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 .
Claim Amendment
The amendment filed 03/26/2026 has been entered.
1) Claims amended:
Independent claims: 22, 29, and 36.
Dependent claims: none.
Claim Status
Claims 22-41 are pending. They comprising of 3 groups:
(1) Method1: 22-28, and
(2) Article1: 29-35, and
(3) System1: 36-41.
All appear to have similar scope and will be rejected together.
As of 03/26/26, independent claim 1 is as followed.
22. (Currently Amended) A method for managing customer-encountered issues, the method being performed by a data processing system operating as a response management system (RMS) configured specifically for managing the customer-encountered issues and comprising:
[1] obtaining a service request for a customer-encountered issue of the customer-encountered issues, wherein multiple ones of the service request are simultaneously processed by the data processing system in real-time, wherein data associated with the multiple ones of the service request and the customer-encountered issues are stored in a storage of the data processing system, wherein a processing of each of the customer-encountered issues requires consumption of a first quantity of limited computing resources of the storage and a processor of the data processing system, and wherein a first number of the customer-encountered issues is resolved per a unit of time based on the first quantity;
[2] performing, by the processor of the data processing system, a two part search procedure to reduce the required consumption from the first quantity of limited computing resources to a second quantity lower than the first quantity such that a second number of the customer-encountered issues is resolved per the unit of time based on the second quantity, wherein the second number is larger than the first number, and the two part search procedure comprises:
[3] executing a keyword search within a knowledge base article repository based on one or more keywords included in the customer-encountered issue to obtain a portion of knowledge base articles, from among a plurality of knowledge base articles that are stored in the knowledge base article repository, that contain one or more of the one or more keywords;
[4] creating a ranked articles database for the service request by:
[5] calculating a numerical score for each knowledge base article of the portion of knowledge base articles by, and for a first knowledge base article of the portion of knowledge base articles:
[6] generating a metadata quality score of metadata of the first knowledge base article by parsing information included in the metadata of the first knowledge base article;
[7] parsing a completed service requests repository to identify:
(i) a first number of first completed service requests that not only reference the first knowledge base article but also indicate that the first completed service requests were resolved using information contained in the first knowledge base article, the first number being used to generate an accuracy score of the first knowledge base article; and
(ii) a second number of second completed service requests that indicate the first knowledge base article was referenced during a resolution process of the second completed service requests, the second number being used to generate a utilization score of the first knowledge base article, and the parsing to identify the second number of the second completed service requests is performed independently of determining whether the second completed service requests were resolved using the information contained in the first knowledge base article; and
[8] using the metadata quality score, the accuracy score, and the utilization score of the first knowledge base article to generate the numerical score for the first knowledge base article; and
[9] ranking the portion of the knowledge base articles based on the numerical score for each knowledge base article of the portion of knowledge base articles to obtain a ranked order for the portion of knowledge base articles; and
[10] creating the ranked articles database with the portion of knowledge base articles ordered in the rank order, the ranked articles database being created for each of the multiple ones of the service request are simultaneously processed by the data processing system in the real- time; and
[11] using the ranked articles database to resolve the customer-encountered issue associated with the service request by providing the ranked articles database to a service agent, the customer-encountered issue being resolved by the service agent using at least one knowledge base article selected from the ranked articles database, and the rank articles database comprises information regarding past resolutions of the customer- encountered issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
1) As for independent claims 22, 29, and 36, the last step called for the use the ranked articles database to resolve the customer-encountered issue associated with the service request by providing the ranked article database to a service agent, but the ranked articles determined from the previous steps do not appear to contain information that may be relevant to resolve the customer-encountered issues, for example, information regarding past resolutions of customer-encountered issues which may be sored in the knowledge database, see [0012].
PNG
media_image1.png
194
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Argument
Applicant has amended the independent claims 22, 29 and 36 to include the feature “the rank articles database comprises information regarding past resolutions of the customer-encountered issues” is noted, however, it’s not clear whether the “used knowledge base article” used by the service agent to resolve the customer-encountered issue includes “information regarding past resolutions of the customer-encountered issues.” In other word, just because the “information regarding past resolutions” is in the database, it does not mean it’s being used with the knowledge base article to resolve the issue.
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 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(i) a method of organizing human activities,
(2i) an idea of itself, or
(3i) a mathematical relationship or formula.
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 22-41:
Claim category:
Method (process): 22-28,
Article: 29-35, and
System (machine): 36-41.
Analysis:
Method: claims 1-7, are directed to a method for managing a response to a customer’s service request to an issue, comprising steps of (1) obtaining information (from a customer service request) about an issue, (2) performing a two-part search procedure, (3) executing a keyword search within an article repository, (4) creating a ranked articles database for the service request, (5) generating a metadata quality score for the articles, (6) generating an accuracy score for the articles, (7) parsing a completed service request, (8) generating a numerical score for the first knowledge base article, (9) ranking the portion of the knowledge base articles, (10) creating the ranked articles database, (11) using the ranked articles database [to resolve the customer-encountered issue. (Step 1:Yes).
Article: claims 8-14 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein to perform operations for managing a response to a customer’s service request to an issue, comprising steps of comprising steps of (1) obtaining information (from a customer service request) about an issue, (2) performing a two-part search procedure, (3) executing a keyword search within an article repository, (4) creating a ranked articles database for the service request, (5) generating a metadata quality score for the articles, (6) generating an accuracy score for the articles, (7) parsing a completed service request, (8) generating a numerical score for the first knowledge base article, (9) ranking the portion of the knowledge base articles, (10) creating the ranked articles database, (11) using the ranked articles database [to resolve the customer-encountered issue. (Step 1:Yes).
A System (machine): claims 15-20 are directed to a system comprising (1) processor, and (2) a memory coupled to the processor to perform operations for managing a response to a customer’s service request to an issue, comprising steps of: (1) obtaining information (from a customer service request) about an issue, (2) performing a two-part search procedure, (3) executing a keyword search within an article repository, (4) creating a ranked articles database for the service request, (5) generating a metadata quality score for the articles, (6) generating an accuracy score for the articles, (7) parsing a completed service request, (8) generating a numerical score for the first knowledge base article, (9) ranking the portion of the knowledge base articles, (10) creating the ranked articles database, (11) using the ranked articles database [to resolve the customer-encountered issue. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method for managing response to customer’s request, comprising steps of (1) obtaining information (from a customer service request) about an issue, (2) performing a two-part search procedure, (3) executing a keyword search within an article repository, (4) creating a ranked articles database for the service request, (5) generating a metadata quality score for the articles, (6) generating an accuracy score for the articles, (7) parsing a completed service request, (8) generating a numerical score for the first knowledge base article, (9) ranking the portion of the knowledge base articles, (10) creating the ranked articles database, (11) using the ranked articles database [to resolve the customer-encountered issue, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to business process for making a recommendation to a customer’s issue request. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Alternatively, the recited limitations also fall within the “Mental process” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to an evaluation of a customer’s request and make a recommendation for a suggested content based on a model of analysis of a request. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it deals with a method for suggesting content for response to an issue, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] obtain service request (data)… Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity (IESA)
[2] perform a 2-part search procedure… Business activity/mental/search and query.
[3] search relevant articles using key words. Mental steps/evaluate/analysis.
[4] create ranked articles based on search. Mental steps/evaluate/analysis.
[5] generate a quality score for the articles. Mental steps/analysis/evaluate.
[6] generate an accuracy score for the articles. Mental steps/analysis/evaluate.
[7] generate an utilization score for the articles. Mental steps/analysis/evaluate.
[8] generate a numerical score for the articles. Mental steps/analysis/evaluate.
[9] ranking the articles. Mental steps/analysis/evaluate.
[10] creating the ranked articles (RA) database. Insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA).
[11] service agent use the RA database [to..] Insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA).
resolve the customer-encountered issue]
Steps [1], [10], and [11] are data gathering, data (articles) creation, using the RA database [to resolve issue …] , which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2]-[9] are well known mental steps for evaluating/analyzing an object, comparing objects, ranking objects, and providing the ranked object (response) to the data request.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer devices or modules or software, data processing system, i.e. an electronic device having a processing unit with a software application thereon, and data base (repository). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for (data) comprising steps analyzing the issue, obtain relevant content data to the issue data, ranking the relevant content data, and presenting the top relevant content data (best recommendation) to the customer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The additional elements do not add an inventive element to the claim. The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[11] above.
Steps [1], [10], and [11] are data gathering, data (articles) creation, using the RA database [to resolve issue …] , which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2]-[9] are well known mental steps for evaluating/analyzing an object, comparing objects, ranking objects, and providing the ranked object (response) to the data request.
The additional elements do not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. The generic computer components merely perform generic computer functions: collecting (obtaining) data, analyzing data (ranking portions of articles), and providing a response to the request by sending the response to the customer.
Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software application for suggesting content for and issue creation of an issue tracking system. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental step for evaluating/analyzing an object using an evaluation model which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [2]-[9], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As for the system or article claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components, i.e. a processor, a memory to store a set of instructions. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software for carrying out the issue creation method, are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claim 23 (part of 22 above), which deal with further details of the provision of the articles to the service agent for further analysis, these further limit the abstract idea of the analysis of the presented articles, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 23 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 24 (part of 22 above), which deal with further details of the generated metadata quality score of the first knowledge base article, this further limits the abstract idea of the score analysis , without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 24 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 25 (part of 22 above), which deal with further details of the metadata field parameters, a tile, a creator, etc., this further limits the abstract idea of the score analysis , without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 25 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 26 (part of 22 above), which deal with further details of the interaction with the service agent for further analysis, these further limit the abstract idea of the analysis of the presented articles, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 26 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 27 (part of 22 above), which deal with further details of the interaction with customer’s service request response, these further limit the abstract idea of the analysis of the presented articles, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 27 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 28 (part of 22 above), which deal with further details of the updating metadata of the article parameters, these further limit the abstract idea of the analysis of the presented articles, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 28 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive
concept.”
Therefore, claims 22-41 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) 112 (b) Rejection:
Applicant’s comment on page 16 is not persuasive for the reason cited above.
1) 101 Rejection:
(1) Applicant’s comment on pages 17-18 that the claims reduce computing resources of the data processing system through the implementation of the two part search strategy, this strategy appears to be well-understood and conventional as taught by LEWIS et al., US 2021/0.350.251,cited on 07/01/2025 for the 103 Rejection.
“ [1] obtaining a service request for a customer-encountered issue of the customer-encountered issues;
{see [0011 …to the user to return those answer files … criteria and requirements specific to the user requesting technical support.], Fig. 1, (112) “User description of Technical problem”}
PNG
media_image2.png
466
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
726
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[2] obtaining a portion of knowledge base articles that are responsive to a keyword search based on the customer-encountered issue;
{see Fig. 4,A, 406, “Search one or more solution databases to determine a result set of answer files having keywords related to keywords of the technical problem in the user submission.”, [0012 “a result set of answer files 122 related to keywords of the user description 112.]}.
[3] ranking the portion of the knowledge base articles based, at least in part, on a quality score of metadata for each knowledge base article of the portion of knowledge base articles to obtain a ranked order, the quality score of a first knowledge base article of the knowledge base articles being calculated at least using a number representing all completed service requests that reference the first knowledge base article; and
{see Fig. 4, 410 “Output, by the ML module, a rank of each of the answer files in the result set”, [0012 … where the ranks 126 indicate a confidence or relevance score, such as between zero and one, indicating a strength or relevance of the answer files in the result set 122 to the user description 112.”, and [0029 … generate the ranks of answer files 126 …]}
[4] resolving the service request using the portion of the knowledge base articles and the ranked order to reduce an aggregate amount of computing resources expanded by the data processing system to resolve the customer-encountered issues.
{ [0002 Oftentimes, users may have to review numerous search results to try different solutions until one works...], see [0003… for improved techniques for determining solutions and fixes to user technical problems…]. The carrying out of the highest rank files for solution to the requested issue would reduce the aggregate amount of computing resources as described in [0002-0003].
Lewis et al. does not explicitly discloses that the ranked portion of the knowledge base articles is based on a quality score value calculated using at least a number representing all completed service requests that reference the first knowledge base article. However, in view of the teaching in Fig. 4, 410 “Output, by the ML module, a rank of each of the answer files in the result set”, [0012 … where the ranks 126 indicate a confidence or relevance score, such as between zero and one, indicating a strength or relevance of the answer files in the result set 122 to the user description 112.”, it would have been obvious for a reference with a “one” score to be ranked highest and to be used for the answer for the request.
(2) Applicant’s comments on pages 17-18 with respect to the advantage of the well known two-steps search procedure is not persuasive because it is essentially a filtering operation. The use of certain data to create a score by parsing data down, and then using that score to rank the list and resolve the customer issues. As a result, the system processing less data due to the filtering operation, however, it’s well known in the art that processing “less data” is NOT a technical solution but more of a business solution.
(3) Applicant’s comment on page 18 bottom paragraph, that the amended independent claims are like the claims in Enfish and McRo are not persuasive because they are different.
2) Enfish LLC vs. Microsoft Corp (May 12, 2016)
Claim 17 of US Patent 6,151,604 recites:
A data storage and retrieval system for a computer memory, comprising:
[1] means for configuring said memory according to a logical table, said logical table including:
(i) a plurality of logical rows, each said logical row including an object identification number (OID) to identify each said logical row, each said logical row corresponding to a record of information;
(ii) a plurality of logical columns intersecting said plurality of logical rows to define a plurality of logical cells, each said logical column including an OID to identify each said logical column; and
[2] means for indexing data stored in said table.
The ‘604 and ‘775 patents are directed to an innovative logical model for a computer database. A logical model is a model of data for a computer database explaining how the various elements of information are related to one another. The CAFC said on page 12, 1st paragraph, that the "plain focus of the claims is on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity". Also, on the 2nd paragraph that “the claims at issue … are directed to specific improvement to the way computer operate, embodied in the self-referential table.”.
1) McRo, Inc. DBA Planet Blue vs. Bandai Namco Games America Inc, (September 13, 2016)
Claim 1 of US Patent 6,307, 576 records:
1. A method for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expression of three dimensional characters comprising:
[1] obtaining a first set of rules that define output morph weight set stream as a function of phoneme sequence and time of said phoneme sequence;
[2] obtaining a timed data file of phonemes having a plurality of sub-sequences;
[3] generating an intermediate stream of output morph weight sets and a plurality of transition parameters between two adjacent morph weight sets by evaluating said plurality of sub-sequences against said first set of rules;
[4] generating a final stream of output morph weight sets at a desired frame rate from said intermediate stream of output morph weight sets and said plurality of transition parameters; and
[5] applying said final stream of output morph weight sets to a sequence of animated characters to produce lip synchronization and facial expression control of said animated characters.
PNG
media_image4.png
596
706
media_image4.png
Greyscale
2) 103 Rejection:
The previous rejection using (1) Lewis et al., US 2021/0.350.251, and (2) Chauhan et al., US 2023/0.306.436, are withdrawn. The combination of (1) Lewis et al., US 2021/0.350.251, and (2) Chauhan et al., US 2023/0.306.436, and (3) Gorny et al., US 2020/0.358.902 do not teach the generation of a numerical score using the metadata quality score, the accuracy score, and the utilization score of the first knowledge base article.
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.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6;30-4:30 PM ET.
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights