DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to claims filed with RCE on 08/07/2026.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16 and 18-20 are pending while claims 5, 7, 15 and 17 are canceled.
Patent Board Decision on 06/15/2026 concluded the pending instant claims patent-ineligible subject matter affirming the Examiner’s rejection.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16 and 18-20 are reconsidered hereon.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The present invention is directed to processing payment transaction between payers paying with cryptocurrency while payees receiving desired currency by locking one kind of currency (“system currency”) before releasing amounts of one kind of currency (“system currency”) to currency-based payment backing accounts based on desires to back currency-based payments when currency-based payment reconciliation process is successful or transferring the amount of the one kind of currency (“system currency”) from one currency-based payment backing account to another account associated with a network of the currency payment to cover the currency-based payment when the currency-based payment reconciliation process is not successful.
If the rejection rendered hereon are properly overcome, the claims may become patentable as the prior art made of record alone or in combination do not disclose: storing, by the cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device, system cryptocurrency in one or more cryptocurrency-based payment backing accounts based on how the one or more computing devices desires to back cryptocurrency-based payments of the cryptocurrency payment system; determining, by the cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device, at least one cryptocurrency-based payment account of the one or more cryptocurrency-based payment backing accounts associated with a cryptocurrency-based payment, wherein the cryptocurrency-based payment involves the source computing device providing a first cryptocurrency and the destination computing device accepting a desired currency; when a nonreal-time cryptocurrency-based payment reconciliation process is successful: releasing, by the cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device, the amount of the system cryptocurrency to the at least one cryptocurrency-based payment backing account; and when the nonreal-time cryptocurrency-based payment reconciliation process is not successful: transferring, by the cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device, the amount of the system cryptocurrency from the at least one cryptocurrency-based payment backing account to an account associated with a network computing device of the cryptocurrency payment system to cover the cryptocurrency-based payment.
Yet even if the missing claimed elements were found in a reasonable number of references, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not have been motivated to combine the above missing elements.
Response to Arguments
With respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s request for reconsideration of the argument in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief previously filed of the instant claims have been considered. However, the decision remains the same as affirmed by the Patent Board Decision.
That is, Examiner fully considers Applicant’s position presented in the Appeal Brief, but respectfully disagree with the Applicant’s argument because the claims recite payment processing and currency exchange, which is an abstract idea that is grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test such as fundamental economic practices (hedging, mitigating risk), commercial interaction (business relations) and managing relationships (following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04 & 2106.04(a)) as the claim involve locking one kind of currency (“system currency”) before releasing amounts of the one kind of currency (“system currency”) to currency-based payment backing accounts based on desires to back currency-based payments when currency-based payment reconciliation process is successful or transferring the amount of the one kind of currency (“system currency”) from one currency based payment backing account to another account associated with a network of the currency payment to cover the currency-based payment when the currency-based payment reconciliation process is not successful, which is hedging of one currency against another desired currency and by only processing of payments based on specific conditions to mitigate risk in a commercial interaction between payers, payment service providers and payees based on maintained relationships between the payers desired currencies, payment service providers currencies and receivers (payees) currencies. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claim such as, “A cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device of a cryptocurrency payment system comprises: an interface; memory; and a processing module operably coupled to the memory and the interface, wherein the processing module is operable,” and “computing devices of the cryptocurrency payment system,” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea as those additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they affect improvements in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s insistence of the claimed invention providing improvements since the invention mitigates latency and privacy/security issues and improvement in the blockchain technology makes the arguments presented mostly unclear because none of the instant claims recites privacy/security nor blockchain. Further, Applicant’s own argument contradicts the assertion of the claimed invention providing latency improvement because the claims recite that there is locking away of funds until payment reconciliation process are completed which is a delay/hold of the currencies until payment reconciliation process are completed and it’s not clear how locking away of funds until payment reconciliation process which delay/holds the transaction process mitigates latency, if Applicant is interpretating the term “latency” as the speed of transaction processing for the sake of the argument presented. However, the Applicant’s Specification did not provide such definition of the latency as the speed of transaction processing nor the argument is supported in light of the Specification. Therefore, the argument presented that the invention mitigates latency and privacy/security issues and improvement in the blockchain technology is not convincing and notwithstanding. That is, giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “latency,” which is defined as the total delay a frame experiences during its transmission between two points in a network latency, according to the IEEE 802.1Q standard for bridges and bridged networks, the duration/speed of transaction payment reconciliation process and the a frame experiencing total delay during its transmission between two points in a network is not the same hence Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention providing improvements since the invention mitigates latency is not convincing and notwithstanding.
With respect to Applicant presentation of multiple court decisions to support Applicant’s position and specifically pointed out claims that improve technology and not directed to a judicial exception such as: "Software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can, and sometimes the improvements can be accomplished through either route." Id; see also BASCOM GLOBAL INTERNET SERVICES v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, 827F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (filtering solution representing "a 'software based invention that improve[s] the performance of the computer system itself'" held to be patentable subject matter), also is not convincing because none of the instant claims are related to any of those court decisions. That is, none of the instant claims recite similar limitations to those cases of the court decisions as none of the instant claims recites limitations directed to for example “filtering solution representing "a 'software based invention that improve[s] the performance of the computer system itself.”
With respect to Applicant’s position that “well-understood, routine, and conventional is a factual determination, which must be supported by evidence in the record” in accordance with Berkheimer Memo at page 12, Examiner fully considers Applicant’s position in this regards as well, but respectfully disagree because the rejection does not rely on the additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional, but that the additional elements only serve as a tool to automate and implement the abstract idea.
Therefore, Examiner sustains the rejection affirmed by the Patent Board Decision on 06/15/2026.
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 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-4, 6 and 8-10 are directed to a “Method” (Process). Claims 11-14, 16 and 18-20 are directed to “A cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device of a cryptocurrency payment system comprises: an interface; memory; and a processing module operably coupled to the memory and the interface…” (Machine). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite an abstract idea of payment processing/currency exchange, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test such as fundamental economic practices (hedging, mitigating risk), commercial interaction (business relations) and managing relationships (following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04 & 2106.04(a)). The use of a physical aid to help perform Organized Human Activity steps does not negate the Organized Human Activity nature of the limitations, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further, claims can recite a Methods of Organized Human Activity even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as the claim involve locking one kind of currency (“system currency”) before releasing amounts of the one kind of currency (“system currency”) to currency-based payment backing accounts based on desires to back currency-based payments when currency-based payment reconciliation process is successful or transferring the amount of the one kind of currency (“system currency”) from one currency-based payment backing account to another account associated with a network of the currency payment to cover the currency-based payment when the currency-based payment reconciliation process is not successful which is hedging of one currency against another desired currency and by only processing of payments based on specific conditions hence mitigating risk in a commercial interaction between payers and payment service providers all based on maintained relationships between the payers desired currencies, payment service providers currencies and receivers currencies. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)). More specifically, the following non-underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the underlined, bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 1, as similar as 11,
A cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device of a cryptocurrency payment system comprises: an interface; memory; and a processing module operably coupled to the memory and the interface, wherein the processing module is operable to:
obtain system cryptocurrency from one or more computing devices of the cryptocurrency payment system;
store system cryptocurrency m one or more cryptocurrency -based payment backing accounts based on how the one or more computing devices desires to back cryptocurrency based payments of the cryptocurrency payment system;
determine at least one cryptocurrency-based payment account of the one or more cryptocurrency-based payment backing accounts associated with a cryptocurrency-based payment, wherein the cryptocurrency-based payment is from a source computing device of a plurality of source computing devices of the cryptocurrency payment system to a destination computing device of a plurality of destination computing devices of the cryptocurrency payment system, and wherein the cryptocurrency-based payment involves the source computing device providing a first cryptocurrency and the destination computing device accepting a desired currency;
lock an amount of the system cryptocurrency in the at least one cryptocurrency based payment account to back the cryptocurrency-based payment; and
when a nonreal-time cryptocurrency-based payment reconciliation process is successful:
release the amount of the system cryptocurrency to the at least one cryptocurrency-based payment backing account; and
when the nonreal-time cryptocurrency-based payment reconciliation process is not successful:
transfer the amount of the system cryptocurrency from the cryptocurrency based payment backing account to an account associated with a network computing device of the cryptocurrency-based payment system to cover the cryptocurrency-based payment.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the use of the additional elements as a tools to implement the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they affect improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), using the additional elements to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of payment processing/currency exchange. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claims continue to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12-14, 16 and 18-20 further describe the abstract idea of payment processing/currency exchange. That is, although claims 2, 8-10, 12 and 18-20 recite further functional steps using the additional elements of cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device, source computing device, destination computing device, system cryptocurrency, digital wallet, user computing device and network computing device, which are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
PGPub Thomas et al. (US 2016/0342983 A1) discloses:
cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device of a cryptocurrency payment system comprises: an interface; memory; and a processing module operably coupled to the memory and the interface, wherein the processing module is operable to: (Figs. 2; Pars. [0066], [0067], [0125], [0227])
obtaining, by a cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device of a cryptocurrency payment system (“A resource tracking system for a financial institution may be a ledger, for example, hosted on a server system.”), system cryptocurrency from one or more computing devices (“sending party”) of the cryptocurrency payment system; (Figs. 16-17A-B; Pars. [0039], [0067] “a resource tracking system that is a blockchain for a cryptocurrency may include a resource pool for each party, for example, individual or organization, which owns some quantity of the cryptocurrency. The resource pool may identify the owner of the cryptocurrency, for example, using a cryptographic public key stored with the resource pool, rendering the cryptocurrency accessible only to a party with the corresponding private key. The resource pool may also include the quantity of cryptocurrency. A resource tracking system for a financial institution may be a ledger, for example, hosted on a server system. The resource pools may be accounts owned by account holders at the financial institution, and may track the various assets owned by the account holder and tracked by the financial institution.” [0068] “For example, a resource may be a currency, cryptocurrency,”)
storing, by the cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device, system cryptocurrency in one or more cryptocurrency-based payment backing accounts (“holding account”) (Figs. 2, 5, 10; Pars. [0039] “For all transfer chains, using any conditions on held resources and number of intermediaries, the sending party may accept a quote and authorize a hold on its own resources that are to be transferred. The hold can be put in place on a resource tracking system between the sending party and the first intermediary party in the transfer chain, which may be a sender-intermediary resource tracking system… The hold may also be placed by transferring the held resources to a holding account on the resource tracking system. The holding account may be owned by the operator of the resource tracking system, or by owned by a third party. For example, a third party may establish an account on a resource tracking system to which a sending party may transfer resources to be used in a transfer.” [0067], [0139], [0208] “The transfer may have been requested by the initiator, or the initiator may be a coordinator 400 which may be setting up the transfer chain on behalf of, for example, the sender computing device 300 or receiver computing device 1100 that requested that transfer. The stakeholders may be, for example, the sending party, the receiving party, and any intermediary parties in the transfer chain which may hold a stake in the transfer.”)
wherein the cryptocurrency-based payment is from a source computing device (“sender computing device”) of a plurality of source computing devices of the cryptocurrency payment system to a destination computing device (“receiver computing device”) of a plurality of destination computing devices of the cryptocurrency payment system, (Figs. 16-17A-B; Pars. [0035], [0063] “The sender may be a computing device or system used by a sending party, which may be any party who wishes to send, or transfer, resources under their control to some other party, for example, the receiving party.” [0159], [0169] “The transfer chain between the receiving party and the sending party may include parallel paths.”) and
wherein the cryptocurrency-based payment involves the source computing device providing a first cryptocurrency and the destination computing device accepting a a type of resource to be received by the receiving party”); (Pars. [0063], [0088] “the cryptocurrency may be converted into dollars at an exchange rate of 1000 units per 1 US dollar.” [0121] “the sending party may send a cryptocurrency, and the receiving party may receive US dollars.”[0141])
locking, by the cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device, an amount of the system cryptocurrency in the at least one cryptocurrency-based payment account to back the cryptocurrency-based payment; (Pars. [0039] “In placing a hold on a certain quantity of the resources belonging to the sending party, the resource tracking system may prevent the transfer of that quantity of resources and/or specific resources unless and until the specific conditions of the hold are fulfilled… The hold may also be placed by transferring the held resources to a holding account on the resource tracking system. The holding account may be owned by the operator of the resource tracking system,” [0107] “a hold (or “lock”) timeout ledger refers to a specified amount of time that an intermediary will agree to have its resource held at a resource tracking system.”) and
when a (Pars. [0040] “A condition for releasing the holds can be receiving a cryptographically signed statement from a trusted third party (a “trusted system”) that has verified that appropriate the resources involved in the transfer on different resource tracking systems have been placed on hold and that the transfer may proceed.” [0041] “Because the hold conditions may have been fulfilled by the receiving of the signed message from the trusted system, the resource tracking systems may execute the transfers… The intermediary may notify the receiving party, for example, at a receiver computing device, or “receiver,” and the sending party, at the sender, that the transfer was completed.” [0085] “the resource tracking system at the financial institution at which the sending party and intermediary party have accounts may automatically transfer the held 100 US dollars from the sending party's account to the intermediary party's account, for example, decreasing the sending party's account by 100 US dollars and increasing the intermediary party's account by 100 US dollars.”) and
(Pars. [0049] “This can fulfill the condition for releasing a hold on the sending party's resources at the sender-intermediary resource tracking system, allowing the sending party's resources to be transferred to the intermediary party. The intermediary may send a notification to the receiver and the sender that the transfer (from sender to receiver) was completed.” [0050], [0108] “transfer a cryptocurrency to the second intermediary party on a second resource tracking system at which the first intermediary party and the second intermediary party have resource pools.”).
PGPub Grassadonia et al. (US 2019/0034888 A1) discloses:
store system cryptocurrency in one or more cryptocurrency-based payment (Figs. 2, 6, 8 and 10C; Pars. [0050] “customer profile 132 includes customer cryptocurrency ledger 204, and a customer fiat currency ledger 206 indicating that customer 104 utilizes payment service 108 to manage accounts a cryptocurrency (such as bitcoin), and a fiat currency (such as US dollars), respectively.” [0066] “Payment application 210 can receive a selection ( 306 ) by customer 104 of a cryptocurrency as the payment option.” [0121], [0123], [0127], [0130] “When customer 104 has more than one currency ledger associated with customer profile 132, application 210 can also include options to designate a currency as the default currency for transactions 647.” [0132] “In some embodiments, one or more of the options illustrated in FIG. 10C can be automatically selected or adjusted by payment service through communication with application 210. For example, payment service can observe that a particular currency is preferred, or most recently used and make this a default account. In some embodiments, payment service might set limits on the maximum holdings of bitcoin based on the volume of transactions associated with customer profile 132 or based on a percentage of total payment service 108 holdings in cryptocurrency wallet 215.” [0141] “For example, when the computing system 700 is a payment service 108, the cryptocurrency transactions between a customer and a merchant are centrally managed, aggregated and traded at computer generated time intervals and as per user preferences.”
determine at least one cryptocurrency-based payment account of the one or more cryptocurrency-based payment (Par. [0119] “payment service can be configured to utilize the currency most favorable to the customer. For example, if a customer were to be in a foreign country and a merchant were to require payment in a currency for which the customer does not have an account balance, payment service can select which of the payment accounts that are associated with customer profile 132 that has the most favorable exchange rate for the customer.”
associated with a cryptocurrency-based payment, (Par. [0058] “For example, when customer profile 132 includes multiple payment accounts (e.g., cryptocurrency and fiat currency), application 210 can set one of those accounts to be the default account for debits or credits when using an internal payment card.”)
Capkuns WIPO Patent Application Publication No. (WO-2021048056) discloses:
storing, by the cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device, system cryptocurrency in one or more cryptocurrency-based payment backing accounts (Pars. [0017] “The system may use customer collaterals that enable merchants to safely accept payments before the transaction has reached finality in the blockchain. The collaterals serve as payment guarantees and are deposited by customers to a smart contract during system enrolment. The collaterals may be represented by data blocks that may be transmitted or stored in a digital communication system. In one embodiment, the collaterals may be represented by cryptocurrencies.”; [0041] “Statekeepers must also deposit collaterals that protect merchants from attacks where a malicious statekeeper colludes with a customer. In such a case, the victim merchant can use the statekeeper’s approval signatures as evidence to claim any lost funds from the misbehaving statekeeper’s collateral.” [0071] “To register in the system, each customer deposits a collateral to Arbiter’s account (see Figure 2a). This can be performed for example by triggering a transfer of cryptocurrencies between a wallet of the customer device to a wallet controlled by the smart contract.”); wherein the cryptocurrency-based payment involves the source computing device providing (Par. [0017] “The system may use customer collaterals that enable merchants to safely accept payments before the transaction has reached finality in the blockchain. The collaterals serve as payment guarantees and are deposited by customers to a smart contract during system enrolment. The collaterals may be represented by data blocks that may be transmitted or stored in a digital communication system. In one embodiment, the collaterals may be represented by cryptocurrencies.”), wherein the cryptocurrency-based payment backing account device stores system cryptocurrency in one or more cryptocurrency-based payment backing accounts to back cryptocurrency-based payments of the cryptocurrency payment system (Pars. [0018] “The system thus offers the advantage that a merchant can supply the goods or services corresponding to the transaction after a verification of the intent received from a customer.” [0019] “If the transaction corresponding to an accepted payment does not appear in the blockchain within a reasonable time, for example in case of double-spending attack, the victim merchant can recoup the lost funds from the malicious customer’s collaterals.”; [0041])
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 WODAJO GETACHEW whose telephone number is (469)295-9069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00 CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WODAJO GETACHEW/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights