DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 12/15/2025. Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 are pending in this Office Action. Claim 13 had been previously cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Remark
In the response filed 12/15/2025, claims 1, 16, and 19 have been amended, claim 4 has been cancelled, and no new claim has been added.
The Applicant's Interview Summary is acknowledged by the Examiner and it is OK.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 with respect to 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 for being directed to abstract idea have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues under Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis that the limitations of "dynamically receiving one or more first updates corresponding to data for a live field in the one or more custom fields at a first data rate; dynamically receiving one or more second updates corresponding to data for a static field at a second data rate, the first data rate being higher than the second data rate;” recited by at least amended claims 1 and 11 cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
The Examiner agrees that above-mentioned limitations of “dynamically receiving one or more first/second updates...” are not mental processes under Step 2A, Prong 1. However, these steps are considered to be additional limitations under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B analysis. These limitations are considered to be extra pre-solution and/or well-understood and conventional activities of receiving and gathering data. See below for details.
Moreover, applicant’s argument, under Step 2A, Prong 2, that
...amended claim 1 recites specific improvements to the technical field of aggregating data from multiple data sources by managing different data streams and observation schemas, for example, such that claim 1 provides a technical solution to improve the computer technology of data ingestion….
…. the cited limitations include generating and/or using dynamic data schemas (e.g., second observation schema, third observation schema, etc.). The present disclosure provides that the cited limitations can, for example, provide "benefits include significant improvements to data quality when capturing observation data using the dynamic data schemas. In certain embodiments, benefits include reducing network consumptions and/or reducing storage space with dynamic data schemas including both live data fields and static data fields, where live data fields are updated (e.g., receiving and/or populating data in the data fields) at a data rate higher than the update of the static data fields. In some embodiments, benefits include reducing network consumptions and/or reducing storage space by a computing system updating some of the data fields (e.g., live fields) at a first data rate (e.g., 5 inputs per second) and some of the data fields (e.g., static fields) at a second data rate (e.g., one input per day), where the first data rate is higher than the second data rate. In certain embodiments, benefits include improving computing efficiency and reducing the use of computing resources (e.g., processing time) in the data ingestion process by allowing configuring data fields in runtime." (para. [0022]-[0023], emphasis added).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The first part of claim 1 recites multiple of steps of “receiving” data (e.g., a first and second data stream, a configuration, and first and second updates) and “accessing” data (e.g., a first observation schema) at a high-level of generality. Given the claim its broadest and reasonable interpretation and a high-level of generality, these steps are no more than receiving and gathering data from multiple sources. As such, these steps are considered to be extra pre-solution and/or well-understood, conventional, and routine computer activities of data gathering. The courts have recognized some of the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and (g).
The second part of claim 1, recites the steps of “generating” multiple schemas and data track based on received data at a high-level of generality. Given the claim its broadest and reasonable interpretation, these steps of generating schemas and data track based on received and gather could be performed mentally. A person can mentally and mentally using a pen and a paper could generate data specification or schema based on multiple data types. As such, claim 1 recite the judicial exception of abstract idea.
The applicant asserts that the claimed invention integrated into a practical
application because it improves computer's functioning by improving a technology by “reducing network consumptions and/or reducing storage space with dynamic data schemas including both live data fields and static data fields, where live data fields are updated” and “reducing network consumptions and/or reducing storage space by a computing system updating some of the data fields (e.g., live fields) at a first data rate (e.g., 5 inputs per second) and some of the data fields (e.g., static fields) at a second data rate (e.g., one input per day), where the first data rate is higher than the second data rate. In certain embodiments, benefits include improving computing efficiency and reducing the use of computing resources (e.g., processing time) in the data ingestion process by allowing configuring data fields in runtime.”
But, given the claim’s high level of generality nevertheless recites an abstract idea which, as the MPEP emphasizes, cannot alone provide the improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a) ("[T]he judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.") see also 2106.05(a)(II) ("[A]n improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology."). As explained previously, apart from the recited additional element, the recited steps can be implemented entirely mentally or with pen and paper and, therefore, recite an abstract idea.
In a claim that recites an abstract idea, the improvement to a computer or technology can be provided by one or more additional limitations. As explained above, the additional limitations recited in the first part of claim 1 are merely functions for statically or dynamically receiving and obtaining data from different sources. As it can be seen, the additional steps of receiving data dynamically and access data are merely obtaining information and are incapable of “reducing network consumptions and/or reducing storage space with dynamic data schemas including both live data fields and static data fields, where live data fields are updated” and “reducing network consumptions and/or reducing storage space by a computing system updating some of the data fields (e.g., live fields) at a first data rate (e.g., 5 inputs per second) and some of the data fields (e.g., static fields) at a second data rate (e.g., one input per day), where the first data rate is higher than the second data rate. In certain embodiments, benefits include improving computing efficiency and reducing the use of computing resources (e.g., processing time) in the data ingestion process by allowing configuring data fields in runtime.”
Furthermore, the other additional limitations (a processor and/or memory) are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Additionally, with respect to applicant’s allegation that the current invention is “reducing network consumptions and/or reducing storage space by a computing system updating some of the data fields (e.g., live fields) at a first data rate (e.g., 5 inputs per second) and some of the data fields (e.g., static fields) at a second data rate (e.g., one input per day), where the first data rate is higher than the second data rate. In certain embodiments, benefits include improving computing efficiency and reducing the use of computing resources (e.g., processing time) in the data ingestion process by allowing configuring data fields in runtime,” the Examiner holds that such an improvement due to updating the data fields dynamically at different rates is not reflected in claim 1.
Claim 1 merely recites “dynamically receiving” the first and second updates at different rates; however, these received updates to data fields are not used in generating of schemas and/or data track. The received “updates to data fields” do not have any use in the claim, and thus cannot cause the improvement of “reducing network consumptions and/or reducing storage space by a computing system updating some of the data fields (e.g., live fields) at a first data rate (e.g., 5 inputs per second) and some of the data fields (e.g., static fields) at a second data rate (e.g., one input per day), where the first data rate is higher than the second data rate.” As such, said improvement is not reflected in the claim 1. “During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement.” MPEP 2016.05(a).
In order to reflect the improvement of “reducing network consumptions and/or reducing storage space by a computing system updating some of the data fields (e.g., live fields) at a first data rate (e.g., 5 inputs per second) and some of the data fields (e.g., static fields) at a second data rate (e.g., one input per day), where the first data rate is higher than the second data rate,” claim 1 should recite at least a feature that uses the dynamically received first and second updates to data fields at different rates. In another word, the claims should go beyond dynamically receiving first and second updates to data fields at different rates.
The Examiner further disagrees with the applicant allegation that the limitations of claim provide "benefits include significant improvements to data quality when capturing observation data using the dynamic data schemas.” The Examiner contends that improving data quality is not the same as improvement in a manner a computer functions. Here, using a generic computer as a tool could be the reason for improving analysis and quality of data. As such, improving quality of data due to use of a generic computer as tool is not considered to be an improvement in computer functionality or technology.
Therefore, based on BRI, the claimed invention recited in claim 1 is not considered to improve functioning of a computer or technology, and the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, under Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis.
The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 for being directed to judicial exception are maintained.
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, 5-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas.
Step 1:
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 are directed to a method/system which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 19,
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the steps of:
generating a second observation schema based on the configuration and the first observation schema; [involves concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgment that could practically be performed in the human mind with aid of a pen and paper. A person can manually and mentally could generate data specification/schema based on other type of data]
generating a third observation schema based on the second data stream, the third observation schema being different from the second observation schema, the third observation schema including one or more built-in fields that are included in the second observation schema; [involves concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgment that could practically be performed in the human mind with aid of a pen and paper. A person can manually and mentally could generate data specification/schema based on other type of data]
generating a plurality of first observations based on the first data stream using the second observation schema; [involves concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgment that could practically be performed in the human mind with aid of a pen and paper. A person can manually and mentally could generate event data based on other type of data]
generating a plurality of second observations based on the second data stream using the third observation schema; [involves concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgment that could practically be performed in the human mind with aid of a pen and paper. A person can manually and mentally could generate event data based on other type of data] and
generating a data track by aggregating the plurality of first observations and the plurality of second observations based at least in part on the one or more built-in fields; [involves concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgment that could practically be performed in the human mind with aid of a pen and paper. A person can manually and mentally could generate data based on other collecting event data]
The above-mentioned steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processor” and/or “one or more memory”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 19 recite the additional steps of “receiving a data stream from one or more data sources, the data stream including a first data stream and a second data stream, wherein the receiving a data stream includes at least: receiving, from a first data source of the one or more data sources via a computer network, the first data stream; receiving, from a second data source of the one or more data sources via the computer network, the second data stream; accessing a first observation schema including one or more built-in fields and one or more custom fields associated with the received data stream; receiving a configuration associated with at least one of the one or more custom fields;” and “dynamically receiving one or more first updates corresponding to data for a live field in the one or more custom fields at a first data rate; dynamically receiving one or more second updates corresponding to data for a static field at a second data rate, the first data rate being higher than the second data rate;” that involve multiple acts of receiving data from sources and accessing data which could be considered as an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of data gathering and data input. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, the limitation of “wherein at least a part of the method is performed using one or more processors” is recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1 and 19 recite the additional steps of “receiving a data stream from one or more data sources, the data stream including a first data stream and a second data stream, wherein the receiving a data stream includes at least: receiving, from a first data source of the one or more data sources via a computer network, the first data stream; receiving, from a second data source of the one or more data sources via the computer network, the second data stream; accessing a first observation schema including one or more built-in fields and one or more custom fields associated with the received data stream; receiving a configuration associated with at least one of the one or more custom fields;” and “dynamically receiving one or more first updates corresponding to data for a live field in the one or more custom fields at a first data rate; dynamically receiving one or more second updates corresponding to data for a static field at a second data rate, the first data rate being higher than the second data rate;” that involve multiple acts of receiving data from sources and accessing data which could be considered as a well-understood, conventional, and routine activity of data gathering and data input. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, the limitation of “wherein at least a part of the method is performed using one or more processors” is recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16,
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps of:
identifying an observation schema from the one or more observation
schemas based on the search, the first observation schema comprising one or more custom fields associated with the first data stream; [involves concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgment that could practically be performed in the human mind]
generating a second observation schema based on the configuration and the first observation schema; [involves concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgment that could practically be performed in the human mind with aid of a pen and paper. A person can manually and mentally could generate data specification/schema based on other type of data]
generating a third observation schema based on the second data stream, the third observation schema being different from the second observation schema, the third observation schema including one or more built-in fields that are included in the second observation schema; [involves concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgment that could practically be performed in the human mind with aid of a pen and paper. A person can manually and mentally could generate data specification/schema based on other type of data]
generating a plurality of first observations based on the first data stream using the second observation schema; [involves concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgment that could practically be performed in the human mind with aid of a pen and paper. A person can manually and mentally could generate event data based on other type of data]
generating a plurality of second observations based on the second data stream using the third observation schema; [involves concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgment that could practically be performed in the human mind with aid of a pen and paper. A person can manually and mentally could generate event data based on other type of data] and
generating a data track by aggregating the plurality of first observations and the plurality of second observations based at least in part on the one or more built-in fields; [involves concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgment that could practically be performed in the human mind with aid of a pen and paper. A person can
manually and mentally could generate data based on other collecting event data]
The above-mentioned steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processor” and/or “one or more memory”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 16 recites the additional steps of “receiving a data stream from one or more data sources, the data stream including a first data stream and a second data stream, wherein the receiving a data stream includes at least: receiving, from a first data source of the one or more data sources via a computer network, the first data stream; receiving, from a second data source of the one or more data sources via the computer network, the second data stream;” and “dynamically receiving one or more first updates corresponding to data for a live field in the one or more custom fields at a first data rate; dynamically receiving one or more second updates corresponding to data for a static field at a second data rate, the first data rate being higher than the second data rate;” that involve multiple acts of receiving data from sources which could be considered as an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of data gathering and data input. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and
2106.05(g).
Moreover, the additional step of “searching within the one or more observation schemas in a data repository based on at least one data characteristic in the data stream;” could be considered as insignificant extra solution activity searching and gathering data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, the limitation of “wherein at least a part of the method is performed using one or more processors” is recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
Claim 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 16 recites the additional steps of “receiving a data stream from one or more data sources, the data stream including a first data stream and a second data stream, wherein the receiving a data stream includes at least: receiving, from a first data source of the one or more data sources via a computer network, the first data stream; receiving, from a second data source of the one or more data sources via the computer network, the second data stream;” and “dynamically receiving one or more first updates corresponding to data for a live field in the one or more custom fields at a first data rate; dynamically receiving one or more second updates corresponding to data for a static field at a second data rate, the first data rate being higher than the second data rate;” that involve multiple acts of receiving data from sources which could be considered as an well-understood, conventional, and routine activity of data gathering and data input. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Moreover, the additional step of “searching within the one or more observation schemas in a data repository based on at least one data characteristic in the data stream;” could be considered as well-understood, conventional, and routine activity of searching and gathering data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, the limitation of “wherein at least a part of the method is performed using one or more processors” is recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-3, 5, 8-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20,
the dependent claims also lack additional elements that sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than abstract idea found in the independent claims. The dependent claims additional steps for generating, accessing (reading) data, transforming data, processing data, generating observations, aggregating observations that could be performed mentally failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims also include data defining and describing the schema and data streams which are merely data definition.
Moreover, the dependent claims further recite the additional steps for generic computer functions of receiving data (e.g., schema or configuration data) from repositories or storage which are considered to be insignificant extra solution and/or well-understood routine computer routines of receiving and storing data failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to
more than abstract idea.
Regarding claims 6 and 7,
The claims recite the additional step of “…applying a machine learning algorithm
to receive data” which is recited at a high level of generality and merely invokes a machine learning algorithm to receive data without providing any technological details as to how such biases is identified. The step of applying the machine learning algorithm to receive data is extra-solution activity to the central idea of claims. Such insignificant extra-solution activity does not lend patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the claims by integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, the feature of using a machine learning function to process data is a conventional and well-understood function in the art (See for example Koudas et al., US 2009/0319518, paragraph 130) which is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at high level of generality to the general exception (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Thus, the claimed additional elements individually and in combination do not amount significantly more than abstract idea.
These additional elements do not: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for a generic computer); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; and (4) are not applied in any 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). In other words, the aforementioned additional element (or combination of elements) recited in the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pang, US 11,321,284 disclosing a method for adapting time series database schema, a plurality of queries to a time series database received over a time period is accessed, wherein time series data is ingested into the time series database according to a time series database schema, wherein time series data comprises a plurality of dimensions. The plurality of queries of the time period is analyzed to determine a relative frequency of the plurality of dimensions within the plurality of queries over the time period. It is determined whether to adapt the time series database schema based at least in part on the relative frequency of the plurality of dimensions within the plurality of queries over the time period.
Polen et al., US 2023/0109718 disclosing generating products using data objects and/or entities that comply with a canonical/governed model(s). The data objects and/or entities may be obtained from an enterprise model or a combination of an enterprise model and one or more local models within a central repository to generate the new product data structures. Once all the data objects and/or entities have been added to the new product, one or more simplification rules may be applied to the new product to flatten (optimize for consumption) the data structure of the product such that superfluous or extraneous code snippets may be removed, or reduced, in such a way that the product complies with the canonical model. The new product may then be exported to an executable data format, which can either be incorporated in another application or used as a standalone product.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARES JAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a-5:00p.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. 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.
/Hares Jami/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2162
02/12/2026