DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 29, 2025 has been entered. Applicant has: amended claims 1, 11, 13 and 17; and cancelled claims 5 and 18. Claims 1-4, 6-17 and 19-20 are now pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Interpretation
Intended Use/Result Language:
Regarding Claims 1, 13 and 17: The phrase “wherein the client application navigates to a crypto token summary page after activation of the address indicator in the navigation banner”, recited in claims 1, 13 and 17, is merely a recited intended use/result of the displayed address indicator in the navigation banner. Applicant is not positively reciting a step, or steps, where the address indicator is activated and/or where the crypto summary page is displayed after activation of the address indicator.
The phrase “wherein the client application navigates to a message information page after activation of the pending indicator in the navigation banner”, recited in claims 1, 13 and 17, is merely a recited intended use/result of the pending indicator in the navigation banner. Applicant is not positively reciting a step, or steps, where pending indicator is activated and/or where the message information page is displayed after activation of the pending indicator.
These phrases are given little to no patentable weight because the limitation, or portion thereof, does not claim the functions as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or they do not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103(I)(C) and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being “for … [performing a specific functionality]”, etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
Non-Functional Language:
Regarding Claims 1, 13 and 17: The phrase “wherein the data feed is supported by one or more servers associated with the client application”, recited in claims 1, 13 and 17, is non-functional descriptive material as it only describes, at least in part, details about the data feed (e.g., who/what supports/operates the data feed). However, the fact that the data feed is supported by one or more servers associated with the client application fails to affect how any of the positively recited steps are performed. For example, there is no indication that the subscribing process and/or the manner in which pending indicator is displayed operates differently simply because the data feed is supported by a particular server.
Regarding Claim 12: The claim 12 phrase which recites “wherein the navigation banner is positioned at a bottom portion of a user interface of the client application” is non-functional descriptive material as it only describes, at least in part, characteristics about the navigational banner. Applicant is not positively reciting a step of positioning/moving the navigational banner, and the fact that the navigational banner is at the bottom of the user interface fails to affect how any of the positively recited steps are performed.
These non-functional and intended use phrases/limitations will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
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 1-4, 6-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined at Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03. Here, it is determined that claims 1-4 and 6-12 are directed to the statutory category of a process, claims 13-16 are directed to the statutory category of a machine, and claims 17 and 19-20 are directed to the statutory category of a manufacture. Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent claim 1, the method claim, is selected as being representative of the independent claims. Independent claim 1 recites:
A method for tracking message status in a client application, comprising:
displaying, at a first position in a navigation banner of the client application, an address indicator of a wallet address associated with the client application, wherein the client application navigates to a crypto token summary page after activation of the address indicator in the navigation banner;
receiving, at the client application, information that indicates that a message associated with the wallet address is submitted for broadcast via a blockchain network;
subscribing, based at least in part on receiving the information, to a data feed associated with the message, wherein the message is associated with an identifier and wherein the data feed is supported by one or more servers associated with the client application;
determining the message is pending confirmation via the blockchain network based at least in part on subscribing to the data feed and using the identifier; and
replacing, at the first position in the navigation banner, the address indicator with a pending indicator that indicates that the message is pending confirmation via the blockchain network, wherein the pending indicator is based at least in part on determining the message is pending confirmation and wherein the client application navigates to a message information page after activation of the pending indicator in the navigation banner.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, of receiving information pertaining to an account (e.g., a wallet address) and providing/displaying information, including updated information, associated with the account. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., account management, providing information regarding one or more accounts, providing/displaying a transaction status, etc.). This abstract idea could also fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it also describes a commercial or legal interaction (e.g., collecting and providing information pertaining to one or more accounts/transactions, etc.). The tying of this concept to a particular environment (e.g., a client application environment, a blockchain environment, etc.) fails to move the claims beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea in a particular environment. Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F .3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36. Here, it is clear that the claim(s) focus on an abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a technical field. It is further noted that, the performance of the one or more process steps using a generic computer component (e.g., a client application, a processor, a memory, etc.) does not preclude the claim limitation(s) from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use 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.
As indicated in the “Claim Interpretation” section seen above, claims 1, 13 and 17 contain intended use/result language pertaining to the address indicator in the navigation banner and the pending indicator in the navigation banner. Accordingly, the phrases identified above are given little to no patentable weight because the limitation, or portion thereof, does not claim the functions as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or they do not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103(I)(C) and 2111.04. Claims 1, 13 and 17 also recite non-functional descriptive material about who/what supports/operates the data feed. As indicated above, the fact that the data feed is supported by one or more servers associated with the client application fails to affect how any of the positively recited steps are performed.
Beyond these intended use/result and non-functional phrases/limitations, claim 1 recites the additional element of a client application. Claim 13 recites the additional elements of: an apparatus comprising one or more memories and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories; and a client application. Claim 17 recites the additional elements of: one or more processors; and a client application. The client application, processors and memories are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component and/or apparatus. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Examiner finds no indication that the computer component(s) itself/themselves is/are improved, or that there is an improvement to some other technology. Examiner finds no indication in the Specification (See e.g., Specification [0063-0067]), that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible."). They do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. They do not apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond merely linking it to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed (i.e., provide an inventive concept). MPEP §2106.05. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of using various computing components (e.g., a client application, a processor, a memory, etc.) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. That is, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Accordingly, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-12, 14-16 and 19-20 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 14 further refine the abstract idea by describing the type of information received (e.g., a request via a user input) and what information is displayed as a result of the received information. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-4 and 15-16 further refine the abstract idea by describing additional information that is displayed. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6 and 19 further refine the abstract idea by describing additional information that is displayed. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7-8 and 20 further refine the abstract idea by describing the displaying of additional information in response to receiving a user input. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 further refines the abstract idea by describing the type of information that could be displayed. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 further refines the abstract idea by describing the type of information (e.g., a count/quantity) displayed. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 further refines the abstract idea by describing additional types of information (e.g., notification of a credit) that is received. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 further refines the abstract idea by describing where information in an interface is displayed. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible. Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art teaches various aspects of the claimed invention. Yan (US 2021/0398104 A1), for example, discloses a mobile application based digital wallet (i.e., a client application) that stores various tokens it receives from other digital wallets (e.g., facilitated by respective digital wallet components) and may be utilized to pay or otherwise transfer tokens to other network participants (including other banks such as issuing banks). Yan [0124]; [0140]. Yan indicates that the digital wallet can further be configured to receive receipts, enter data, provide confirmations (e.g., signatures), scan codes, and/or receive feedbacks as to whether or not a payment for a proposed transaction was successful or failed. Yan [0124]. Yan discloses that the digital wallet application may include a wallet balance overview page presenting for display a user's current token balance, a user's current fiat balance, amount of tokens to be redeemed, amounts of tokens involved in pending transactions, amount of tokens available for use through the digital wallet, the user's wallet address (also referred to as the digital wallet ID), and a snapshot of recent transactions including exchanges between the user and the issuing bank in connection with exchanging tokens for fiat currency and purchasing tokens with fiat currency. Yan [0140]; Fig. 3A. The wallet balance overview page may provide interactive options wherein a user may select one or more buttons to engage one or more functions available through their digital wallet application. For example, a user may select the "Redeem tokens" button to exchange tokens for fiat currency. Similarly, a user may select the "Purchase tokens" button to change fiat currency or tokens. Yan [0140]; Fig. 3A. Yan indicates that the digital wallet application may include a transaction summary page (which in some instances may be reached after entry of appropriate information in the create transaction page) presenting a summary of the details for a proposed transaction. Yan [0142]; Fig. 3C. Yan further indicates that a web application dashboard including a digital wallet may include an overview of recent transactions in connection with a user's digital wallet. Any transaction details may be presented or removed from view in connection with the overview page of the web application dashboard. For instance, the overview of recent transactions includes: the amount of each associated transaction, the wallet address used in connection with the transaction, the transaction status associated with the transaction, the date of creation and date updated in connection with the transaction, additional information associated with the transaction (which may include an identification of the goods, services, or other offerings purchased pursuant to the proposed transaction), a received or sent indicator associated with the transaction, and/or the name of the other party with whom the user was transacting. Yan [0143]; Fig. 3D. Yan further discloses using the digital wallet to submit a transaction to the blockchain and to receive from the blockchain information that causes updated credit token balances in the digital wallet. Yan [0214-0215].
Accordingly, the prior art of Yan discloses that it was known in the art to display an address indicator of wallet address (i.e., a wallet address/digital wallet ID) and to display a pending indicator that indicates that the message is pending confirmation via the blockchain network (e.g., a transaction status associated with a transaction). Yan [0023]; [0140]; [0143]; Fig. 3A; Fig. 3D. Yan further discloses that it was known in the art to navigate to other pages in response to user input (e.g., selecting a button). Yan [0140]. For example, Yan discloses that it was known to navigate to, and display, a crypto summary page (i.e., a wallet balance overview page) and a message information page (i.e., an overview of recent transactions). Yan [0140]; [0143]. Yan also discloses that it was known to send messages to, and receive messages from, the blockchain that pertained to a user’s digital wallet. Yan [0214-0215].
Yan differs, in part, from the claimed invention because Yan does not explicitly disclose the particular layout of information displayed in the client/wallet application. In particular, Yan does not explicitly disclose where the address indicator of a wallet address associated with the client application is displayed at a first position in a navigation banner of a client application, or where the address indicator is replaced, at the first position in the navigation banner, with a pending indicator that indicates that the message is pending confirmation via the blockchain network.
Tseng et al. (US 2009/0249247 A1), in the analogous art of using applications to display information and notifications, discloses where text is displayed in a status bar. Tseng indicates that the text in the status bar may be replaced with a status indicator, such as an icon, in order to alert a user that a message has arrived. Tseng further indicates that a number may be provided with the icon in order to show how many messages of a particular type have been received. Tseng [0034]; Fig. 1; Fig. 4A; Fig. 4B.
Accordingly, Tseng discloses that it was known in the art to display notifications at a first position in a navigational banner (i.e., in a status bar) and to replace the information initially displayed at the first position in the navigation banner (i.e., in the status bar) with an indicator (i.e., an icon) that indicates a status associated with a message. Tseng [0034].
Agarwal et al. (US 2023/0419276 A1) discloses where a cryptocurrency wallet application displays a plurality of existing asset accounts. A user of the wallet may select a particular asset and view details, such as history, associated with that asset. Once the digital asset (e.g., bitcoin) has been selected, the user may provide an amount they wish to transfer and a recipient of the transfer. Agarwal [0029]; Figs. 2A-2H.
Holisky, JR. et al. (US 2024/0104525 A1) discloses a user interface that allows a user to select an account (e.g., a cryptocurrency wallet address). On the interface the user selects the token/coin/crypto/currency/cryptocurrency to be sent on the blockchain network from the assets associated with the selected account. The user selects the amount of the cryptocurrency token to transfer on the blockchain network on the interface, selects the destination cryptocurrency wallet address type, and the specifies a recipient or destination cryptocurrency wallet address to which the cryptocurrency token is to be sent. Holisky [0079-0081]; Fig. 9; Fig. 10; Fig. 12.
Zimmerman et al. (US 2020/0005283 A1) discloses where a transaction terminal transaction manager checks a cryptographic network with a wallet identifier and obtains a pending transaction identifier for a transfer from a customer wallet of a customer to a wallet held by an enterprise associated with the transaction terminal. Zimmerman [0050]; Fig. 2 item 230. Zimmerman also discloses where a transaction-server transaction manager periodically checks, at predefined intervals of time, with the cryptographic network for a confirmation of a transfer from the customer wallet to the wallet using one or more of the pending transaction identifier and the wallet identifier. Zimmerman [0068]; Fig. 3 item 350.
Cutler et al. (US 11,727,366 B1) discloses the use of a state monitor that updates the status of a transaction as it moves from being submitted, to being finalized and/or finalized in the blockchain. After the state monitor indicates that a particular transaction is finalized in the chain, a server may remove the transaction from the monitor. Cutler Col. 7 lines 13-34; Fig. 4.
Siljeg (WO 2024/221057 A1) discloses where a signed transaction is sent to the blockchain network via a wallet network interface. After sending the transaction, a website monitors the transaction status on the blockchain and updates the user interface accordingly to reflect the confirmed or failed transaction status. Siljeg [0069].
Accordingly, while certain aspects of the claimed invention were known in the art, the prior art, taken either individually or in reasonable combination with other prior art, fails to disclose, suggest, teach, or render obvious the particular combination of steps, elements and/or flow as recited in independent claims 1, 13 and 17. For the above reasons claims 1, 13 and 17 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art and claims 2-4, 6-12, 14-16 and 19-20 are allowable over the prior art by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, 13 or 17.
Examiner notes that the claims would still need to overcome any other outstanding rejections (e.g., 35 U.S.C. 101) before a notice of allowance could be issued.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 was objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments have addressed the previously cited issues, accordingly the prior claim objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a judicial exception. Amendment, pp. 8-12. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner contends that the claims recite the abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, of receiving information pertaining to an account (e.g., a wallet address) and providing/displaying information, including updated information, associated with the account. This concept/abstract idea falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., account management, providing information regarding one or more accounts, providing/displaying a transaction status, etc.). This abstract idea could also fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it also describes a commercial or legal interaction (e.g., collecting and providing information pertaining to one or more accounts/transactions, etc.). As shown in the rejection above, the majority of the claim recites limitations pertaining to the receiving of information associated with a particular account (e.g., a wallet address) and then displaying indicators based on the received information. The received information may be received via a subscription to a data feed, however merely using a subscription/data feed to receive particular account data is not an indication that the claim is not abstract.
Applicant argues that the claims recite features that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Amendment, p. 12-16. Specifically, Applicant alleges that the claims are directed to an improvement to a relevant technology because the claims include features that efficiently display a real-time status of a transaction to improve the available level of detail associated with a transaction, decrease the quantity of navigation steps taken by a user to view the status of a transaction, and provide a more updated status of a transaction. Id. This argument is unpersuasive. Examiner notes that the features discussed by applicant are not improved due to implementing the claimed invention. Rather, the claimed invention is using known technology for known techniques and is merely applying this technology and its techniques to a particular environment (e.g., a crypto token/blockchain environment). For example, the use of data feed subscriptions to obtain data relevant to a particular topic is a feature known in the art. Here, the claimed invention is using the data feed for the same purpose (i.e., to obtain data associated with a particular identifier). Applicant’s disclosure acknowledges that it was known for a user to monitor the status of a transaction. Specification [0013]. The disclosure also indicates that it was known for a user to access details related to the transaction, although the disclosure points out that the user may have to navigate to multiple locations, using multiple clicks, to access the related transaction information. Specification [0013]. Examiner contends that having information associated with a message, or a transaction, scattered on multiple pages is not, necessary, a technical problem. Rather, placing information on different pages could merely be a design choice as to how information is conveyed to the user. Applicant’s disclosure does not indicate that it was impossible to acquire message/transaction data and/or to place all the data on a centralized interface, rather the disclosure merely indicates that the manner the user viewed the data was inefficient. To address this problem, the claimed invention merely collects data (e.g., by receiving it directly or through a data feed) and then updates a particular location on an interface to display the data. The manner in which the data is collected and displayed is recited at a high level of generality, and Examiner fails to find any indication that the claimed invention offers any improvement to the manner information is retrieved and/or displayed. At best, Applicant may be reciting a new abstract idea to place particular information at a particular location on an interface, however there is no indication that the claimed invention improved some sort of technology, or technological process, that now allows this data to be placed at a centralized location.
For the above reasons, and for those set forth in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection seen above, all claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON FENSTERMACHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM ET, Alternate Fridays Off.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571-272-7575. 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights