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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “and an operation system which”. Please amend “operation system” to read “operating system”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-6 recite a system (machine), and Claims 7-13 recite a method (process) and therefore fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?):
Referring to claims 1-13 the claims recite concepts for organizing the rental of a property and services for renting a property, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts covered under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas.
The abstract idea portion of the claims is as follows:
Claim 1
[A system] for providing versatile solutions to rental platform with artificial intelligence comprises: [a computing device operated by a user, wherein the user can access the system through the computing device via;]
[a network;]
[a cloud server;]
[a plurality of Database server coupled with the cloud server, wherein the cloud server and the plurality of database servers comprise one or more processors coupled with memory, storage devices, and an operation system which allows the system to function;]
[a load balancer distributes the information received from the user throughout the cloud server;]
[user Interface that preferably allows the user to establish a connection with the Database server;]
[an admin Interface that preferably allows admin to manage the system residing on the cloud server,]
[a third party application programming interface apps that allows the user to access functionality via an application process and use it on the system;]
[ and a plurality of functioning components designed with AI (Artificial Intelligence) and machine learning tools, for] long term renting including [a login/ registration platform, a property listing/search platform, a property showing platform, a meeting management platform, an agreement negotiation platform, [a notarization platform configured to] search for a lawyer [in a database] and facilitate payment of fees for the lawyer, [a lawyer meeting manager configured to] verify and notarize documents and notify a landlord and a tenant when the lawyer verifies and notarizes the documents
a leasing/sub leasing platform, a guarantor services, an insurance services, a supplementary services platform and a payment facilitation platform and a plurality of functioning components for] short term renting [including a seasonal pricing management platform, and cancellation and refund services].
(Claim 7)
A method for providing versatile solutions [through a system] as claimed in claim 1, to a rental platform with artificial intelligence for long term comprising:
(a) Registering and logging on [a login/registration platform into the system] by a landlord;
(b) Verifying a landlord profile [via a third party verification application programming interface];
(c) Creating a property listing [on a property listing platform] and defining the terms;
(d) Publishing the property [in a UI property listing];
(e) Searching of property by a tenant [on a property searching platform in the system];
(f) Getting results [from a property Database];
(g) Short listing the property [on a property showing platform in the system] by the tenant;
(h) Sending a meeting request to the landlord for a selected property [through a meeting management platform;]
(i) Checking meeting availability in a landlord meeting calendar [in a user Database] and, if dates are available the tenant gets a meeting slot and the meeting said slot timing is stored [in the user Database;]
(j) Scheduling a video meeting [on the meeting management platform into the system] and storing video meeting data [in database;]
(k) Sending reminders and notification to the landlord and tenant regarding the meeting;
(1) Finalizing a tenancy agreement [on an agreement negotiation platform] after the meeting;
(m) Notarizing the agreement [on notarization platform;]
(n) Searching for a lawyer [on the notarization platform into the database by the system] and paying the fees for the lawyer;
(o) Verifying and notarizing the documents [via a lawyer meeting manager;]
(p) Notifying the landlord and the tenant when the lawyer verifies and notarizes the documents;
(q) Allocating the property to the tenant and paying a security deposit and rent [via a payment gateway in the system] and storing allocation data [in a property Database];
(r) Providing insurance to the tenant; and
(s) Managing tenant and landlord account.
Where the portions not bracketed recite the abstract idea.
Here the claims recite concepts capable of being performed in certain methods of organizing human activity including commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application concepts reciting a manner for organizing services for renting a property (See paragraphs 1-11).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts capable of being performed in commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal interactions between people, it falls under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?):
The examiner views the following as the additional elements:
System. (See paragraph 47)
Computing device. (See paragraph 47)
Network. (See paragraph 44)
Cloud server. (See paragraph 47)
Plurality of database server. (See paragraphs 47 and 49)
One or more processors. (See paragraph 45)
Memory. (See paragraph 46)
Storage devices. (See paragraph 48)
Operation system. (See paragraph 48)
Load balancers. (See paragraph 47)
User Interface. (See paragraph 47)
Admin Interface. (See paragraphs 47 and 50)
Third party application programming interfaces. (See paragraph 47)
Plurality of functioning components. (See paragraphs 51 and 65)
AI and machine learning tools (See paragraphs 45 and 51)
Login/registration platform. (See paragraph 51)
Property listing/search platform. (See paragraph 51)
Property showing platform. (See paragraph 51)
Meeting management platform. (See paragraph 51)
Agreement negotiation platform. (See paragraph 51)
Notarization platform. (See paragraph 51)
Guarantor services. (See paragraph 51)
Insurance services. (See paragraph 51)
Supplementary services platform. (See paragraph 51)
Payment facilitation platform. (See paragraph 65)
Seasonal pricing management platform. (See paragraph 65)
Cancellation and refund services. (See paragraph 65)
Third party API. (See paragraph 47)
Property listing platform. (See paragraph 66)
UI property listing. (See paragraph 52)
Property searching platform. (See paragraph 51)
Property database. (See paragraph 52)
User Database. (See paragraph 52)
Database. (See paragraph 46)
Agreement negotiation platform. (See paragraph 51)
Lawyer meeting manager. (See paragraph 56)
Payment gateway. (See paragraph 59)
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they act to merely “apply” the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Referring to “a computing device operated by a user, wherein the user can access the system through the computing device” and “and an operation system which allows the system to function; load balancers distributes the information received from the user throughout the cloud server, an user Interface preferably allows the user to establish a connection with the Database server, an admin Interface preferably allows admin to manage the system residing on the cloud server a third party application programming interface apps that allows the user to access functionality via an application process and use it on the system; and a plurality of functioning components designed with AI (Artificial Intelligence) and machine learning tools,” the examiner views as results-oriented solution steps lacking details and therefore equivalent to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See Id.) and paragraphs 45, 47-48, 50-51, and 65 of the Specification).
The combination of these additional elements and/or results oriented steps are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f)) Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?):
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 further recites the generic plurality of database server (See paragraphs 47 and 49), a transaction database (See paragraph 49), a listing database (See paragraph 49), an user Database (See paragraph 49), a property Database (See paragraph 49), and an action database (See paragraph 49) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 2 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the results-oriented solution steps of “wherein the third party application programming interface apps (10) allows user to access their functionality via application process and use it on system (1)” (See paragraph 51) and is therefore viewed as equivalent for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 3 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim
recites the generic meeting management platform (See paragraph 51) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 4 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim
recites the generic supplementary services platform (See paragraph 51) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 5 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the results-oriented solution steps of “wherein the plurality of functional components are further configured to utilize trained machine learning models for property matching and recommendation” (See paragraph 51) and is therefore viewed as equivalent for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 6 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim
recites the generic meeting management component (See paragraph 51) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 8 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 9 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim
recites the generic guarantor service (See paragraph 51) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 9 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 10 and 12 further define the abstract idea as identified. Therefore claims 10 and 12 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 11 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic 3rd party application programming interface database (See paragraph 59) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 11 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 13 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic system (See paragraph 47) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 13 is considered to be patent ineligible
In conclusion the claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, regarding the claim objections on page 10 of the Remarks, the Examiner finds Applicant’s amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner has withdrawn the claim objections. The Examiner notes the new claim objections in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, regarding the 112 (b) rejection on page 10 of the Remarks, the Examiner finds Applicant’s amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner has withdrawn the 112 (b) rejection.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, regarding the 101 rejection on pages 10-16 of the Remarks, the Examiner finds unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific technical architecture including: Cloud servers with coupled database servers comprising processors, memory, storage devices, and operating systems; A load balancer that distributes information throughout the cloud servers; A plurality of functioning components designed with AI (Artificial Intelligence) and machine learning tools; Third-party API integration for verification and functionality access; Specific functional components including a notarization platform configured to search for a lawyer in a database and facilitate payment, and a lawyer meeting manager configured to verify and notarize documents and notify parties; Specialized database structures for transactions, listings, users, properties, and actions. According to Applicant these elements are specific technical implementations, where the specification explains that the processor "is designed with Al (Artificial Intelligence) and machine learning tools that includes front-end programming languages (i.e. React, Angular, HTML, CSS, JavaScript or Swift) or back-end programming languages (i.e. C#, Python, Node.js)." (Specification, Detailed Description). Applicant contends the claims are directed to AI/ML designed components operating within a defined cloud architecture, not to the abstract concept of renting property.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing that the abstract idea of organizing the renting of a property or services for the property is merely applied using generic computing components and is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner does not view the claims to provide for a specialized technical architecture but a plurality of generic computing components for performing steps of the identified abstract idea.
Applicant argues the claims set forth specific technical improvements over the prior art, for example, "the conventional method of connecting property owner/tenants/lawyer/guests for property transaction and the entire process of renting the property is very lengthy and time consuming for example at times, this whole process may extend over couple of days, weeks or months and where existing systems provides services and information in bits and pieces." Specification at p. 4, 11. 22-29. According to Applicant the claims address these problems through a specific technical Architecture, as explained in the Specification "[t]he present invention generally provides a system for leasing the property for long term and short term including a cloud server, Database server, load balancers, User Interface, admin Interface, third party API apps and plurality of functioning components including meeting management platform, calendar management where landlord can easily manage their meetings for property showing and manage the meeting dates." Specification at pp. 6-7, 11. 26-6. Applicant contends the claims reflect this improvement through the specific technical architecture with AI-designed functional components, load-balanced cloud servers, and specialized databases working together to provide an integrated technical solution.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the purported technical improvements are commercial improvements or improvements to the abstract idea by improving customer experience or assisting a user manage a property and do not constitute a technical improvement or other consideration enumerated under MPEP 2106.04(d). The Examiner views the additional elements that make up the asserted specific technical architecture as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components and when considered individually or in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues the claims recite more than generic computer components through the combination of elements of: Load balancers distributing information across cloud servers; Multiple specialized databases (transaction, listing, user, property, action); AI/ML-designed functional components; Third-party API integration; and Lawyer meeting manager with automated notification capabilities and represents a specific technical architecture that improves the efficiency and reliability of rental platform technology. According to Applicant this is analogous to the eligible claims in USPTO Example 40 (Adaptive Monitoring of Network Traffic Data), where the combination of elements integrated the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim improved the functioning of a computer or technical field, through specific ordered combination where AI-designed functional components work together with load- balanced cloud servers and specialized databases to provide an integrated technical solution-not merely automating a manual process.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the claimed benefits as previously stated do not constitute a technical improvement as provided for in Example 40 but rather are improvements to the abstract idea and do not constitute an improvement or any of the considerations enumerated under MPEP 2106.04 (d).
Applicant argues the AI/ML limitations are specific as they require that "the said functional components are designed with AI and machine learning tools." According to Applicant, this means the functional components themselves meeting management, agreement negotiation, notarization, guarantor services, insurance services, supplementary services, payment facilitation, seasonal pricing management, and cancellation/refund services-are AI-designed, not merely that Al is applied to an otherwise conventional system. Applicant contends this is supported by the Specification “an agreement negotiation platform (1020) where user can finalize the tenancy agreement, a notarization platform (1024) where user get e- signature and lawyer notarization, a leasing/sub leasing platform(1030) for landlord and tenant, a guarantor services (1031) for tenant, an insurance services (1026) for tenants, an supplementary services like cleaning, electricity, Tiffin services and the like and payment facilitation and the said elements are designed with Al (Artificial Intelligence) and machine learning tools." Specification at pp. 11-12, 11. 32-8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because there are no details regarding how the AI/ML tools are utilized in designing the functional components but rather is recited in a results solution oriented manner equivalent to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components rather than constituting a specific implementation as contested by Applicant. Further the functions of the various services or platforms are performing steps of the identified abstract idea rather than additional elements.
Applicant argues amended claim 6 now recites "the plurality of functional components are further configured to utilize trained machine learning models for property matching and recommendation." According to Applicant, this is not a generic recitation of Al, but rather a specific technical implementation where trained ML models are applied to the functional components of the system.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because there are no details regarding how the functional components utilize trained machine learning models for property matching and recommendation but rather is recited in a results solution oriented manner equivalent to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components rather than constituting a specific implementation as contested by Applicant.
Applicant argues the inventive concept of the amended claims resides in the integrated operation of AI-designed functional components within a load-balanced cloud server architecture, working together to provide a comprehensive rental platform solution that addresses the fragmented, piecemeal approaches of conventional systems. According to Applicant the functional components recited in amended claim 1 operate as interconnected modules within the claimed system architecture, the load balancer distributes processing tasks across the cloud servers while the specialized databases (transaction, listing, user, property, and action databases) support the various functional modules, where this module processing approach enables the AI-designed functional components to work in concert, providing an integrated technical solution rather than disconnected, piecemeal services.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing that the additional elements alone or in combination amount to no more than mere instructions for performing steps of the identified abstract idea using generic computing components and does not provide for an inventive concept. The Examiner views the improvements over the fragmented/piecemeal approaches of conventional systems are directed to improving the administration and/or management of rental properties and does not constitute an inventive concept.
Applicant argues the inventive concept lies in the specific technical implementation where:
AI-Designed Functional Modules: Amended claim 6 further specifies that "the plurality of functional components are further configured to utilize trained machine learning models for property matching and recommendation." This is not a generic recitation of Al, but rather a specific technical implementation where trained ML models are applied across the functional components of the system.
Lawyer Meeting Manager Module: The notarization platform is "configured to search for a lawyer in a database and facilitate payment of fees for the lawyer," and the "lawyer meeting manager configured to verify and notarize documents and notify a landlord and a tenant when the lawyer verifies and notarizes the documents." This module processing represents a technical advancement by automating the lawyer search, payment facilitation, document verification/notarization, and party notification within an integrated platform.
Integrated Architecture: The modules work together within the unified cloud
architecture, where the load balancer distributes information throughout the cloud servers, and the specialized databases support the AI-designed functional components. This integrated module processing enables efficient coordination between landlords, tenants, and lawyers.
This module processing approach represents a technical advancement over conventional fragmented rental systems by providing an integrated platform where AI-designed functional modules operate within a unified cloud architecture with load balancing and specialized databases.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because there are no details regarding how the AI/ML tools are utilized in designing the functional components for property matching and recommendation but rather is recited in a results solution oriented manner equivalent to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components rather than constituting a specific implementation as contested by Applicant. The Examiner views the notarization platform and meeting manager are generic computing components for performing the abstract idea. The Examiner does not view the proffered technical advancements as an improvement to technology or other consideration enumerated under MPEP 2106.04 (d), but rather provides for improving a user’s experience in performing rentals or organizing services for rentals such as by automating the lawyer search, payment facilitation, document verification/notarization, party notification, or enabling efficient communication between parties. The Examiner views the improvements over the fragmented approaches of conventional systems are directed to improving the administration and/or management of rental properties and does not constitute an inventive concept but rather an improvement to administration and/or management of rental properties.
Applicant concludes that the Office Action acknowledged that the prior art fails to teach the lawyer meeting manager, notification features, and third-party verification API further confirms that this module processing approach provides an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees citing MPEP 2106.05 that states:
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.”). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements
Therefore, the Examiner maintains the lack of cited prior art is not indicative that the additional elements add significantly more to the identified abstract idea to provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has maintained the 101 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, regarding the 103 rejection on pages 16 of the Remarks, the Examiner finds Applicant’s amendments are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to incorporate the subject matter identified by the Examiner in the Non-Final Rejection as not being disclose or taught or suggested by the prior art. Therefore, the Examiner has withdrawn the 103 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnston et al. (US 20130304655) – directed to the management of, tracking of, or display of lease data used for analysis.
Vaynshteyn (US 20170337647) -directed to peer to peer real estate transactions.
Manson (US 20140304099) -directed to facilitating property leasing.
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 MICHAEL J MONAGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5523. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833. 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.
/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights