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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 08, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on January 08, 2026. Claims 1-24 were pending in the Application. Claims 1 and 23-24 are amended. Claims 25-27 have been added. Claims 3, 11, and 19 have been canceled, with claims 8-9 and 12-13 remaining canceled, and claims 7, 10, 14-18, and 20 remaining non-selected and withdrawn from consideration. Claim 1 is the independent claim, the remaining claims depend on claim 1. Thus, claims 1-2, 4-6, and 21-27 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “the pending claims are not directed to a judicial exception and, even if they were, are integrated into a practical application and are significantly more than any such judicial exception; Applicant has amended Claim 1 to further emphasize that the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter; claims 1-2, 4-6, and 21-27 are patent eligible under USPTO Step 2A because they do not recite a judicial exception and are integrated into a practical application; claims 1-2, 4-6, and 21-27 are patent eligible because they do not fall under enumerated groupings of abstract idea; the Office Action improperly "oversimplifies the claims by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims"; the instant claims do not merely recite "methods of organizing human activities," but instead recite several detailed steps and features that point to specific improvements in computing device capabilities; the claims do not recite "certain methods of organizing human activity" as asserted by the Office Action, because they do not recite "fundamental economic principles or practices ... ; commercial or legal interactions (including ... advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); [or] managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people"; claims 1-2, 4-6, and 21-27 are patent eligible because they recite a practical application; even assuming arguendo that the instant claims do fall into one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, which Applicant does not concede, the claims are patent eligible because they integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application; Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are patent-eligible because the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea by using a computing system that includes various components such as including at least one of "one or more processors" in a "meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception”; amended independent Claim 1 is analogous to the sample claims presented similar to Example 37 – Relocation of Icons on a Graphical User Interface in the USPTO Examples examined under 35 U.S.C. §101, Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas (issued Jan. 7, 2019), because the present system similarly provides for the automatically repositioning of information presented by a GUI based on a selection of a criteria/feature and/or by making a determination that a declination comprises an indication that a first virtual card number is invalid; claims 1-2, 4-6, and 21-27 are patent eligible under Step 2B because they recite a combination of elements that is significantly more than an abstract idea; even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, which Applicant does not concede, they are patent eligible because they recite an inventive concept that is significantly more than the alleged abstract idea; relying solely on the implementation of a claimed method on an allegedly generic computing device is insufficient to uphold a determination that the claimed method fails to recite significantly more without considering other limitations of the claim; that the instant claims do involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry; and recite significantly more than an abstract idea because the claims represent an inventive concept that addresses a technical problem in the art of the system being able to communicate real-time declinations of virtual card numbers along with the reason(s) for such declinations, as they occur.”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20240412209 A1, para 2), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘209 A1, para 2), discloses that the invention relates to providing a declination to future or recurring purchases, and an explanation for the declination, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 1 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations “receiving, from a user device, authentication data associated with an account; authenticating the user device by comparing the authentication data to account data; monitoring, in real-time, a data stream from a payment processing system to obtain transaction data comprising one or more declination codes; determining, based on the monitoring of the data stream, that a virtual card number associated with the account has been declined; automatically generating, based on the determination that the virtual card number associated with the account has been declined and using one or more application programming interfaces (APis), one or more declination explanations by converting the one or more declination codes into one or more written descriptions of a cause of a declination; generating a declination statement comprising virtual card information and one or more declinations associated with the account, wherein the virtual card information comprises the virtual card number comprising a primary account number that has been tokenized and at least one of the one or more declinations comprises a declination explanation associated with the virtual card number; generating a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising the declination statement; receiving, from the user device, an indication of a selection of a feature; transmitting the GUI to the user device for display; receiving, from the payment processing system, one or more new declinations associated with the account; responsive to receiving one or more new declinations associated with the account, automatically modifying the GUI to further comprise the one or more new declinations and, as the one or more new declinations are received, dynamically reordering a list of declinations displayed by the GUI based on the feature, wherein the list of declinations comprises the one or more declinations associated with the account and the one or more new declinations associated with the account; responsive to determining that a first new declination of the one or more new declinations comprises an indication that a first virtual card number is invalid, modifying the GUI by providing a real-time notification to the user device indicating that the first virtual card number is invalid; modifying the GUI by providing a first user input element configured to generate a replacement virtual card number to replace the first virtual card number; and responsive to receiving, from the user device, a command generated by the first user input element, automatically generating the replacement virtual card number to replace the first virtual card number”, where the italicized claim language represents the abstract idea of “providing a declination to a card number with an explanation for the declination”. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim (the bolded claim language), such as “a system”, “one or more processors”, “memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of: …”, “a user device”, “a payment processing system”, “using one or more application programming interfaces (APIs)”, “generating a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising the declination statement”, “transmitting the GUI to the user device for display”, “automatically modifying the GUI to further comprise the one or more new declinations”, “displayed by the GUI based on the feature”, and “modifying the GUI by providing a real-time notification to the user device indicating that the first virtual card number is invalid”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “providing a declination to a card number with an explanation for the declination”.
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “providing a declination to a card number with an explanation for the declination”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “providing a declination to a card number with an explanation for the declination”. The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the abstract idea “providing a declination to a card number with an explanation for the declination”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea “providing a declination to a card number with an explanation for the declination”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. providing a declination to a card number with an explanation for the declination concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis, in the Final Rejection Office Action dated October 15, 2025, Examiner failed to provide adequate rationale for rescinding the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis, rejection in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated April 23, 2025. Applicant has adequately amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis, of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated April 23, 2025, by amending to recite in claim 1, “memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of: receiving …; authenticating …; generating …; generating …; receiving …; transmitting …; receiving …; responsive to receiving …, automatically modifying …”, which deletes the claim language “the dynamic declination generation system”; and recites in claim 4, “The system of claim 1, wherein the memory stores further instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the further steps of: generating …; associating …; and caching …”, which deletes the claim language “the system”, and therefore, overcomes the antecedent basis issue. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis, of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated April 23, 2025, for claims 1-6.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, in the Final Rejection Office Action dated October 15, 2025, Examiner failed to provide adequate rationale for rescinding the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, rejection in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated April 23, 2025. Applicant has adequately amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated April 23, 2025, by amending to recite in claim 1, “A system comprising: one or more processors; and memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of: …”, which deletes the claim language “are configured to cause the dynamic declination generation system to: …”, and therefore, overcomes the unclear scope issue by making it clear what the system comprises and what is performing each limitation. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated April 23, 2025, for claims 1-6.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 102, in the Final Rejection Office Action dated October 15, 2025, Examiner failed to provide adequate rationale for rescinding the 35 U.S.C. § 102 for rescinding the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated April 23, 2025. Applicant adequately amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by amending claim 1 to recite “memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of: receiving …; authenticating …; generating …; generating …; receiving …; transmitting …; receiving …; and automatically modifying …”. Therefore, Dhar fails to disclose or suggest the newly amended subject matter. Based on the amended claim 1, Examiner has rescinded the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for claims 1-6.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, in the Final Rejection Office Action dated October 15, 2025, Examiner failed to provide rationale for rescinding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated April 23, 2025. Examiner submits that Applicant has adequately amended to overcome the current record of art in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action, dated April 23, 2025, of Skinner, US 20110213711 A1, Nelson, US 7413112 B2, Ganesan, US 11379771 B2, Mohamed, US 11811770 B2, and DeSoto, US 10504103 B2, and render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 moot. The cited references of record individually, and in combination, fail to teach, disclose, or render obvious at least “generating a declination statement comprising virtual card information and one or more declinations associated with the account, wherein the virtual card information comprises a virtual card number comprising a primary account number that has been tokenized and the one or more declinations comprise a declination explanation associated with the virtual card number”, “receiving, from a network, one or more new declinations associated with the account”, and “responsive to receiving one or more new declinations associated with the account, automatically modifying the GUI to further comprise the one or more new declinations and, as the one or more new declinations are received, dynamically reordering a list of declinations displayed by the GUI based on the feature, wherein the list of declinations comprises the one or more declinations associated with the account and the one or more new declinations associated with the account”. After further consideration and search, no prior art was found to render at least these limitations obvious. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-2, 4-6, and 21-27 are directed to a “system”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites “providing a declination to a card number with an explanation for the declination”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “receiving, from a user device, authentication data associated with an account; authenticating the user device by comparing the authentication data to account data; monitoring, in real-time, a data stream from a payment processing system to obtain transaction data comprising one or more declination codes; determining, based on the monitoring of the data stream, that a virtual card number associated with the account has been declined; automatically generating, based on the determination that the virtual card number associated with the account has been declined and using one or more application programming interfaces (APIs), one or more declination explanations by converting the one or more declination codes into one or more written descriptions of a cause of a declination; generating a declination statement comprising virtual card information and one or more declinations associated with the account, wherein the virtual card information comprises the virtual card number comprising a primary account number that has been tokenized and at least one of the one or more declinations comprises a declination explanation associated with the virtual card number; generating a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising the declination statement; receiving, from the user device, an indication of a selection of a feature; transmitting the GUI to the user device for display; receiving, from the payment processing system, one or more new declinations associated with the account; responsive to receiving one or more new declinations associated with the account, automatically modifying the GUI to further comprise the one or more new declinations and, as the one or more new declinations are received, dynamically reordering a list of declinations displayed by the GUI based on the feature, wherein the list of declinations comprises the one or more declinations associated with the account and the one or more new declinations associated with the account; responsive to determining that a first new declination of the one or more new declinations comprises an indication that a first virtual card number is invalid, modifying the GUI by providing a real-time notification to the user device indicating that the first virtual card number is invalid; modifying the GUI by providing a first user input element configured to generate a replacement virtual card number to replace the first virtual card number; and responsive to receiving, from the user device, a command generated by the first user input element, automatically generating the replacement virtual card number to replace the first virtual card number”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a system”, “one or more processors”, “memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of: …”, “a user device”, “a payment processing system”, “using one or more application programming interfaces (APIs)”, “generating a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising the declination statement”, “transmitting the GUI to the user device for display”, “automatically modifying the GUI to further comprise the one or more new declinations”, “displayed by the GUI based on the feature”, and “modifying the GUI by providing a real-time notification to the user device indicating that the first virtual card number is invalid”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “providing a declination to a card number with an explanation for the declination.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “providing a declination to a card number with an explanation for the declination” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors” and “memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, and 21-27 further describe the abstract idea of “providing a declination to a card number with an explanation for the declination”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims 2, 5, 21, and 24-26 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “providing a declination to a card number with an explanation for the declination”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Dependent claim 4 recites a new additional element of “a database”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 6 recites a new additional element of “a quick response code”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 22 recites a new additional element of “a virtual card”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 23 recites a new additional element of “one or more interactive elements”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 27 recites a new additional element of “an unauthorized website”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Hence, claims 1-2, 4-6, and 21-27 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-2, 4-6, and 21-27 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Means-Plus-Function
Claim 1 recites “modifying the GUI by providing a first user input element configured to generate …”
Claim 23 recites “modifying the GUI to display one or more interactive elements configured to cancel …”
Claim 24 recites “modifying the GUI to display one or more interactive elements configured to modify …”
The claim limitations above do not use the word "means" but is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use generic placeholders that are coupled with functional language, "acts", without reciting sufficient structures to perform the recited functions and the generic placeholders are not preceded by structural modifiers.
These claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description, specification (PG Pub US 20240412209 A1), fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2, 4-6, and 21-27, which depend from claim 1, are also similarly rejected.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP § 608.01 (o) and § 2181.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jeffries et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140207673 A1) – Automated Teller Machine Transaction Blocking
Jeffries discloses a system, method, and computer-readable storage medium configured to pre-emptively reject an Automated Teller Machine transaction without consulting an issuer. Automated Teller Machine (ATM) transaction data is received, via a computer network, from a merchant bank. The Automated Teller Machine transaction data including a primary account number (PAN) associated with a customer. Customer history associated with the PAN is retrieved from a database. A rule is applied from a rules engine to the Automated Teller Machine transaction data based on the customer history. The Automated Teller Machine transaction is pre-emptively declined via the computer network instead of forwarding the Automated Teller Machine transaction data to an issuer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN R CHISM whose telephone number is (571)272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM – 3:00 PM 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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached at (571) 270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN CHISM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights