DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/27/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 10-11 have been amended. Claims 7 and 17 have been canceled. Claims 21 and 22 have been newly added. Claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-22 remain pending in the application.
Applicant amendments to the claims have overcome the objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 02/26/2024. The objections has been withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 7-10 of the remark filed on 05/27/2025, on the newly added limitations of independent Claims 1: “for each respective stored access credential of a set of stored access credentials corresponding to the first profile or corresponding to the second profile, determining whether a respective authorization token for the respective stored access credential has expired; when the respective authorization token has expired, requesting a new or updated authorization token for the respective stored access credential; and after receiving a new or updated authorization token for the respective stored access credential when the respective authorization token has expired, ”, arguments are persuasive.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection Bender et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200211305) and Raduchel et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200250911) further in view of Smith et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210055011)), has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the following prior art: Churchill et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210286861) in conjunction with Bender et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200211305), Raduchel et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200250911 and Smith et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210055011)). Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below for a detailed explanation.
For the reasons stated above and the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, see Applicant’s Remarks Page 7-10, regarding allowance of the application. Examiner asserts that claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-22 are rejected for the reasons stated above in conjunction with the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Conclusion: Bender- Raduchel-Churchill- Smith teaches the aforementioned limitations of independent claims 1, 10 and 11 rendering the claim limitations obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 14-16 and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200211305, hereinafter referred to as “Bender”) Raduchel et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200250911, hereinafter referred to as “Raduchel”) and Churchill et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210286861, hereinafter referred to as “Churchill”) further in view of Smith et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210055011, hereinafter referred to as “Smith”)
In regards to Claim 1, Bender teaches a method of granting geographic-based access authorization, the method comprising: storing, by a first hardware processor, an access credential; (Par. (0021 and 0025); access based on location using credentials))
storing, by a first hardware processor, an access credential; (Par. (0025) “access credential stored in identity data 147))
receiving, by the first hardware processor, travel data comprising one or more travel plans for a user of the access credential; (Par. (0023); travel data (travel itinerary with travel route, information time and scheduled arrivals)), (Par. (0072); receive itinerary from traveler)),
updating, by a second hardware processor corresponding to the issuer, access rules based on the received travel data; (Par. (0070-0071); updating rules of traveler and travelers itinerary that are periodically updated based on regions and location from travelers itinerary)),
receive, an access request during a first time period; (Par. (0028); request of traveler between time periods of a week, month, six moths etc.)), (Par. (0075-0077); traveler requiring access to location using permission and logging of time of request with a specific length of time)), (Fig. 3 labels 354a 354b; second hardware processor (multiple nodes)), (Fig. 1 label 151 and 101; multiple processors verifying and reviewing travelers request))
determine, based on the updated access rules, that access to the first hardware processor during the first time period is authorized; and (Par. (0083-0084); traveler meets requirements and is authorized access based on travels then the rules are updated)), (Par. (0075); traveler gains access based on determination of access credentials then the rules are updated)), (Par. (0065); during the first time period (schedule itinerary includes within travel dates, length of stay etc.))
in response to determining that access to the first hardware processor is authorized, authorize access to the first processor. (Par. (0116); uploaded documents are verified and traveler is allowed access to location or region based on rules))
Bender does not explicitly teach for each respective stored access credential of a set of stored access credentials corresponding to the first profile or corresponding to the second profile, determining whether a respective authorization token for the respective stored access credential has expired; when the respective authorization token has expired, requesting a new or updated authorization token for the respective stored access credential; and after receiving a new or updated authorization token for the respective stored access credential when the respective authorization token has expired, storing, by the first hardware processor, a user profile, the user profile including a first profile defining first access restrictions for the access credential and a second profile defining second access restrictions for the access credential; transmitting, by the first hardware processor, the received travel data and an access profile corresponding to the first access restrictions of the user profile to an issuer of the access credential, thereby causing the issuer of the access credential to: update; access rules based on the transmitted travel data and the access profile;
Wherein Raduchel teaches storing, by the first hardware processor, a user profile, the user profile including a first profile defining first access restrictions for the access credential and (Par. (0092); storing profiles), (Par. (0022-0023); restricting user profile because it is not permitted to travel or be in certain country), (Par. (0102); storing of user profile), (Par. (0084-0086); user associated with profile with access controls that do not permit user to enter a country), (Par. (0017-0023); sending of user identification and based on user identification determination of travel permitted associated with profile)
transmitting, by the first hardware processor, the received travel data and an access profile corresponding to the first access restrictions of the user profile to an issuer of the access credential, (Par. (0019-0024); transmitting user profile status to access control system indicating that the user is not permitted to travel geographic boundary), (Par. (0102-0103); transmitting of profiles), (Par. (0080-0082); transmitting ID data to access control system that receives requests for access))
thereby causing the issuer of the access credential to: update; access rules based on the transmitted travel data and the access profile; (Par. (0072 and 0082); updating of access control based on received data
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bender to incorporate the teaching of Raduchel to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of access based on geographic location and travel information, with the motivation of using a credential/ card based system that ensures users that travels outside the country or in certain location outside of their region that vulnerability, compromise and harm would not be a risk in communication. The corresponding access credentials/card is linked to the specific travel data and creates integrity in the system with trustworthy users. (Raduchel Par. (0004-0007))
Bender and Raduchel do not explicitly teach for each respective stored access credential of a set of stored access credentials corresponding to the first profile or corresponding to the second profile, determining whether a respective authorization token for the respective stored access credential has expired; when the respective authorization token has expired, requesting a new or updated authorization token for the respective stored access credential; and after receiving a new or updated authorization token for the respective stored access credential when the respective authorization token has expired, a second profile defining second access restrictions for the access credential;
Wherein Churchill teaches for each respective stored access credential of a set of stored access credentials corresponding to the first profile or corresponding to the second profile, (Par. (0070-0072); first and second user accounts with credentials; first and second operative identities with credentials) (Figure 4 labels 450 and Figure 6 labels 615, 620, 625; plurality of user accounts with token and credential information), (Par. (00
determining whether a respective authorization token for the respective stored access credential has expired; (Par. (0201); access token is checked if expired)
when the respective authorization token has expired, requesting a new or updated authorization token for the respective stored access credential; and (Par. (0201); if token is expired new access token is created)
after receiving a new or updated authorization token for the respective stored access credential when the respective authorization token has expired, (Par. (0201); after new access token is created updating the token storage)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bender and Raduchel to incorporate the teaching of Churchill to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of user access roles and permissions based on travel data, with the motivation of utilizing an expiration period on a token corresponding to a credential to safeguard users sensitive data and prevent exposures by refreshing or issuing new tokens and preventing data leaks. (Churchill Par. (0089-0090 and 0110))
Bender, Raduchel and Churchill do not explicitly teach a second profile defining second access restrictions for the access credential;
Wherein Smith teaches a second profile defining second access restrictions for the access credential; (Par. (0044); employee traveling to hotel for vacation corresponding to user profile), (Par. (0050); user profile with set of access rules with indication of areas that are restricted), (Par. (0063-0065); plurality of profiles corresponding to credentials and restriction of access))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bender, Raduchel and Churchill to incorporate the teaching of Smith to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of access permission on travel data of users associated with credential management, with the motivation of implementing access restriction and multiple profiles to create regulation and not give sensitive information to employees of corporate of government agencies that are traveling or on vacation. These parameters serve as an indicator and prevents fraudulent or unauthorized access and therefore safeguarding pertinent information. (Smith Par. (0044 and (0049-0050))
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith teach the method of claim 1, Bender further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving, with the first hardware processor, travel data for a user of the access credential comprises receiving the travel data via a graphical user interface. (Fig. 5a; received travelers itinerary and information of graphic user interface))
In regards to Claim 5, the combination of Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith teach the method of claim 1, Bender further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the access request includes requesting access to a network.(Par. (0025); requested access to blockchain network using credentials and/or biometric data))
In regards to Claim 6, the combination of Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith teach the method of claim 1, Raduchel further teaches wherein the access request includes completing a transaction with a credit card. (Par. (0161-0163); access control system corresponding to the transaction of $235 and the entering of the credit card information)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bender, Churchill and Smith to incorporate the teaching of Raduchel for the reason discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 8, the combination of Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith teach the method of claim 1, Bender further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the issuer of the access credentials is further caused to: block access based on the user being located within a predefined home geography during a travel period per the travel plans. (Par. (0078); traveler in specific foreign country with estimated amount of time within a time frame or length of time the traveler is authorized)), (Par. (0082); allowing access to traveler based on specific region of stay))
In regard to Claims 10 and 11, claims 10 and 11 are independent claims that recite similar limitations to independent claim 1 and the teachings of Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith address all the limitation discussed in independent claim 1 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
In regard to Claims 14-16, claims 14-16 recite similar limitations to dependent claims 4-7 and the teachings of Bender, Raduchel, and Smith address all the limitation discussed in dependent claims 4-6 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
In regards to Claim 18, the combination of Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith teach the computer apparatus of claim 11, Bender further teaches the computing apparatus of claim 11, wherein the processor associated with the issuer blocks access in response to determining that the user is located within a home geography during a travel period per the travel data. (Par. (0078); traveler in specific foreign country with estimated amount of time within a time frame or length of time the traveler is authorized)), (Par. (0082); allowing access to traveler based on specific region of stay))
Claims 2-3 and 12-13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200211305, hereinafter referred to as “Bender”), Raduchel et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200250911, hereinafter referred to as “Raduchel”) Churchill et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210286861, hereinafter referred to as “Churchill”) and Smith et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210055011, hereinafter referred to as “Smith”)
further in view of Rogynskyy et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200372075, hereinafter referred to as “Rogynskyy”)
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith do not explicitly teach wherein the receiving, with the first hardware processor, travel data includes converting, with a natural language processor, an email holding travel information into the travel data.
Wherein Rogynskyy teaches wherein the receiving, with the first hardware processor, travel data includes converting, with a natural language processor, an email holding travel information into the travel data. (Par. (0098); node graph with natural language processor)) (Par. (0119); email with flight confirmation information), (Par.(0416); node graph with natural language processor detects a vacation based on electronic activities from emails and determines nodes is on vacation)), (Par. (0194); converting email with electronic activity to a data object))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith to incorporate the teaching of Rogynskyy to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of exchange of information based on travel and identifying user based on location, with the motivation of using email and natural language processor to identify travel information and determine if a user is outside a specific region. This helps the secure protection of the system by filtering out illegitimate entities that do not correlate to the users travel plans and protects sensitive information such as banking systems, finances and personal information for user on vacation. (Rogynskyy Par. (0002 and 0119))
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith do not explicitly teach accessing an email account of the user to retrieve the email.
Wherein Rogynskyy teaches accessing an email account of the user to retrieve the email. (Par. (0361); receive access to email)), (Par. (0049); received email message))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith to incorporate the teaching of Rogynskyy for the reason discussed in dependent claim 2 stated above.
In regard to Claims 12-13, claims 12-13 recite similar limitations to dependent claims 2-3 and the teachings of Bender, Raduchel, Churchill Smith and Rogynskyy address all the limitation discussed in dependent claims 2-3 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claims 9 and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200211305, hereinafter referred to as “Bender”), Raduchel et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200250911, hereinafter referred to as “Raduchel”) Churchill et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210286861, hereinafter referred to as “Churchill”) and Smith et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210055011, hereinafter referred to as “Smith”) further in view of Takahara et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190318950, hereinafter referred to as “Takahara”)
In regards to Claim 9, the combination of Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith do not explicitly teach transmitting, with the first hardware processor, canceled travel plans to the issuer of the access credentials, thereby causing the issuer of the access credential to update the access rules accordingly.
Wherein Takahara teaches transmitting, with the first hardware processor, canceled travel plans to the issuer of the access credentials, thereby causing the issuer of the access credential to update the access rules accordingly. (Par. (0011-0013); canceling the passage permission, travel of the vehicle)), (Par. (0110-0111) updating permission sequence corresponding to canceled travelling))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith to incorporate the teaching of Takahara to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of access based on access controls based on travel information, with the motivation of preventing malware, compromise of modification by notifying users of canceled plans so that permission and access controls are not given to the wrong entities on a trip or journey destination. This promotes high credibility and mitigates unauthorized access. (Takahara Par. (0009-0011))
In regards to Claim 19, the combination of Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith do not explicitly teach transmitting, with the at least one processor, canceled travel plans to the processor associated with the issuer, wherein the processor associated with the issuer updates the access rules based on the canceled travel plans.
Wherein Takahara teaches transmitting, with the at least one processor, canceled travel plans to the processor associated with the issuer, wherein the processor associated with the issuer updates the access rules based on the canceled travel plans. (Par. (0011-0013); canceling the passage permission, travel of the vehicle)), (Par. (0110-0111) updating permission sequence corresponding to canceled travelling))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith to incorporate the teaching of Takahara for the reasons discussed in dependent claim 9 stated above.
Claim 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200211305, hereinafter referred to as “Bender”), Raduchel et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200250911, hereinafter referred to as “Raduchel”), Churchill et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210286861, hereinafter referred to as “Churchill”) and Smith et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210055011, hereinafter referred to as “Smith”) further in view of Laliberte et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190182734, hereinafter referred to as “Laliberte”)
In regards to Claim 20, the combination of Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith teach the method of claim 1, Smith further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first access restrictions provide access to the access credential and the second access restrictions do not provide for access to the access credential. (Par. (0063); user with credentials with access to certain areas that are restricted and user with profile and credentials that are bad actors and not allowed access))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bender, Churchill and Raduchel to incorporate the teaching of Smith to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of access permission on travel data of users associated with credential management, with the motivation of implementing access restriction and multiple profiles to create regulation and not give sensitive information to employees of corporate of government agencies that are traveling or on vacation. These parameters serve as an indicator and prevents fraudulent or unauthorized access and therefore safeguarding pertinent information. (Smith Par. (0044 and (0049-0050))
Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith do not explicitly teach wherein the first profile corresponds to a business profile of the user profile and the second profile corresponds to a personal profile of the user profile,
Wherein Laliberte teaches wherein the first profile corresponds to a business profile of the user profile and the second profile corresponds to a personal profile of the user profile, (Par. (0185) business and personal account that have different profile numbers and business oriented replies with business contact details and user personal profiles that differ), (Par. (0182-0183); corresponding to travelers data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith to incorporate the teaching of Laliberte to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of travel information and credentials associated with user profiles, with the motivation of having a separation or distinction between user and business profiles to protect the integrity of data being exchanged without causing harm to employers or businesses. (Laliberte Par. (0182-0185))
Claims 21-22, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200211305, hereinafter referred to as “Bender”), Raduchel et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200250911, hereinafter referred to as “Raduchel”) Churchill et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210286861, hereinafter referred to as “Churchill”) and Smith et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210055011, hereinafter referred to as “Smith”) further in view of Spurlock et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200076812, hereinafter referred to as “Spurlock”)
In regards to Claim 21, the combination of Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith do not explicitly teach wherein updating the access rules based on the transmitted travel data and the access profile includes updating the access rules based on an output of a machine learning model having been trained on past travel data including past travel plans and past physical travel as training data.
Wherein Spurlock teaches wherein updating the access rules based on the transmitted travel data and the access profile includes updating the access rules based on an output of a machine learning model having been trained on past travel data including past travel plans and past physical travel as training data. (Par. (0107); machine learning used to present training data when vacation or travel schedules are obtained), (Par. (0112); machine learning adjusts user privileges when user is vacation or traveling), (Par. (0051) and (0105)); user privileges and permission are updated based on levels), (Par. (0112); levels of permission are adjusted based on location of user traveling)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bender, Raduchel, Churchill and Smith to incorporate the teaching of Spurlock to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of access based on access controls based on travel information, with the motivation of preventing exposure of sensitive data by creating a hierarchy of access based on roles associated with vacation or travel data to assure users away from location that the integrity of the data is safe, protected and without risk. (Spurlock Par. (0002-0006 and 0112))
In regard to Claim 22, claim 22 recite similar limitations to dependent claim 21 and the teachings of Bender, Raduchel Churchill, Smith and Spurlock address all the limitation discussed in dependent claim 21 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raviv; Ariel (U.S No. 11875778) “Systems And Methods For Voice Rendering Of Machine-generated Electronic Messages”. Considered this reference because it addressed natural language and converting emails on travel data to text.
Evans; Michael (U.S Pub. No. 20200207230) “Vehicle Traffic And Charge Management System Using Autonomous Cluster Networks Of Vehicle Charging Stations”. Considered this application because it relates vehicle communication and access to travel plans
Khazan; Roger (U.S Pub. No. 20120237028) “MISSION PLANNING INTERFACE FOR ACCESSING VEHICLE RESOURCES”. Considered this application because it addressed travel plans and mission trips of aircrafts as well as updating access .
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Applicants are encouraged to take advantage of the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0) which authorizes non-production time for consideration of responses filed after a final rejection. The purpose of the pilot is to compact prosecution of the case. The request must include 1) A signed AFCP request form (PTO/SB/434 or equivalent) that includes a statement that applicant is requesting consideration under the AFCP; 2) An amendment to at least one independent claim that does not broaden the scope of the independent claim in any aspect; and 3) A statement that applicant is willing and available to participate in any interview initiated by the examiner concerning the present response. In the limited amount of non-production time if the examiner’s consideration of a proper AFCP 2.0 request and response does not result in a determination that all pending claims are in condition for allowance, the examiner will request an interview with the applicant to discuss the response. For more info, please visit http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/after-final-consideration-pilot-20
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5pm.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-y.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2497 /ELENI A SHIFERAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497