DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to RCE filed 2/12/2026.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/12/2026 has been entered.
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 1-20
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-15 are directed to a system; claims 16-20 are directed to a method – each of which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
The limitations of the independent claims 1, 10 and 16 recite the limitations –
generate a plurality of [distributed ledger technology (DLT) networks];
activate and connect a [first network computing system] to a [first DLT network of the plurality of the DLT networks];
activate and connect a [second network computing system] to a [second DLT network of the plurality of the DLT networks];
execute a disbursement of funds or [digital asset] corresponding with the [first network computing system];
append a protection parameter to the funds or [digital asset] on at least one of the first DLT network and the second DLT network] based on a scheme, the scheme corresponding to restrictions on one or more usages of the funds or digital asset;
encode one or more [context packets] to comprise a set of usage conditions for the funds or digital asset based on the restrictions, the set of usage conditions comprising at least one of a categorical restriction, a geographic limitation, or a temporal constraint;
integrate the one or more [context packets] into a [self-executing code structure], wherein the [self-executing code structure] automatically enforces the set of usage conditions in response to detection of an exchange request for the funds or [digital asset];
receive a first exchange request from the [second network computing system], the first exchange request identifying at least a portion of the funds or [digital asset] on the [first DLT network] for exchange to the [second DLT network];
in response to receiving the first exchange request from the [second network computing system], initiate a network lock that prevents the at least the portion of the funds or digital asset from being used in other exchanges on the [first DLT network];
execute a consensus model on the [first DLT network] and the [second DLT network];
in response to execution of the consensus model indicating the first exchange request is authorized, execute a proof of usage model on the [first DLT network] and the [second DLT network] at least two of the plurality of DLT networks, wherein the proof of usage model prevent creation of a block for the first exchange on the [first DLT network] based on the proof of usage model indicating blocks performance of the first exchange request is unauthorized, wherein the proof of usage model indicates the first exchange request is unauthorized based on analyzing, using the self-executing code structure, the protection parameter against the set of usage conditions encoded by the one or more context packets;
modify the set of usage conditions to comprise at least one updated categorical restriction, geographic limitation, or temporal constraint extracted from an updated scheme that adjusts the restrictions on the one or more usages of the funds or digital asset; and
in response to receiving a second exchange request, authorize a second exchange for at least the portion of the funds or digital asset based on execution of the consensus model and the proof of usage model implementing the modified set of usage conditions
– that constitute Fundamental Economic Practices/Principles and/or Commercial/Legal Interactions and/or Managing Interactions between People.
Hence, the independent claims fall under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to – the protection parameter corresponds to restrict or authorize a future exchange (claims 2, 11, 17); enforcing usage conditions of the protection parameter comprising category restriction, geographical restriction, or temporal restriction on the funds or digital asset, and adhering to authorized expenditures (claims 3, 12, 18); authorized expenditures correspond with a merchant specific data structure comprising an authorized list of goods or services or their identifiers/values (claims 4, 13, 19); updating usage conditions of the protection parameter in response to change in rule or policy, updating a data structure of the exchange to include a proof of usage indicator corresponding with a compliance status of the exchange based on the enforced protection parameter (claim 6); integrating context packets with one or more authorized expenditures into one or more smart contracts corresponding with enforcing the one or more authorized expenditures on the funds or digital asset on the second network; and analyzing and authorizing the exchange based on satisfying the one or more usage conditions of the protection parameter and the one or more authorized expenditures encoded within context packets. (claim 7); upon receiving an indication of an emergency update the one or more usage conditions based on an updated scheme, and wherein executing the disbursement of the funds or digital asset is in response to receiving a disbursement request based on the scheme (claim 9) – that also fall under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Additional elements recited by the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: a system comprising at least one memory and processing circuit; a plurality of distributed ledger technology (DLT) networks; first DLT network; second DLT network; connecting a first and second network computer system to at least one of the DLT networks; initializing operating parameters of the first and second network computing system; establishing communication channels with participating nodes with the first and second DLT network; encoding context packets; integrating context packets into a self-executing code structure; initiating participating node configured to execute one or more smart contracts; and network lock. Examiner finds that any additional element(s), beyond the judicial exception, has been recited at a high level of generality such that the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) or limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The combination of additional elements does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than use the computer as a tool and/or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas – execute a disbursement of funds or [digital asset] corresponding with the [first network computing system]; append a protection parameter to the funds or [digital asset] on at least one of the first DLT network and the second DLT network] based on a scheme, the scheme corresponding to restrictions on one or more usages of the funds or digital asset; encode one or more [context packets] to comprise a set of usage conditions for the funds or digital asset based on the restrictions, the set of usage conditions comprising at least one of a categorical restriction, a geographic limitation, or a temporal constraint; integrate the one or more [context packets] into a [self-executing code structure], wherein the [self-executing code structure] automatically enforces the set of usage conditions in response to detection of an exchange request for the funds or [digital asset]; receive a first exchange request from the [second network computing system], the first exchange request identifying at least a portion of the funds or [digital asset] on the [first DLT network] for exchange to the [second DLT network];
in response to receiving the first exchange request from the [second network computing system], initiate a network lock that prevents the at least the portion of the funds or digital asset from being used in other exchanges on the [first DLT network]; execute a consensus model on the [first DLT network] and the [second DLT network]; in response to execution of the consensus model indicating the first exchange request is authorized, execute a proof of usage model on the [first DLT network] and the [second DLT network] at least two of the plurality of DLT networks, wherein the proof of usage model prevent creation of a block for the first exchange on the [first DLT network] based on the proof of usage model indicating blocks performance of the first exchange request is unauthorized, wherein the proof of usage model indicates the first exchange request is unauthorized based on analyzing, using the self-executing code structure, the protection parameter against the set of usage conditions encoded by the one or more context packets; modify the set of usage conditions to comprise at least one updated categorical restriction, geographic limitation, or temporal constraint extracted from an updated scheme that adjusts the restrictions on the one or more usages of the funds or digital asset; and in response to receiving a second exchange request, authorize a second exchange for at least the portion of the funds or digital asset based on execution of the consensus model and the proof of usage model implementing the modified set of usage conditions – that merely uses computers as tools. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. Indeed, nothing in claim 1 improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Hence, under Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – execute a disbursement of funds or [digital asset] corresponding with the [first network computing system]; append a protection parameter to the funds or [digital asset] on at least one of the first DLT network and the second DLT network] based on a scheme, the scheme corresponding to restrictions on one or more usages of the funds or digital asset; encode one or more [context packets] to comprise a set of usage conditions for the funds or digital asset based on the restrictions, the set of usage conditions comprising at least one of a categorical restriction, a geographic limitation, or a temporal constraint; integrate the one or more [context packets] into a [self-executing code structure], wherein the [self-executing code structure] automatically enforces the set of usage conditions in response to detection of an exchange request for the funds or [digital asset]; receive a first exchange request from the [second network computing system], the first exchange request identifying at least a portion of the funds or [digital asset] on the [first DLT network] for exchange to the [second DLT network]; in response to receiving the first exchange request from the [second network computing system], initiate a network lock that prevents the at least the portion of the funds or digital asset from being used in other exchanges on the [first DLT network]; execute a consensus model on the [first DLT network] and the [second DLT network]; in response to execution of the consensus model indicating the first exchange request is authorized, execute a proof of usage model on the [first DLT network] and the [second DLT network] at least two of the plurality of DLT networks, wherein the proof of usage model prevent creation of a block for the first exchange on the [first DLT network] based on the proof of usage model indicating blocks performance of the first exchange request is unauthorized, wherein the proof of usage model indicates the first exchange request is unauthorized based on analyzing, using the self-executing code structure, the protection parameter against the set of usage conditions encoded by the one or more context packets; modify the set of usage conditions to comprise at least one updated categorical restriction, geographic limitation, or temporal constraint extracted from an updated scheme that adjusts the restrictions on the one or more usages of the funds or digital asset; and in response to receiving a second exchange request, authorize a second exchange for at least the portion of the funds or digital asset based on execution of the consensus model and the proof of usage model implementing the modified set of usage conditions – into significantly more.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019].
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Prior Art
Relevant prior art not relied upon but made of record:
US20230325829 Enterprise data set exchanges
US20240428212 Systems and Methods for Commerce and Value Exchange Using Smart Ledgers Across Multiple Payment Rails and Multiple Channels
US20220398666 Distributed ledger-based decentralized autonomous organizations and collaborations
US20230017855 Distributed smart wallet communications platform
US20240104521 System and method for compliance-enabled digitally represented assets
US20210326844 Blockchains for facilitating decentralized fund transfer
NPL: Improving the Process of Lending, Monitoring and Evaluating through Blockchain Technologies, 2018 IEEE Confs on Internet of Things, Green Computing and Communications, Cyber, Physical and Social Computing, Smart Data, Blockchain, Computer and Information Technology, Congress on Cybermatics.
NPL: Proof of Usage: User-centric consensus for data provision and exchange by Massport et al., 2020.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant cannot reasonably deny that exchange of funds or digital asset is not a Fundamental Economic Practice or a Commercial/Legal Interaction because the exchange of assets relates to the economy and commerce. See MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III. B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (“An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship.”). See also USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Business Methods, December 2016, Page 9. (“fraud prevention by identity verification before proceeding with a banking transaction, which as explained above is a fundamental business practice.”). Examiner also points out that enforcing restrictions on usages of funds or digital asset also falls under managing interactions between people. See MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III. C. (“An example of a claim reciting managing personal behavior is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. 792 F.3d. at 1367, 115 USPQ2d at 1639-40. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)”, which “is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods of organizing human activity.” 792 F.3d. at 1367-68, 115 USPQ2d at 1640.”). Therefore, contrary to the applicant’s assertions, the claims limitations – exerting protection controls; and detecting and preventing unauthorized use of assets; use locking mechanism to secure and prevent use of such assets until subsequent validation is performed; and restricting or preventing the creation of a network block based on the indication that the first exchange request is unauthorized – constitute Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Applicant argues, citing para [0031] – [0033] of the specification, that the claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive.
As per para [0031], the ostensible problem that is being tackled by the current invention is misuse of funds in DBT schemes such as in the case of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) for unintended activities like gambling or trading. Examiner notes this is not a technical problem but instead a problem with user behavior or abuse of funds. As per para [0031] – [0033], applicant’s invention aims to ensure that the funds are used as strictly as intended by employing the proof of usage (PoU) model. As per para [0032], by integrating the proof of usage checks within a consensus process, the model ensured that all exchanges on the network adhere to the prescribed usage criteria. As per para [0037], the proof of usage model works in conjunction with traditional consensus mechanisms such as proof or work or proof of stake providing an additional layer of transaction validation thus improving the robustness and trustworthiness of the network. As per para [0063], proof of usage architecture provides improved transparency and traceability in transactions. As per para [0110], to secure the transction to secure the transaction, a locking mechanism is initiated on the first DLT network, temporarily securing or debiting the specified amount of MBC that prevents its use in other exchanges on the first DLT network. Applicant cannot and does not contend to have invented the proof of usage, proof or work or proof of stake algorithms used in blockchains. Nor does the invention claim to have invented locking mechanism. Examiner thus notes that the claimed invention is merely an application of the commonly used blockchain consensus mechanisms to DBT transfers restrictions on a blockchain which is tantamount to limiting the abstract idea of DBT transfers and usage restrictions to a particular technological environment. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer”). Similarly, here the abstract idea of applying restrictions on fund exchange does not become non-abstract by liming it to the technological environment of digital asset, distributed ledger and proof of usage model.
The additional elements such as processing circuit, DLT architecture, context packets, smart contracts, etc., merely implement the abstract ideas – execute a disbursement of funds or digital asset; append a protection parameter to the funds or digital asset based on a scheme corresponding to restrictions on usages of the funds or the digital asset; apply and enforce a set of usage conditions comprising categorical restriction, geographic limitation, or temporal restraint; receive a request identifying a portion of funds or digital asset to exchange from first DLT network to second DLT network; in response to receiving a first exchange request from the second network, initiate a network lock that prevents the funds or digital asset from being exchanged on the first DLT network; execute a consensus model on the first and second DLT networks; in response to execution of the consensus model indicating the first exchange request is authorized, execute a proof of suage model on the first DLT network and the second DLT network, wherein the proof of suage model prevents creation of a block for the first exchange on the first DLT network based on the proof of usage model indicating the first exchange request is unauthorized, wherein the proof of usage model indicates the first exchange request is unauthorized, based on analyzing the protection parameter against the set of usage conditions; modify the set of usage conditions to comprise at least one updated categorical restriction, geographic limitation, or temporal restraint extracted from an updated scheme that adjusts the restrictions on the one or more usages of the funds or digital asset; and in response to receiving a second exchange request, authorize the second exchange for at least a portion of the funds or digital asset based on execution of the consensus model and proof of usage model implementing the modified set of usage conditions – which together constitute Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as opposed to bringing about technical improvement of computer or technology.
Applicant also analogizes the pending claims to Example 47 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive because the Examiner is unable to discern any similarity between the hypothetical claims of Example 47 with the pending claims. The hypothetical invention of Example 47 is directed to detecting network packets using artificial neural network. Applicant’s invention, on the other hand, is directed to enforcing usage restrictions on fund disbursement schemes. The claims of Example 47 are directed to training an ANN to detect anomalies and then using trained ANN models to detect and block malicious network packets. The claims or their methodology bear little or no similarity to enforcing usage restrictions on disbursement of funds or digital assets. Identifying malicious packets is in no way analogous to fund transfer. Whereas packet detection occurs at the IP level, applicant’s invention occurs at the application level. Moreover, Example 47 achieves malicious packet detection using ANN, whereas in the present claims blocking an exchange is performed by proof of usage model on a DLT. Whereas, hypothetical claim 3 of hypothetical Example 47 is considered eligible for reflecting the improvement described in the background, no such improvement is achieved by the pending claims.
Examiner notes that the limitation “initiate a network lock that prevents the portion of the funds or digital asset from being used in other exchanges on the first network” merely implements the abstract idea of preventing a commercial/legal interaction from being carried out which, is merely limiting the abstract idea on a particular technological environment (DLT network). Examiner also notes that limitations “initiate a network lock” and “wherein the proof of usage model prevents the creation of a block on the first DLPT network” have been recited in the specification at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (1) (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”), (3) (“describes “the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished” and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result”). All purported inventive concepts reside in how the initiation of network lock or the prevention of the creation of a block are technically accomplished and not in how the processing technologically merely achieves the result which neither the specification or the drawings shed any light on. See also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’n, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim [before the court] requires the functional results of ‘converting,’ ‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’ ‘monitoring,’ and ‘accumulating records,’ but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”); see Intellectual. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.”); see Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea.”); see Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 952-53, 954-56 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (“Instead of focusing on the technical implementation details of the zooming functionality, for example, claim 1 recites nothing more than the result of the zoom.”).
Implementing restrictions on usages of funds or digital asset based on a consensus model on a DLT network may prevent fraudulent and achieve compliance but it does not achieve an improved technological result. The improvement recited in the claim does not improve the DLT networks. Instead, the alleged improvement recited in the claims is an abstract idea, i.e., prevention of misuse of funds such as gambling or trading. Indeed, nothing in the claims improves the functioning of a computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2019).
The combination of additional elements in claims 1-20 does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field; (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation. See MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e)-(h). Hence, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (“Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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 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 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.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights