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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 2/3/2026 and claim set filed on 1/13/2026. Claims 1-8 are pending in this office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks page 1, Applicant argues the “amendments eliminate any “result-oriented “characterization. The claim now further defines how the computer performs the risk assessment through specific technical operations.” Here the Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Here the claims as amended are recited at such a broad level of recitation that they merely recite mental process, certain methods of organizing human activities, and mathematical calculations. Specifically the amended “generating the provenance score comprises identifying whether a wallet address associated with the ownership history is included on a government sanctioned list”, merely recites comparing a user identifier (e.g. a wallet address) to a list to make a determination and then generate a score, which as broadly recited herein are mental process, certain methods of organizing human activities, and mathematical calculations. Therefore part of the abstract idea.
Specifically the amended “wherein the generating the smart contract score comprises analyzing decompiled bytecode of the smart contract code to identify malicious backdoor type risks embedded within the code”, merely recites analyzing readable code (it is noted here that “decompiled bytecode” is interpreted as code that has been made human readable, it is further noted that this could have happened sometime in the past or previously as this is not recited as being positively performed in the claim, rather just the results of analyzing the human readable code to identify a malicious type problem are positively recited) to identify a malicious backdoor type risk associated with the code which as broadly recited herein are mental process, certain methods of organizing human activities, and mathematical calculations. Therefore part of the abstract idea. The additional element that the action is a “smart contract” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the updated 101 rejection below.
Specifically the amended “ wherein generating the permanence score comprises analyzing the retrieved smart contract code to determine whether an underlying asset of the specific non-fungible token is stored on the blockchain or an external centralized or decentralized storage system ”, merely recites analyzing an action to determine whether the record is stored on the ledger or another location which as broadly recited herein are mental process, certain methods of organizing human activities, and mathematical calculations. Therefore part of the abstract idea. The additional element that the action is a “smart contract” and the ledger is “blockchain” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the updated 101 rejection below.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As to Applicant’s arguments on Remarks pages 1-2 that the claims recite computer-based decomplication of bytecode, automated pattern recognition and code analysis, technical parsing of blockchain data structures, and therefore are not a mathematical calculation, fundamental economic practice, or a certain method of organizing human activity and are instead similar to DDR Holdings by providing a technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Given the broad result based determination as amended herein the claims further define how the scores are generated however are still at a level that recites mathematical calculation, fundamental economic practice, or a certain method of organizing human activity, and therefore part of the abstract idea (as detailed in section 4 above and the 101 rejection below).
The additional elements that the ledger is “blockchain” and the actions in the ledger are “smart contracts” as amended merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in updated 101 rejection below. Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 3-6 with respect to the prior art are moot in view of the newly cited grounds of rejection in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-8 are directed to a machine as the claims recite a system with a processor-based server.
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.
9. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) the idea of determining a risk associated with a specific record in a record of transactions (ledger) according to different scores generated and combined into a comprehensive score based on determinations and comparisons of information in the record.
A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Here the claims recite a mathematical calculation as the claims recite determining a risk based on different scores generated and combined into a comprehensive score based on determinations and comparisons of information in the record. Mathematical calculations are in the grouping of mathematical concepts.
Further the claims are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite observations, evaluations, judgmental and opinions a human or humans could perform in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, accordingly the claims recite a mental process.
Finally, the claims recite human activities where the claims recite the fundamental economic practice or principle of mitigating risk (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as the claims recite determining a risk associated with a specific record in a record of transactions (ledger) according to different scores generated and combined into a comprehensive score based on determinations and comparisons of information in the record..
Mental processes, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
The Examiner notes that the Examiner has bolded and underlined the additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Limitations that are not bolded and underlined are considered part of the abstract idea.
1. A system for assessment of a risk score for a non- fungible token transacted on a blockchain comprising:
a blockchain capable of implementing smart contracts for creation, storing, and transaction of non-fungible tokens;
a processor-based server in electronic communications with the blockchain;
a database in electronic communications with a processor- based server capable of storing and retrieving data;
the processor-based server configured to:
receive a request for assessment of a specific non- fungible token on the blockchain;
scan the blockchain to identify blocks within the blockchain containing a smart contract for the specific non- fungible token;
retrieve metadata embedded within the identified blocks containing a smart contract for the specific non- fungible token;
derive an ownership history of the specific non- fungible token from the retrieved metadata;
scan the blockchain to identify a block within the blockchain containing a last transaction for the specific non-fungible token;
retrieve smart contract code from the identified block containing the last transaction for the specific non- fungible token;
generate a provenance score based on the derived ownership history of the specific non-fungible token, wherein generating the provenance score comprises identifying whether a wallet address associated with the ownership history is included on a government sanctioned list;
generate a smart contract score based on the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token, wherein generating the smart contract score comprises analyzing decompiled bytecode of the smart contract code to identify malicious backdoor-type risks embedded within the code;
generate a permanence score based on the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token, wherein generating the permanence score comprises analyzing the retrieved smart contract code to determine whether an underlying asset of the specific non-fungible token is stored on the blockchain or an external centralized or decentralized storage system;
and generate a comprehensive risk score for the specific non-fungible token based on the generated provenance score, smart contract score, and permanence score for the specific non-fungible token.
2. The system for assessment of claim 1 wherein the processor-based server is further configured to: input the derived ownership history of the specific non-fungible token into a provenance score model implemented by the processor-based server; and generate the providence score using the provenance score model.
3. The system for assessment of claim 1 wherein the processor-based server is further configured to: input the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token into a smart contract score model implemented by the processor-based server; and generate the smart contract score using the smart contract score model.
4. The system for assessment of claim 1 wherein the processor-based server is further configured to:
input the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token into a permanence score model implemented by the processor-based server;
and generate the permanence score using the permanence score model.
The system for assessment of claim 1 wherein the processor-based server is further configured to:
input the generated providence score, the smart contract score, and the permanence score into a comprehensive risk score model implemented by the processor-based server;
and generate the comprehensive risk score using the comprehensive risk score model.
6. The system for assessment of claim 1 wherein the provenance score is reflective of the ownership history of the specific non-fungible token.
7. The system for assessment of claim 1 wherein the permanence score is reflective of how the retrieved smart contract code references an underlying asset of the specific non-fungible token.
8. The system for assessment of claim 1 wherein the smart contract score is reflective of code-related risk associated with the specific non-fungible token.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite mental process steps, certain methods of organizing human activities and mathematical calculations. Specifically the claims recite steps of collecting data for calculations or more specifically as recited in the claims of request a record on a ledger, scan the ledger to identify entries within the ledger containing contracts (actions) for a specific record, retrieve metadata within the entries containing a contract (action) for a specific record, derive ownership for the record from the retrieved metadata, scan the ledger to identify an entry within the ledger containing a last transaction for the specific record, retrieve contract (action) information from the identified entry containing last transaction for the specific record. This is part of the abstract idea.
Further it is a certain method of organizing human activity, mental process step and mathematical calculation to perform a calculation or more specifically as recited in the claims of generate a comprehensive risk score based on other scores including provenance that identifies whether a wallet address (user identifier) is included in a government sanctioned list, contract (action) score that analyzes decompiled bytecode of the contract to identify malicious backdoor type risks within the code, a permeance score that analyzes the contact to determine whether the contract is stored in a ledger or an external centralized or decentralized storage system. It is noted that decompiled bytecode is interpreted here as code that has been generated into its human readable format (it is noted that the code has already been decompiled here in the claims (e.g. could have happened at some other times and just the results of that decompiling are being displayed) and is instead merely being broadly analyzed to determine a result), therefore this is also part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the specific records are “non-fungible tokens” , the ledger a “blockchain”, the entries are “blocks”, information is stored on a “database”, the actions are “smart contracts” rather than for example written or human actions, the communications are “electronic”, and the functions are instead performed by a “processor-based server” , results merely in the recitation of “apply it.”
Specifically here the claims additional elements recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitation additional eleemnts that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words apply it. Specifically here the additional limitations provide only a result-orientated solution of merely implementing a risk assessment on blockchain technology and lack details as to how the computer performs the data gathering and calculations which is therefore equivalent to the words “apply it”.
Further the additional elements merely implement the judicial exception in the technological environment of blockchain or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As per claim 2, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activities, mental process steps, and mathematical calculations. Specifically it is a certain method of organizing human activity, mental process steps, and mathematical calculation to input information into a model and use a model to generate a score or more specifically as recited in the claims of input the derived ownership history of the specific record into a provenance score model and generate the providence score using the provenance score model. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements of the functions are instead performed by a “processor-based server” and the specific records are instead “non-fungible tokens” results in merely “apply it” or merely implementing the judicial exception in the technological environment or blockchain or field of use as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 3, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activities, mental process steps, and mathematical calculations. It is a certain method of organizing human activity, mental process steps, and mathematical calculation to input information into a model and use a model to generate a score or more specifically input the retrieved action for the specific record into an action model and generate an action score using the action score model. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements of the functions are instead performed by a “processor-based server”, specific records are “non-fungible tokens”, and the actions are “smart contracts”, results in merely “apply it” or merely in implementing the judicial exception in the blockchain environment or field of use as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 4, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activities, mental process steps, and mathematical calculations. It is a certain method of organizing human activity, mental process steps, and mathematical calculation to input information into a model and use a model to generate a score or more specifically input the retrieved action code for the specific record into a permanence score model and generate the permanence score using the permanence score model. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements of the functions are instead performed by a “processor-based server”, the actions are “smart contracts”, and the specific records are “non-fungible tokens” results in merely apply it or merely in implementing the judicial exception in the blockchain environment or field of use as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 5, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activities, mental process steps, and mathematical calculations. It is a certain method of organizing human activity, mental process steps, and mathematical calculation to input various score information into a model and use a model to generate a comprehensive score or more specifically input the generated providence score, the action score, and the permeance score into a comprehensive risk score model and generate the comprehensive risk score using the comprehensive risk score model. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements of the functions are instead performed by a “processor-based server” and the actions are “smart contracts”, results in merely apply it or merely in implementing the judicial exception in the blockchain environment or field of use as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 6, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activities, mental process steps, and mathematical calculations. It is a certain method of organizing human activity, mental process steps, and mathematical calculation to generate a score that is reflective of the ownership history of the specific record. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the specific records are instead “non-fungible tokens” results in merely apply it or merely in implementing the judicial exception in the blockchain environment or field of use as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 7, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activities, mental process steps, and mathematical calculations. It is a certain method of organizing human activity, mental process steps, and mathematical calculation to generate a permanence score which is reflective of how the retrieved action references the underlying asset of the record. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the actions are “smart contracts”, and the specific records are instead “non-fungible tokens” results in merely apply it or merely in implementing the judicial exception in the blockchain environment or field of use as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 8, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activities, mental process steps, and mathematical calculations. It is a certain method of organizing human activity, mental process steps, and mathematical calculation generate a score which is reflective of a code related risk associated with the specific record. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements of the actions are “smart contracts”, and the specific records are instead “non-fungible tokens” results in merely apply it or merely in implementing the judicial exception in the blockchain environment or field of use as detailed above in claim 1.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above with respect to the practical application step.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krosinski (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2023/0118380) further in view of Grech et al. Gigahorse: Through, Declarative Decompilation of Smart Contracts 26 August 2019.
As per claim 1, Krosinski teaches A system for assessment of a risk score for a non-fungible token transacted on a blockchain comprising: (see abstract, paragraphs 0205-0207 and 0417, Examiner’s note: system for generating a metric based on blockchain data for use in controlling, evaluating, or otherwise regulating a transaction (See abstract); Non-Fungible token is NFT (see paragraph 0417) information about NFTs is used in generating a score (see paragraphs 0205-0207)).
a blockchain capable of implementing smart contracts for creation, storing, and transaction of non-fungible tokens; (see paragraph 00334, 0281, 0408, 0417, Examiner’s note: non fungible tokens (see paragraph 0417), smart contracts with tokens (see paragraph 0281), minimum score in a smart contract to buy a token (see paragraph 0408); and teaches types of changes with smart contracts like creation (see paragraph 0034)).
a processor-based server in electronic communications with the blockchain; (see paragraphs 0509-0511, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer).
a database in electronic communications with a processor-based server capable of storing and retrieving data; (see paragraphs 0003, 0073, 0099, and 0102, Examiner’s note: teaches different database implementations for storing and retrieving information).
the processor-based server configured to: (see paragraphs 0509-0511, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer).
receive a request for assessment of a specific non-fungible token on the blockchain; scan the blockchain to identify blocks within the blockchain containing a smart contract for the specific non-fungible token; retrieve metadata embedded within the identified blocks containing a smart contract for the specific non-fungible token; derive an ownership history of the specific non-fungible token from the retrieved metadata; scan the blockchain to identify a block within the blockchain containing a last transaction for the specific non-fungible token; retrieve smart contract code from the identified block containing the last transaction for the specific non-fungible token; (see paragraphs 0033, 0034, 0163-0164, and 205-0207, Examiner’s note: teaches different types of factors for determining whether a transaction should be executed include value of NFTS, ownership of NFTS, changes in state of the address like smart contract creation (see paragraphs 0033-0034), teaches using information in blockchain to determine transaction information and scores related to the NFTs, where this information is timestamped so one could determine the order of transactions (see paragraphs 0163-0164 and 0205-0207)).
generate a provenance score based on the derived ownership history of the specific non-fungible token, wherein generating the provenance score comprises identifying whether a wallet address associated with the ownership history is included on a government sanctioned list; (see paragraphs 0023 and 0027, Examiner’s note: teaches determining if a user is on a watch list based on wallet address (see paragraph 0023), where the identifier may be a government service (see paragraph 0027)).
generate a smart contract score based on the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token, wherein generating the smart contract score comprises analyzing information of the smart contract code to identify malicious backdoor- type risks embedded within the code; (see paragraphs 0034, 0163-0164, 0112-0113, and 0205-0207, Examiner’s note: here teaches analyzing information to determine whether to perform the smart contract, it is noted that any of the various factors in these cited sections that are analyzed in the blockchain information to determine whether or not to perform the transaction based on a score could read on analyzing of blockchain information to determine risks embedded with the code of blockchain (see paragraphs 0034, 0163-0164, and 0205-0207)).
generate a permanence score based on the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token, wherein generating the permanence score comprises analyzing the retrieved smart contract code to determine whether an underlying asset of the specific non-fungible token is stored on the blockchain or on an external centralized or decentralized storage system; (see paragraphs 0163-0164, 0205-0207, Examiner’s note: very broad term here where only one of blockchain or external centralized or decentralized storage system is required. Therefore determining the age (e.g. how long an NFT) as been in the blockchain to determine a score or the number of times it has been transacted to generate a score to then determine whether or not to perform an operation reads on the claim limitation).
and generate a comprehensive risk score for the specific non-fungible token based on the generated provenance score, smart contract score, and permanence score for the specific non-fungible token (see paragraph 0024, 0057, and 0110-0111, Examiner’s note: here teaches can combine the different score variants to create a final score).
Krosinki does not expressly teach analyzing decompiled bytecode to analyze smart contracts on blockchain.
However, Grech et al. Gigahorse: Through, Declarative Decompilation of Smart Contracts teaches analyzing decompiled bytecode to analyze smart contracts on blockchain (see page 1, “Decompilation obviates the need for a contract’s source and allows the analysis of both new and deployed contracts…. It gives the highest analysis precision and completeness among decompilers for Etherum smart contracts”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Krosinki with the aforementioned teachings from Grech et al. Gigahorse : Through, Declarative Decompilation of Smart Contracts with the motivation of providing a known way to analyze smart contracts in Ethereum Virtual Machine blockchain (see Gigahorse: Through, Declarative Decompilation of Smart Contracts page 1), when analyzing smart contracts in blockchain (see Krosinki paragraphs 0034, 0163-0164, 0112-0113, and 0205-0207) and the system using Ethereum Virtual Machine blockchain (see Krosinki paragraph 0160) are both known.
As per claim 2, Krosinski teaches
wherein the processor-based server is further configured to: input the derived ownership history of the specific non-fungible token into a provenance score model implemented by the processor-based server; and generate the providence score using the provenance score model (see paragraphs 0051 and 0157, Examiner’s note: data received can be processed by data manipulations including trained models to generate a result).
As per claim 3, Krosinski teaches
wherein the processor-based server is further configured to: input the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token into a smart contract score model implemented by the processor-based server; and generate the smart contract score using the smart contract score model. (see paragraphs 0051 and 0157, Examiner’s note: data received can be processed by data manipulations including trained models to generate a result).
As per claim 4, Krosinski teaches
wherein the processor-based server is further configured to: input the retrieved smart contract code for the specific non-fungible token into a permanence score model implemented by the processor-based server; and generate the permanence score using the permanence score model. (see paragraphs 0051 and 0157, Examiner’s note: data received can be processed by data manipulations including trained models to generate a result).
As per claim 5, Krosinski teaches
wherein the processor-based server is further configured to :input the generated providence score, the smart contract score, and the permanence score into a comprehensive risk score model implemented by the processor-based server; and generate the comprehensive risk score using the comprehensive risk score model (see paragraphs 0024, 0055, and 0057, Examiner’s note: creating a final score from a series of sub scores).
As per claim 6, Krosinski teaches
wherein the provenance score is reflective of the ownership history of the specific non-fungible token. (see paragraphs 0023 and 0027, Examiner’s note: teaches determining if a user is on a watch list based on wallet address (see paragraph 0023), where identifier may be a government service (see paragraph 0027).
As per claim 7, Krosinski teaches
wherein the permanence score is reflective of how the retrieved smart contract code references an underlying asset of the specific non-fungible token. (see paragraphs 0163-0164 and 0205-0207, Examiner’s note: determining the age (e.g. how long a token) has been in the blockchain to determine a score or the number of times it has been transacted to generate a score reads on the claim limitation).
As per claim 8, Krosinski teaches
wherein the smart contract score is reflective of code-related risk associated with the specific non-fungible token. (see paragraphs 0034, 0163-0164, 0112-0113, and 0205-0207, Examiner’s note: here teaches analyzing information to determine whether to perform the smart contract, it is noted that any of the various factors in these cited sections that are analyzed in the blockchain information to determine whether or not to perform the transaction based on a score could read on analyzing of blockchain information to determine code related risks as broadly recited herein (see paragraphs 0034, 0163-0164, and 0205-0207)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Baset et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0371832) teaches a system for determining a risk score for anomalous transaction detection in blockchain (see abstract)
Liu et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0414664) teaches blockchain address risk assessment via graph analysis (see abstract )
Gaur et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2023/0092436) teaches determining whether or not to perform a transaction based on information about an asset in a transaction on the blockchain (see abstract)
Vosseller et al. (Untied States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2023/0108817) teaches a system for controlling access in blockchains to transactions based on tokenized reputation scores (see abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights