DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office action is in response to Amendment filed on March 16, 2026 for application 18555177
Acknowledgements
Claims 1, 3-6, 12-15 and 19-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-6, 12-15 and 19-20 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that amended independent claim 1 now explicitly recites specific computing devices, being a user terminal, a server of a target organization, and a payment service platform and recites specific interactions between these computing devices that cannot be performed mentally or by organizing human activity. Applicant argues that amended independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because the interactions are inherently computer-implemented operations performed by the recited computing devices interacting with one another over a network. Applicant further argues that the specification in paragraphs [0029] and [0031] provides the technological improvement of reducing the data processing amount of the server of the target organization and the payment service platform, and reducing the quantity of payment request transmissions between these computing devices. Applicant argues that the recitation of the first identity verification process within the second payment procedure rather than requiring the server of the target organization to transmit an additional payment request to the payment service platform, as recited in amended independent claim 1, thereby improving information processing efficiencies.
In response to Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees as amended independent claim 1 still recites an abstract idea of determining whether the transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk. The specific steps “obtaining a payment request that is sent by a target organization and that is generated based on a payment operation performed by a user, wherein the payment request comprises identification information of an authorized payment account, and the authorized payment account is a payment account for which a one-step payment authorization relationship with the target organization is established in advance; determining account status information of the authorized payment account; determining, based on the account status information, whether a transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk, to obtain a first determining result; and upon determining that the first determining result indicates that the transaction is not at a transaction risk, performing a first payment procedure; or upon determining that the first determining result indicates that the transaction is at a transaction risk, performing a second payment procedure comprising a first identity verification process that is performed within the second payment procedure rather than requiring the target organization to transmit an additional payment request to a payment service” fall within “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas classified under “fundamental economic principles or practices”, specifically “mitigating risk” as part of a transaction or determining the risk associated with a transaction before a payment can be made. The claims are reciting an abstract idea because the claim recites steps for determining, based on the risk assessment basis information, whether the transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk. Also, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as the use of a device comprising a memory and a processor, server, terminal and a payment service platform merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The use of a device comprising a memory and a processor, server, terminal and a payment service platform to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Applicant mentioned in their arguments that amended independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because the interactions are inherently computer-implemented operations performed by the recited computing devices interacting with one another over a network. The recitation of the first identity verification process within the second payment procedure rather than requiring the server of the target organization to transmit an additional payment request to the payment service platform does not reflect an improvement to the additional elements of a device comprising a memory and a processor, server, terminal and a payment service platform. The additional elements of the claims are simply implementing the steps of Claim 1.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 102, Applicant argues that prior art reference SUN does not disclose "obtaining a payment request that is sent by a server of a target organization and that is generated based on a payment operation received by a terminal, wherein the payment request comprises identification information of an authorized payment account, and the authorized payment account is a payment account for which a one-step payment authorization relationship with the server of the target organization is established in advance" as cited in paragraphs ¶0061 and ¶0065.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as SUN discloses in paragraph that if a transaction platform side detects that a third-party payment account has a risk, a security verification request can be initiated to a third-party payment service party to trigger the third-party payment service party to execute a security verification for the current payment. SUN discloses a payment process by introducing an identity verification capability of a third-party payment service side in paragraph ¶0044. SUN discloses an e-commerce scenario in paragraph ¶0057 where the user uses a transaction service of the e-commerce transaction platform, the user may select to use a third-party electronic wallet to perform the payment. Paragraph ¶0059 discloses risky payments are processed on a transaction platform or a transaction platform side of the network or a third-party payment side of the network which is interpreted to be the server of the target organization. SUN discloses in ¶0067 and ¶0071 that the payment risk may be that an account of the user on a third-party payment side is stolen, and in this case, the third-party payment service party performs a security verification on the user account. The third-party payment service party can be interpreted as the server of the target organization.
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, 3-6, 12-15 and 19-20 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, 3-6 and 12-15 are directed to a method, claim 19 is directed to a product and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite determining whether the transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “obtaining a payment request that is sent by a target organization and that is generated based on a payment operation performed by a user, wherein the payment request comprises identification information of an authorized payment account, and the authorized payment account is a payment account for which a one-step payment authorization relationship with the target organization is established in advance; determining account status information of the authorized payment account; determining, based on the account status information, whether a transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk, to obtain a first determining result; and upon determining that the first determining result indicates that the transaction is not at a transaction risk, performing a first payment procedure; or upon determining that the first determining result indicates that the transaction is at a transaction risk, performing a second payment procedure comprising a first identity verification process that is performed within the second payment procedure rather than requiring the target organization to transmit an additional payment request to a payment service” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “fundamental economic principles or practices”, specifically “mitigating risk” as part of a transaction or determining the risk associated with a transaction before a payment can be made (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because – for example, in this case, the claims involve a series of steps for determining, based on the risk assessment basis information, whether the transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as the use of a device comprising a memory and a processor, server, terminal and a payment service platform merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of a device comprising a memory and a processor, server, terminal and a payment service platform to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, a device comprising a memory and a processor, server, terminal and a payment service platform perform the steps or functions of the Claim 1. The additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.05), the additional elements of the device comprising a memory and a processor, server, terminal and a payment service platform, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using the device comprising a memory and a processor, server, terminal and a payment service platform to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of determining whether the transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately the device comprising a memory and a processor, server, terminal and a payment service platform perform the steps of Claim 1. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of determining whether the transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of the device comprising a memory and a processor, server, terminal and a payment service platform to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims further describe how a one-step payment is conducted indicating that a one- step payment authorization relationship is being established between the to-be-authorized payment account and the target organization, performing a fourth payment procedure comprising a third identity verification process further elaborating on the abstract idea of determining whether the transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
-The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35
U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 3-4, 12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over SUN (US 2021/0256527 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 19 and 20, SUN discloses a payment information processing method, comprising (¶0060):
obtaining a payment request that is sent by a server of a target organization and that is generated based on a payment operation received by a terminal, wherein the payment request comprises identification information of an authorized payment account, and the authorized payment account is a payment account for which a one-step payment authorization relationship with the server of the target organization is established in advance (¶0057, ¶0059, ¶0061, ¶0065, ¶0067, ¶0071)
determining account status information of the authorized payment account (¶0065)
determining, based on the account status information, whether a transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk, to obtain a first determining result; and (¶0066, ¶0067, ¶0069)
upon determining that the first determining result indicates that the transaction is not at a transaction risk, performing a first payment procedure (¶0070)
or upon determining that the first determining result indicates that the transaction is at a transaction risk, performing a second payment procedure comprising a first identity verification process that is performed within the second payment procedure rather than requiring the server of the target organization to transmit an additional payment request to a payment service platform (¶0072 “the user can perform a security verification by performing the security verification in the product of the transaction platform side currently used by the user”, ¶0073, ¶0074)
Regarding Claim 3, SUN discloses wherein the method further comprises:
- receiving a one-step payment authorization application sent by the target organization, wherein the one-step payment authorization application is generated based on an authorization application operation performed by the user in a terminal, and the one-step payment authorization application comprises account information of a to-be-authorized payment account logged in on the terminal and organization identification information of the target organization (¶0073)
- sending first payment verification indication information for the to-be-authorized payment account to the terminal (¶0074)
- receiving first payment verification information that is sent by the terminal and that is in response to the first payment verification indication information; (¶0074)
- determining whether the first payment verification information is consistent with payment verification information preset for the to-be-authorized payment account, to obtain a third determining result; and (¶0075)
- upon determining that the third determining result indicates that the first payment verification information is consistent with the payment verification information preset for the to- be-authorized payment account, generating an authorization certificate used for a one-step payment, wherein the authorization certificate used for a one-step payment indicates that a one- step payment authorization relationship is established between the to-be-authorized payment account and the server of the target organization (¶0090)
Regarding Claim 4, SUN discloses: wherein the payment request comprises an organization identifier corresponding to the server of the target organization and a device identifier of a terminal that receives the payment operation (¶0066, ¶0075)
before the determining whether a transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk, the method further comprises: determining, based on the device identifier, a login payment account currently logged in on the terminal; (¶0074)
determining, based on the authorization certificate, whether the login payment account is consistent with the authorized payment account corresponding to the authorization certificate, to obtain a fourth determining result; and (¶0074)
upon determining that the fourth determining result indicates that the login payment account is inconsistent with the payment account corresponding to the authorization certificate, performing a fourth payment procedure comprising a third identity verification process; and (¶0075)
the determining whether a transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk specifically comprises: upon determining that the fourth determining result indicates that the login payment account is consistent with the authorized payment account corresponding to the authorization certificate, determining, based on the account status information, whether the transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk (¶0066, ¶0067, ¶0069)
Regarding Claim 12, SUN discloses wherein the performing a second payment procedure comprising a first identity verification process specifically comprises:
sending second payment verification indication information to the terminal, so that the user enters second payment verification information based on the second payment verification indication information; (¶0072-¶0074)
receiving the second payment verification information entered by the user; (¶0074)
determining whether the second payment verification information is consistent with payment verification information preset for the authorized payment account corresponding to the authorization certificate; and (¶0074)
upon determining that the second payment verification information is consistent with the payment verification information preset for the authorized payment account corresponding to the authorization certificate, deducting a payment amount corresponding to the payment request from the authorized payment account (¶0075, ¶0081, ¶0084, ¶0094)
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 5-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN in view of Sun (US 2020/0342460 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, SUN (‘527) does not disclose wherein the first identity verification process is specifically an identity verification process for the authorized payment account corresponding to the authorization certificate.
Sun (‘460) however discloses: wherein the first identity verification process is specifically an identity verification process for the authorized payment account corresponding to the authorization certificate (¶0005, ¶0010)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of SUN (‘527) to include wherein the first identity verification process is specifically an identity verification process for the authorized payment account corresponding to the authorization certificate, as disclosed in Sun, in order to provide a payment identity verification method (see Sun abstract).
Regarding Claim 6, SUN (‘527) does not disclose: wherein before the determining whether a transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk, the method further comprises: determining, based on the payment request, an initiation time at which the payment request is initiated; determining whether the initiation time is within a validity period of the authorization certificate, to obtain a fifth determining result; and upon determining that the fifth determining result indicates that the initiation time is not within the validity period of the authorization certificate, performing a fifth payment procedure comprising fourth identity verification; and the determining whether a transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk specifically comprises: upon determining that the fifth determining result indicates that the initiation time is within the validity period of the authorization certificate, determining, based on the account status information, whether the transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk.
Sun (‘460) however discloses: wherein before the determining whether a transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk, the method further comprises:
determining, based on the payment request, an initiation time at which the payment request is initiated; (¶0075)
determining whether the initiation time is within a validity period of the authorization certificate, to obtain a fifth determining result; and upon determining that the fifth determining result indicates that the initiation time is not within the validity period of the authorization certificate, performing a fifth payment procedure comprising fourth identity verification; and (¶0075-¶0076)
the determining whether a transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk specifically comprises: upon determining that the fifth determining result indicates that the initiation time is within the validity period of the authorization certificate, determining, based on the account status information, whether the transaction corresponding to the payment request is at a transaction risk (¶0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of SUN (‘527) to include “determining whether the initiation time is within a validity period of the authorization certificate, to obtain a fifth determining result; and upon determining that the fifth determining result indicates that the initiation time is not within the validity period of the authorization certificate, performing a fifth payment procedure comprising fourth identity verification”, as disclosed in Sun, in order to provide a payment identity verification method (see Sun abstract).
Regarding Claim 13, while SUN (‘527) discloses:
wherein the authorized payment account comprises at least one authorized payment sub-account (¶0064, ¶0068)
before the sending second payment verification indication information to the terminal, the method further comprises: determining a second payment sequence preset for all authorized payment sub-accounts; and (¶0065)
SUN (‘527) does not disclose:
determining a first authorized payment sub-account that is in all the authorized payment sub-accounts and whose account balance is greater than or equal to the payment amount corresponding to the payment request as a second target payment account based on the second payment sequence;
the sending second payment verification indication information to the terminal specifically comprises: sending second payment verification indication information for the second target payment account to the terminal;
the determining whether the second payment verification information is consistent with payment verification information preset for the authorized payment account corresponding to the authorization certificate specifically comprises: determining whether the second payment verification information is consistent with payment verification information preset for the second target payment account; and
the deducting a payment amount corresponding to the payment request from the authorized payment account specifically comprises: deducting the payment amount corresponding to the payment request from the second target payment account
Sun (‘460) however discloses:
determining a first authorized payment sub-account that is in all the authorized payment sub-accounts and whose account balance is greater than or equal to the payment amount corresponding to the payment request as a second target payment account based on the second payment sequence; (¶0020)
the sending second payment verification indication information to the terminal specifically comprises: sending second payment verification indication information for the second target payment account to the terminal; (¶0021)
the determining whether the second payment verification information is consistent with payment verification information preset for the authorized payment account corresponding to the authorization certificate specifically comprises: determining whether the second payment verification information is consistent with payment verification information preset for the second target payment account; and (¶0022)
the deducting a payment amount corresponding to the payment request from the authorized payment account specifically comprises: deducting the payment amount corresponding to the payment request from the second target payment account (¶0005, ¶0024)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of SUN (‘527) to include deducting a payment amount corresponding to the payment request, as disclosed in Sun, in order to provide a payment identity verification method (see Sun abstract).
Regarding Claim 14, SUN (‘527) does not disclose: wherein the performing a fourth payment procedure comprising a third identity verification process specifically comprises: sending third payment verification indication information to the terminal, so that the user enters third payment verification information based on the third payment verification indication information; receiving the third payment verification information entered by the user; determining whether the third payment verification information is consistent with payment verification information preset for the login payment account; and upon determining that the third payment verification information is consistent with the payment verification information preset for the login payment account, deducting a payment amount corresponding to the payment request from the login payment account.
Sun (‘460) however discloses: wherein the performing a fourth payment procedure comprising a third identity verification process specifically comprises:
sending third payment verification indication information to the terminal, so that the user enters third payment verification information based on the third payment verification indication information; (¶0005, ¶0009, ¶0010)
receiving the third payment verification information entered by the user; (¶0009-¶0010)
determining whether the third payment verification information is consistent with payment verification information preset for the login payment account; and (¶0010)
upon determining that the third payment verification information is consistent with the payment verification information preset for the login payment account, deducting a payment amount corresponding to the payment request from the login payment account (¶0018)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of SUN (‘527) to include upon determining that the third payment verification information is consistent with the payment verification information preset for the login payment account, deducting a payment amount corresponding to the payment request from the login payment account, as disclosed in Sun, in order to provide a payment identity verification method (see Sun abstract).
Regarding Claim 15, SUN (‘527) does not disclose: wherein the login payment account comprises at least one login payment sub-account; before the sending third payment verification indication information to the terminal, the method further comprises: determining a third payment sequence preset for all login payment sub-accounts; and determining a first login payment sub-account that is in all the login payment sub-accounts and whose account balance is greater than or equal to the payment amount corresponding to the payment request as a third target payment account based on the third payment sequence; the sending third payment verification indication information to the terminal specifically comprises: sending third payment verification indication information for the third target payment account to the terminal; the determining whether the third payment verification information is consistent with payment verification information preset for the login payment account specifically comprises: determining whether the third payment verification information is consistent with payment verification information preset for the third target payment account; and the deducting a payment amount corresponding to the payment request from the login payment account specifically comprises: deducting the payment amount corresponding to the payment request from the third target payment account.
Sun (‘460) however discloses:
wherein the login payment account comprises at least one login payment sub-account; (¶0005, ¶0009, ¶0010)
before the sending third payment verification indication information to the terminal, the method further comprises: determining a third payment sequence preset for all login payment sub-accounts; and (¶0005, ¶0009, ¶0010)
determining a first login payment sub-account that is in all the login payment sub-accounts and whose account balance is greater than or equal to the payment amount corresponding to the payment request as a third target payment account based on the third payment sequence; (¶0009-¶0010)
the sending third payment verification indication information to the terminal specifically comprises: sending third payment verification indication information for the third target payment account to the terminal; (¶0009-¶0010)
the determining whether the third payment verification information is consistent with payment verification information preset for the login payment account specifically comprises: determining whether the third payment verification information is consistent with payment verification information preset for the third target payment account; and (¶0009-¶0010)
the deducting a payment amount corresponding to the payment request from the login payment account specifically comprises: deducting the payment amount corresponding to the payment request from the third target payment account (¶0018)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of SUN (‘527) to include “determining a first login payment sub-account that is in all the login payment sub-accounts and whose account balance is greater than or equal to the payment amount corresponding to the payment request as a third target payment account based on the third payment sequence”, as disclosed in Sun, in order to provide a payment identity verification method (see Sun abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Templeton et al. (US 2003/0130919 A1)
Hogan et al. (US 7,177,848 B2)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights