DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendments made on 03/02/2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 currently amended.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 18-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 7-9 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Office Action concludes that limitations such as "creating a graph model," "deriving augmented-types information," "adding the derived augmented-types information to the equation," and "solving the equation" can be performed mentally or with pencil and paper. (Office Action, pp. 9-11).
As amended, however, independent claim 1 (and analogously independent claims 8 and 15) recites more than performing a calculation or labeling data. The claim recites deriving augmented-types information that includes "a graph pattern... comprising a domain subgraph that relates all of the inputs to each other and relates all of the inputs to the output," where the graph pattern further indicates "whether two or more of the inputs or the output are properties of a same instance of the surrounding air." The claim further recites "adding the derived augmented- types information to the equation," where the derived augmented-types information "disambiguates the relationship between inputs and outputs in domain terms and enables artificial intelligence to interpret and apply the equation," and where the adding ensures "consistency in unit alignment between the vehicle speed and the speed of sound."
These recitations define a specific graph-based structure and the use of that structure to augment the equation in a manner tied to the surrounding air and unit alignment in the aircraft- performance context. The Office Action does not explain how deriving and using such a "domain subgraph" that relates all inputs to each other and to the output, and that indicates whether parameters are "properties of a same instance of the surrounding air," would be performed mentally in the manner recited.
Even assuming, for purposes of argument, that aspects of the claims involve a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong One, the amended independent claims integrate any such concept into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 does not merely recite calculating an aircraft performance parameter, but recites deriving a "graph pattern...comprising a domain subgraph that relates all of the inputs to each other and relates all of the inputs to the output," where the graph pattern further indicates "whether two or more of the inputs or the output are properties of a same instance of the surrounding air," and adding that derived augmented-types information to the equation so that it "disambiguates the relationship between inputs and outputs in domain terms and enables artificial intelligence to interpret and apply the equation," while ensuring "consistency in unit alignment between the vehicle speed and the speed of sound."
These recitations apply any alleged abstract idea in a specific manner of augmenting and applying an equation. Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and MPEP §2106.04(d), a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies the exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the exception. Here, the recited derivation of a domain subgraph that relates all inputs to each other and to the output, and that indicates whether parameters are properties of a same instance of the surrounding air, together with the adding of that derived augmented-types information to the equation, limits how the equation is augmented and applied. The claim therefore does more than recite a mathematical concept or merely state a field of use.
The Office Action characterizes the amended features as "adding a label" or verifying distinct inputs and outputs. (Office Action, p. 5). However, the claim recites deriving a "graph pattern...comprising a domain subgraph" that relates all inputs to each other and to the output and that indicates whether two or more of the inputs or the output are "properties of a same instance of the surrounding air." This defined graph-based relationship structure is added to the equation so that artificial intelligence can interpret and apply it. The Office Action does not explain how such a domain subgraph with same-instance information is merely a label.
For these reasons, the amended claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
The Office Action further concludes that the additional elements amount to no more than generic computer implementation. (Office Action, p. 13).
However, the Office Action does not identify evidence that deriving a "graph pattern...comprising a domain subgraph" that relates all inputs to each other and to the output and that indicates whether parameters are "properties of a same instance of the surrounding air," or that adding that derived augmented-types information to the equation so that it disambiguates relationships in domain terms and enables artificial intelligence to interpret and apply the equation, is well-understood, routine, or conventional. The rejection relies primarily on characterizing these features as labeling or unit consistency. The amended claim language goes beyond simple labeling or unit conversion.
For at least these reasons, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully traversed and withdrawal is requested.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found to be not persuasive.
Applicant argues that previous action does not account for the amendments made on the independent claims, and that said amendments provide a specific graph-based structure and the use of that structure to augment the equation in a manner tied to the surrounding air and unit alignment in the aircraft- performance context. Examiner agrees that the amendments were not covered in the previous action, however the included amendments relating to the domain subgraph do not provide enough evidence of a specific structure or mechanism that would constitute the actions not being able to be performed in the human mind. In fact, the only mention of a “domain subgraph” in Applicant’s specification is in [0053] where it is stated that. “For any single computational model, the extent of the graph pattern needed is the domain subgraph that connects all inputs and outputs together”. No other information is given as to what the make up of this subgraph is and why the actions utilizing it cannot be performed in the human mind.
Applicant argues that the independent claims do not merely recite calculating an aircraft performance parameter, but recite deriving a graph pattern that relates inputs to outputs and clarifies whether two or more of the inputs or the output are properties of a same instance of the surrounding air. Deriving a pattern from given data is an action that is capable of being performed in the human mind and clarifying said data for use in an equation is also an abstract idea capable of being performed in the human mind.
Applicant argues that the recitations apply any alleged abstract idea in a specific manner of augmenting and applying an equation and they also limit how the equation is augmented and applied. Examiner disagrees. The actions of deriving variables, patterns, inputs, outputs, etc. of an equation could be classified as either mathematical concepts or mental processes, both of which are abstract ideas. The use of any derived data to modify a known equation or expression, especially one that relates to a law of nature (i.e. determining the speed of an object in motion in the air), is firmly a mathematical concept and is still recited as such, the use of a graph pattern to derive the necessary information does not preclude the action from being an abstract idea.
In light of the amendments made on the claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained and updated below.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 9-11 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0379755 to Kuriakose ("Kuriakose") in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,721,682 to Moore et al. ("Moore"), Keller et al. (R. M. Keller and M. Rimon, "A knowledge-based software development environment for scientific model-building,"...) ("Keller"), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0016020 to Estes ("Estes"), and Brewster et al. (L. T. Brewster and P. D. Stigall, "Aircraft vertical profile implementation using directed-graph methods,"...) ("Brewster").
At page 25, the Office Action acknowledges that "Kuriakose + Moore does not distinctly disclose deriving augmented-types information from the graph model including units of measure and a graph pattern of the graph model, the graph pattern representing a relationship between the inputs and the output adding the derived augmented-types information to the equation, the adding ensuring consistency in unit alignment between the vehicle speed and the speed of sound to facilitate use of the equation by artificial intelligence." The Office Action then relies on Keller to address these asserted deficiencies. (Office Action, pp. 25-26).
In particular, the Office Action cites Keller, Section 3.3 ("Scientific units"), for the statement that "[t]he system must ensure that the input values are converted to a common, consistent set of scientific units," and asserts that "facilitating use of the equation by artificial intelligence can be interpreted simply as making sure all units are consistent and uniform." (Office Action, p. 26).
Keller's discussion in Section 3.3 concerns scientific unit handling. Keller states that "[t]he system must ensure that the input values are converted to a common, consistent set of scientific units." This passage addresses dimensional consistency and unit conversion among values. It does not describe a "graph pattern" that is "comprising a domain subgraph that relates all of the inputs to each other and relates all of the inputs to the output," nor does it describe a graph pattern indicating "whether two or more of the inputs or the output are properties of a same instance of the surrounding air," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Nothing in Section 3.3 of Keller addresses a "domain subgraph" relating "all of the inputs" to each other and to the output, or indicating whether "two or more of the inputs or the output are properties of a same instance of the surrounding air." Keller's disclosure of converting values to a "common, consistent set of scientific units" does not address these graph-based and instance-based features.
Independent claim 1 further recites "adding the derived augmented-types information to the equation," where the derived augmented-types information "disambiguates the relationship between inputs and outputs in domain terms." The Office Action does not identify any passage in Keller that discloses or suggests adding derived graph pattern information to an equation in this manner, or that discloses or suggests the above-recited "domain subgraph" and "same instance of the surrounding air" features.
The Office Action also does not identify any disclosure in Brewster or Estes that addresses these recited features. Brewster is cited for directed-graph calculation methods, and Estes is cited for multi-agent systems. (See Office Action, pp. 27-28). The rejection does not rely on either reference for the "domain subgraph" language or for the recitation that the graph pattern indicates whether two or more of the inputs or the output are properties of a same instance of the surrounding air. Nor does the Office Action identify any teaching in those references of "adding the derived augmented-types information to the equation" so as to disambiguate the relationship between inputs and outputs in domain terms.
Thus, even when Kuriakose, Moore, Keller, Brewster, and Estes are considered together, the Office Action does not point to any disclosure that teaches or suggests the recited graph pattern comprising a domain subgraph that relates all inputs to each other and to the output and that indicates whether two or more of the inputs or the output are properties of a same instance of the surrounding air, or the recited adding of such derived augmented-types information to the equation.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are amended to include recitations similar to those of amended independent claim 1. For at least the foregoing reasons, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are respectfully requested.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that the relied upon prior art references do not teach the amended limitation(s) of the independent claims, wherein it is recited “comprising a domain subgraph that relates all of the inputs to each other and relates all of the inputs to the output, the graph pattern further indicating whether two or more of the inputs or the output are properties of a same instance of the surrounding air”. None of the previously relied upon prior art references teach the use of a domain subgraph that relates all the inputs to the outputs, nor do they teach the use of a graph pattern that indicates whether or not the inputs/outputs are related to the same instance of the surrounding air. A new search was done to account for the newly amended limitations and no new prior art reference(s) were found to read upon those limitations.
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, a computer system including at least one processor, therefore falling into the statutory category of machine. Independent Claim 8 recites, in part, a tangible computer readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions, therefore falling into the statutory category of machine. Independent Claim 15 recites, in part, a method performed on a computer system, therefore falling into the statutory category of process.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 1 recites in part:
“creating a graph model of inputs to an equation for calculating an output relevant to the domain knowledge”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses creating a graph for calculating an output.
“deriving augmented-types information from the graph model including units of measure and a graph pattern of the graph model, the graph pattern representing a relationship between the inputs and the output and comprising a domain subgraph that relates all of the inputs to each other and relates all of the inputs to the output, the graph pattern further indicating whether two or more of the inputs or the output are properties of a same instance of the surrounding air”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses gathering information from a graph.
“adding the derived augmented-types information to the equation, the adding ensuring consistency in unit alignment between the vehicle speed and the speed of sound to facilitate use of the equation by artificial intelligence”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses modifying an equation to have the same units among all its variables.
“wherein the derived augmented-types information disambiguates the relationship between inputs and outputs in domain terms and enables artificial intelligence to interpret and apply the equation”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses verifying that the inputs and outputs of an equation are distinct enough for artificial intelligence to clearly identify which is which.
“solving the equation to calculate the output including a flight performance metric”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses solving an equation.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“via the processor”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a processor) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“wherein the equation models an aircraft performance parameter by relating vehicle speed to surrounding air”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (aircraft performance) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
“wherein the graph model relates at least one of the inputs to another one of the inputs”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (graph models) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
“wherein the graph model relates the inputs to the output, the graph model including a plurality of nodes representing a hierarchical class structure for each of the inputs and the output, the nodes being interconnected by one or more edges based on a logical relationship between each of the nodes”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (graph models) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
“using the artificial intelligence”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (artificial intelligence) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the equation models an aircraft performance parameter by relating vehicle speed to surrounding air”, “wherein the graph model relates at least one of the inputs to another one of the inputs”, and “wherein the graph model relates the inputs to the output, the graph model including a plurality of nodes representing a hierarchical class structure for each of the inputs and the output, the nodes being interconnected by one or more edges based on a logical relationship between each of the nodes” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (aircraft performance and graph models) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “via the processor”, and “using the artificial intelligence” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the modeling operations include predicate logic”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (logic systems) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the modeling operations include predicate logic” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (logic systems) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the modeling operations include conceptual graphs”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (logic systems) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the modeling operations include conceptual graphs” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (logic systems) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the modeling operations include at least one from the group including ISO standard Common Logic (CL), and Knowledge Interchange Format (KIF)”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (logic systems) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the modeling operations include at least one from the group including ISO standard Common Logic (CL), and Knowledge Interchange Format (KIF)” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (logic systems) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the graph model is created using web ontology language”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (programming languages ) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the graph model is created using web ontology language” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (programming languages) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the nodes are formed based on properties of each input”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (graph models) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the nodes are formed based on properties of each input” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (graph models) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 1, Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 2, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 3, Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 11:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 4, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 5, Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 13:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 6, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 15:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 1 and 8, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 1 and 8.
Regarding Claim 18:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 6 and 13, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 6 and 13.
Regarding Claim 19:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 5 and 12, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 5 and 12.
Regarding Claim 20:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 4 and 11, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 4 and 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140379755 A1 – a computer-implemented method and system for translating user keywords into semantic queries based on domain vocabulary
US 6721682 B1 – An improved aeroprediction code (APC) allows aerodynamics to be predicted for Mach numbers up to 20 for configurations with flares
US 20080016020 A1 – A system and method for processing information in unstructured or structured form
R. M. Keller and M. Rimon, "A knowledge-based software development environment for scientific model-building," Proceedings of the Seventh Knowledge-Based Software Engineering Conference, Mclean, VA, USA, 1992, pp. 192-201, doi: 10.1109/KBSE.1992.252921. – a knowledge-based software development environment for scientific modeling
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY M SACKALOSKY whose telephone number is (703)756-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm EST.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at (571) 272-2589. 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.
/COREY M SACKALOSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights