DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 06/12/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8 10, 11, 16, and 17 are currently amended.
Claims 3, 12, and 18 are currently cancelled.
Claims 21-23 are newly added.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-17, and 19-23 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 9-12 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101:
With regard to the rejection of claims 1-20 under §101, Applicant respectfully traverses on the ground that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Notwithstanding the foregoing traversal, Applicant has amended the claims without prejudice and solely in order to expedite prosecution.
Pages 3-4 of the Office Action allege, with respect to Step 2A, Prong One, that each limitation of the independent claims "covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper."
However, Applicant respectfully submits that in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (hereinafter, "2024 Guidance Update"), the USPTO explicitly states, in Section III(A)(1)(C), that "USPTO guidance explains that claims do not recite a mental process when they contain limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." Applicant relatedly submits that the required limitations of "generating, in a multi-variant time series forecasting model of a processor-based machine learning system, at least one resource-related forecast by processing resource-related data and user-related data associated with prior activity related to the resource within at least one predetermined temporal period, the processor-based machine learning system further comprising one or more temporal window regressors and an artificial intelligence-based prediction model, wherein the multi-variant time series forecasting model, the one or more temporal window regressors and the artificial intelligence-based prediction model are interconnected in a processing pipeline of the processor- based machine learning system," are indeed limitations that "cannot practically be performed in the human mind," and as such, the claims are not directed to a judicial exception and are therefore eligible under @ 101.
Applicant respectfully traverse, for at least the reasons noted above pertaining to the particularly multi-model architecture of the processor-based machine learning system required by the amended independent claims. Additionally, as stated in Ex Parte Desjardins et at., No. 2024- 000567 (PTAB Appeals Review Panel, September 26, 2025), "[c]ategorically excluding AI innovations from patent protection in the United States jeopardizes America's leadership in this critical emerging technology," and improvements to how a machine learning model itself operates represent improvements to computer functionality. Accordingly, even if one assumes for purposes of argument only that previously-presented independent claims 1, 10 and 16 could somehow be construed as reciting an abstract idea, these claims are not directed to an abstract idea for reasons similar to those set forth in Ex Parte Desjardins et at., as previously-presented independent claims 1, 10 and 16 clearly integrate any such abstract idea into practical applications that provide improvements in computer technology by, for example, improving the multiple machine learning models interconnected to form targeted outputs withing an encompassing processor-based machine learning system.
Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-20 under §101.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found to be not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Examiner disagrees. The limitations in question recite actions of generating a resource forecast by processing resource and user related data, modifying the generated forecast, predicting future activity related to the resource in question, generating a combined forecast, and performing an automated action based on the combined forecast. It can be assumed by one skilled in the art that the above actions can be reasonably performed in the human mind as they are all related to processing data and identifying trends in the data. The inclusion of the processor based multivariate time series model simply directs the actions to be performed by a computer component and falls within the “apply it” group of additional elements.
Applicant argues that the instant invention is similar to that of Ex parte Desjardin in that it presents an improvement to computer technology. Examiner disagrees. Desjardin was found to be patent eligible because it set out to solve the problem of catastrophic forgetting, that is to say that the model in Desjardin would not forget previously learned knowledge while being trained on new data. The “improvement” of the instant application that is being argued is that the interconnection of a time series model and an AI based prediction model can form targeted outputs. The combination of models into a singular pipeline is not a novel idea and therefore cannot pose a technological improvement. Furthermore, a technological improvement cannot arise from an abstract idea, in this case, the generation of forecasts and predictions of future resource activity.
In light of the amendments made on the claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained and updated below.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 12-14 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant respectfully traverses the §103 rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 over Kaleem in view of Krishnan on the ground that Kaleem in view of Krishnan fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 as originally presented, and on the further ground that there is no suggestion or motivation to modify the collective teachings of Kaleem and Krishnan in a manner that would reach these particular recitations.
For example, Applicant submits that the collective teachings of Kaleem and Krishnan fail to teach or suggest the limitations of generating at least one combined resource-related forecast, for at least a portion of the at least one predetermined temporal period, based at least in part on at least a portion of the at least one modified resource related forecast and at least a portion of the predicted data, arranged as recited in the independent claims.
Notwithstanding the traversal, Applicant has amended the claims without prejudice and solely in order to expedite prosecution. The claim amendments herein are not made for reasons relating to patentability over Kaleem and Krishnan, or any other prior art references of record, as the claims as originally presented recite patentable subject matter over these references.
Also, Applicant reiterates that page 2 of the Office Action acknowledges that "Claims 3, 12, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims."
Moreover, Applicant respectfully notes that MPEP §2143.03 requires that "[a]ll words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). Consequently, considering all words in the independent claims (particularly, the limitations noted above), Applicant asserts that the independent claims cannot properly be rendered unpatentable in light of the cited references.
Accordingly, Applicant asserts that the cited references do not teach or suggest at least the above-noted limitations as explicitly recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 16, and for at least this reason, the §103 rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 over Kaleem in view of Krishnan should be withdrawn.
Also, with regard to the rejection of claims 2, 5, 7-8, 11, 14 and 17 under § 103, Applicant notes that if an independent claim is nonobvious under § 103, then any claim depending therefrom is nonobvious. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Therefore, because the cited references, as detailed above, do not teach or suggest the claimed limitations of independent claims 1, 10 and 16, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2, 5, 7- 8, 11, 14 and 17 under §103.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive.
Applicant has amended the independent claims to include limitations from dependent claims that were flagged as allowable over the prior art. As such, the claims are allowable over the previously applied prior art references.
In light of the amendments made on the claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-17, and 19-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, a computer-implemented method, therefore falling into the statutory category of process. Independent Claim 10 recites, in part, a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs, wherein the program code when executed by at least one processing device, therefore falling into the statutory category of manufacture. Independent Claim 16 recites, in part, an apparatus, therefore falling into the statutory category of machine.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 1 recites in part:
“generating at least one resource-related forecast by processing resource-related data and user-related data associated with prior activity related to the resource within at least one predetermined temporal period”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses generating a resource forecast using data related to the resource.
“modifying the at least one resource-related forecast”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses modifying a resource forecast.
“predicting data associated with future activity related to the resource within the at least one predetermined temporal period”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses making a prediction based on resource data.
“generating at least one combined resource-related forecast, for at least a portion of the at least one predetermined temporal period, based at least in part on at least a portion of the at least one modified resource related forecast and at least a portion of the predicted data”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses generating a resource forecast using data related to the resource.
“performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on the at least one combined resource-related forecast”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an action in response to a generated report.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“in a multi-variant time series forecasting model of a processor-based machine learning system”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (time series model) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“the processor-based machine learning system further comprising one or more temporal window regressors and an artificial intelligence-based prediction model, wherein the multi-variant time series forecasting model, the one or more temporal window regressors and the artificial intelligence-based prediction model are interconnected in a processing pipeline of the processor- based machine learning system”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (time series model) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“in the one or more temporal window regressors of the processor-based machine learning system”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (regressor) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“in the artificial intelligence-based prediction model of the processor-based machine learning system”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (artificial intelligence prediction model) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (processor and memory) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “in a multi-variant time series forecasting model of a processor-based machine learning system”, “the processor-based machine learning system further comprising one or more temporal window regressors and an artificial intelligence-based prediction model, wherein the multi-variant time series forecasting model, the one or more temporal window regressors and the artificial intelligence-based prediction model are interconnected in a processing pipeline of the processor- based machine learning system”, “in the one or more temporal window regressors of the processor-based machine learning system”, “in the artificial intelligence-based prediction model of the processor-based machine learning system”, and “wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (AI techniques, regressors, processor, and memory) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein modifying the at least one resource-related forecast comprises using multiple rolling temporal window regressors, wherein a first temporal window regressor comprises a first predetermined amount of time and wherein at least a second temporal window regressor comprises at least a second predetermined amount of time longer than the first predetermined amount of time”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (temporal data) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein modifying the at least one resource-related forecast using one or more temporal window regressors comprises using multiple rolling temporal window regressors, wherein a first temporal window regressor comprises a first predetermined amount of time and wherein at least a second temporal window regressor comprises at least a second predetermined amount of time longer than the first predetermined amount of time” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (temporal data) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 4 recites in part:
“processing data pertaining to one or more user behavior trends in connection with the resource”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses processing data.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 5 recites in part:
“processing enterprise-related dependency information associated with the resource”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses processing data.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 6 recites in part:
“wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically generating at least one communication to at least one user based at least in part on the at least one combined resource-related forecast”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining what information to communicate to a user based on the forecast.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically training at least a portion of the multi-variant time series forecasting model using feedback related to the at least one combined resource- related forecast”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (artificial intelligence techniques) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically training at least a portion of the multi-variant time series forecasting model using feedback related to the at least one combined resource- related forecast” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (AI techniques) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically training at least a portion of the artificial intelligence-based prediction model using feedback related to the at least one combined resource- related forecast”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (artificial intelligence techniques) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically training at least a portion of the artificial intelligence-based prediction model using feedback related to the at least one combined resource- related forecast” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (AI techniques) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 9 recites in part:
“wherein processing resource- related data comprises processing dispute-related information associated with the resource to determine one or more temporal effects on the at least one resource-related forecast”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses processing resource related data to identify one or more temporal trends/effects.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 10:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 1, Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 1, with the exception of the limitation(s) covered below.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“A non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs, wherein the program code when executed by at least one processing device”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (processor and storage) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “A non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs, wherein the program code when executed by at least one processing device” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (processor and storage) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 11:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 2, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 4, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 14:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 5, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 15:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 6, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 16:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 1 and 10, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 1 and 10.
Regarding Claim 17:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 2 and 11, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 2 and 11.
Regarding Claim 19:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 4 and 13, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 4 and 13.
Regarding Claim 20:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 6 and 15, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 6 and 15.
Regarding Claim 21:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 7, Claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 22:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 8, Claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 23:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 9, Claim 23 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210118054 A1 – A method of operating a resource credit exchange for a resource of a particular type
US 20230130825 A1 – Implementations of the present disclosure are directed to improving efficiency in transporting material and/or personnel
US 20200401967 A1 – An improved resource need forecasting tool enables more accurate forecasts by leveraging models (e.g., machine learning models) of short-term phenomena such as rapid growth
US 20200279198 A1 – A system includes a cash management module and a cash forecast module
US 20190244137 A1 – A method and system is disclosed for training a machine learning model by generating first training input that includes a first number of reports at a first point in time
US 20160210700 A1 – the present solution provides for an efficient and automated Recommended Spend Evaluator tool
US 20150317589 A1 – Techniques for determining forecast information for a resource using learning algorithms
Sean J. Taylor, Benjamin Letham (2018) Forecasting at scale. The American Statistician 72(1):37-45 – a modular regression model with interpretable parameters that can be intuitively adjusted by analysts with domain knowledge about the time series
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY M SACKALOSKY whose telephone number is (703)756-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at (571) 272-2589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/COREY SACKALOSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights