algorithm: calculates an initial centroid of one or more clusters;
recomputes one or more centroids until a stopping criterion has been satisfied; and
assigns the client datum to one or more of the clusters based on a proximity metric to a recomputed centroid.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 3 and 13 limitations of “determining…” “recomputes…” and “assigns…” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 3 and 13 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 14 recite:
aggregating, using the at least a processor, multiple instances of the transfer datum to generate resource transfer data, wherein the resource transfer data chronologically tracks payment between the client and the user.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 4 and 14 limitations of “aggregating…” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 4 and 14 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 15 discloses:
generating, using the machine learning model, the interface query datum structure based on ranking a first transfer datum and at least a second transfer datum of the multiple instances of the transfer datum.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 5 and 15 limitations of “generating…” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 5 and 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 16 discloses:
generating, using the at least a processor, a user score based on a similarity of the resource transfer data to the client datum.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 6 and 16 wherein limitation recites abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 6 and 16 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 17 disclose:
determining, using at least a processor, a threshold as a function of at least the resource transfer data.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 7 and 17 limitations of “determining…” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 8 and 18 discloses:
generating, using the at least a processor, the transfer datum by evaluating the plurality of categories relating to a repayment behavior of the client, wherein evaluating comprises: identifying, using the at least a processor, the repayment behavior based on prior repayment activity associated with the client; and
classifying, using the at least a processor, the repayment behavior to one or more of the plurality of categories associated with transfer consistency.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 8 and 18 limitations of “generating…” and “classifying…” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 8 and 18 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 19 discloses:
displaying, using a graphical user interface of a display device, the interface query datum structure and the instruction set for the user.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 9 and 19 wherein limitation recites abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 9 and 19 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 20 disclose:
generating the instruction set by: classifying the client datum to one or more of the plurality of categories based on a pattern that is representative of client interaction with the user.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 10 and 20 limitations of “generating…” and “classifying…” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3034. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights