DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
The examiner acknowledges the present application claims priority to Provisional Application 63/677,624 filed on 7/31/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The four information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 9/5/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van Antwerp et al., Patent Application Publication Number US 20250165271 A1 (hereinafter “VanAntwerp”).
Claim 1: VanAntwerp teaches “A method comprising:
obtaining a first content interaction indicator that indicates a first user interaction with content of a first application (i.e. user may interact with the component (e.g., enter information in a web form, or respond via an SMS message) to provide information elements responsive to the needed parameters [VanAntwerp 0007]… a step for acquiring the user's home address may associated with (i) a first component in the form of a web page/form deliverable to the client device, via which the user may provide the user's home address via text input [VanAntwerp 0026]… Completed Interaction Record A may correspond to a workflow completed by the user identified by a unique username “jDoe61.” A workflow state (e.g., “Credit01.7,” i.e. a Step 7 which may be a final step of a credit card workflow Credit01) [VanAntwerp 0064] note: user provides an address as an interaction indicator with an address field on a first computer application displaying a credit card request form. Note2: instant specification 0154 provides examples of content as “text-based content interactions”), and obtaining a second content interaction indicator that indicates a second user interaction with content of a second application different from the first application (i.e. A source of a received parameter in the record may, for example, be a particular step of the credit card application workflow, or an external service specially configured to retrieve the particular information (e.g., a credit score service) [VanAntwerp 0066]… an “Active” Interaction Record B may correspond to an in-progress workflow via which the user jDoe61 may apply for auto insurance [VanAntwerp 0075] note: user provides an address an interaction indicator with an address field on a second computer application displaying an auto insurance request form);
obtaining a set of content interaction rules associated with the first and second applications (i.e. a user may have previously completed a credit card application workflow indicating a home address of “123 Main Street.” In a second workflow, however, the user may provide a different address, possibly indicating a change of address by the user. Thus, two conflicting interaction records regarding the user may exist at the system of interaction. Generally, the system of interaction records may resolve conflicts by examining the timestamp associated with each conflicting parameter, determining the most recent timestamp, and updating all interactions associated with the user to reflect the value associated with the most recent timestamp (e.g., the most recent address) [VanAntwerp 0097]… a rule may exist that restricts a user's social security number (SSN) from being shared… or alternatively, may allow SSN sharing only upon affirmative consent by the user [0060] note: a set of a plurality of rules associated with the two different computer applications); and
in response to determining, based on the first and second content interaction indicators, that each of the first and second user interactions satisfies the set of content interaction rules, generating display instructions for displaying the first and second user interactions (i.e. a user may have previously completed a credit card application workflow indicating a home address of “123 Main Street.” In a second workflow, however, the user may provide a different address, possibly indicating a change of address by the user. Thus, two conflicting interaction records regarding the user may exist at the system of interaction. Generally, the system of interaction records may resolve conflicts by examining the timestamp associated with each conflicting parameter, determining the most recent timestamp, and updating all interactions associated with the user to reflect the value associated with the most recent timestamp (e.g., the most recent address) [VanAntwerp 0097] note: determination of which address to display for both the first and second applications is made. User may go back to view either application, and the new address is displayed for both applications).”
Claim 2: VanAntwerp teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing, to the first and second applications, the display instructions for displaying the first and second user interactions (i.e. a user may have previously completed a credit card application workflow indicating a home address of “123 Main Street.” In a second workflow, however, the user may provide a different address, possibly indicating a change of address by the user. Thus, two conflicting interaction records regarding the user may exist at the system of interaction. Generally, the system of interaction records may resolve conflicts by examining the timestamp associated with each conflicting parameter, determining the most recent timestamp, and updating all interactions associated with the user to reflect the value associated with the most recent timestamp (e.g., the most recent address) [VanAntwerp 0097] note: determination of which address to display for both the first and second applications is made. User may go back to view either application, and the new address is be displayed for both applications).”
Claim 3: VanAntwerp teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining a third content interaction indicator that indicates a third user interaction with content of a third application different from the first and second applications (i.e. applications for applying for a credit card, auto insurance, or for other products and/or services [VanAntwerp 0049]); and
in response to determining that the third user interaction satisfies the set of content interaction rules, providing, to the third application, display instructions for displaying of the third user interaction (i.e. a user may have previously completed a credit card application workflow indicating a home address of “123 Main Street.” In a second workflow, however, the user may provide a different address, possibly indicating a change of address by the user. Thus, two conflicting interaction records regarding the user may exist at the system of interaction. Generally, the system of interaction records may resolve conflicts by examining the timestamp associated with each conflicting parameter, determining the most recent timestamp, and updating all interactions associated with the user to reflect the value associated with the most recent timestamp (e.g., the most recent address) [VanAntwerp 0097] note: user updates address on a third application. A determination of which address to display for a third application is made. User may go back to view any application, and the new address is be displayed for all applications).”
Claim 4: VanAntwerp teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining a third content interaction indicator that indicates a third user interaction with content of a third application different from the first and second applications (i.e. applications for applying for a credit card, auto insurance, or for other products and/or services [VanAntwerp 0049]);
obtaining a further set of content interaction rules specific to the third application (i.e. A “class 4” parameter may indicate information that is unknown within the record, unknown across the entire system of interaction, and/or not allowed to be shared across interactions by the system of interaction. As an example, particularly sensitive user information such as a user's social security number may not be allowed to be shared between the Interaction Records A and B, and thus, each workflow requiring a user's social security number may be required to acquire the social security number independently [VanAntwerp 0067] note: forms are configurable, and VanAntwerp is capable of only having third form with a class 4 parameter, which would be a rule specific to the third application); and
in response to determining that the third user interaction satisfies the further set of content interaction rules, providing, to the third application, display instructions for displaying of the third user interaction (i.e. Each parameter may further be associated with a “class” defining how a parameter may be discovered and shared across the system… A “class 4” parameter may indicate information that is unknown within the record, unknown across the entire system of interaction, and/or not allowed to be shared across interactions by the system of interaction. As an example, particularly sensitive user information such as a user's social security number may not be allowed to be shared between the Interaction Records A and B, and thus, each workflow requiring a user's social security number may be required to acquire the social security number independently [VanAntwerp 0067] note: forms are configurable, and VanAntwerp is capable of only having third form with a class 4 parameter, which would be a rule specific to the third application).”
Claim 5: VanAntwerp teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the display instructions comprise approval to display the first or second user interactions (i.e. a rule may exist that… may allow SSN sharing only upon affirmative consent by the user [VanAntwerp 0060]).”
Claim 6: VanAntwerp teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second applications are executing on a common application platform (i.e. information regarding a user may be shared across interaction records associated with two or more applications and/or workflows [0063]… A Level of Assurance 2 (“LOA2”) may require slightly higher confidence in a user's identity. Accordingly, LOA2 parameters may generally include parameters that may have some sensitivity. As an example, showing a user's street address, phone number, or occupation in a dynamic UX application may carry moderate risk. Achieving LOA2 within a dynamic UX application may, for example, require a user to enter a username and/or password [0071] note: sharing a user/pw across different applications indicates they share a common application platform).”
Claim 7: VanAntwerp teaches “The method of claim 6, wherein the set of content interaction rules includes rules that are unique for each application within the common application platform (i.e. A “class 4” parameter may indicate information that is unknown within the record, unknown across the entire system of interaction, and/or not allowed to be shared across interactions by the system of interaction. As an example, particularly sensitive user information such as a user's social security number may not be allowed to be shared between the Interaction Records A and B, and thus, each workflow requiring a user's social security number may be required to acquire the social security number independently [VanAntwerp 0067] note: forms are configurable, and VanAntwerp is capable of having a form with a class 4 parameter, which would be a rule unique to the form).”
Claim 8: VanAntwerp teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a representation of a graphical user interface including the first user interaction according to the display instructions, wherein the graphical user interface includes:
a panel displaying content related to the first user interaction (i.e. a user may have previously completed a credit card application workflow indicating a home address of “123 Main Street.” In a second workflow, however, the user may provide a different address, possibly indicating a change of address by the user. Thus, two conflicting interaction records regarding the user may exist at the system of interaction. Generally, the system of interaction records may resolve conflicts by examining the timestamp associated with each conflicting parameter, determining the most recent timestamp, and updating all interactions associated with the user to reflect the value associated with the most recent timestamp (e.g., the most recent address) [VanAntwerp 0097] note: User may go back to view first application, and the updated address is displayed for the first application),
a widget displaying the first user interaction, or
a button allowing performance of an action related to the first user interaction.”
Claim 9: VanAntwerp teaches “The method of claim 8, wherein the action related to the first user interaction involves submitting a further user interaction in reply to the first user interaction (The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 9 includes contingent limitations. The BRI of a method (or process) claim having contingent imitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II). For example, the BRI of claim 9 requires “the action” to be completed. However, in claim 8, the claim “includes: a panel… a widget… or a button allowing performance of an action…” In other words, claim 8 may be met by displaying only “a panel,” which is a scenario where “a button allowing performance of an action” does not occur, and is contingent. Any dependent claim(s) that depend on a contingent limitation are also contingent).”
Claim 10: VanAntwerp teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the first content interaction indicator comprises:
sending, via an application programming interface (i.e. Requests and responses may be transferred between the server device 102 the client device 104 via a common data interchange protocol (e.g. via a… API) [VanAntwerp 0046]), one or more requests comprising an identifier relating to content associated with the first user interaction (i.e. a user may have previously completed a credit card application workflow indicating a home address of “123 Main Street.” In a second workflow, however, the user may provide a different address, possibly indicating a change of address by the user… updating all interactions associated with the user to reflect the value associated with the most recent timestamp (e.g., the most recent address) [VanAntwerp 0097, Fig. 3A-3B] note: Fig. 3A-3B shows the “Address” parameter (an identifier) with the value as a first user interaction. An updated address parameter and value is sent); and
receiving, via the application programming interface (i.e. Requests and responses may be transferred between the server device 102 the client device 104 via a common data interchange protocol (e.g. via a… API) [VanAntwerp 0046]), one or more responses comprising information relating to the first user interaction (i.e. a user may have previously completed a credit card application workflow indicating a home address of “123 Main Street.” In a second workflow, however, the user may provide a different address, possibly indicating a change of address by the user… updating all interactions associated with the user to reflect the value associated with the most recent timestamp (e.g., the most recent address) [VanAntwerp 0097, Fig. 3A-3B] note: Fig. 3A-3B shows the “Address” parameter (an identifier) with the value as a first user interaction. An updated address parameter and value is received).”
Claim 11: VanAntwerp teaches “The method of claim 10, wherein the information relating to the first user interaction includes
an identifier relating to the first user interaction (i.e. a user may have previously completed a credit card application workflow indicating a home address of “123 Main Street.” In a second workflow, however, the user may provide a different address, possibly indicating a change of address by the user. Thus, two conflicting interaction records regarding the user may exist at the system of interaction. Generally, the system of interaction records may resolve conflicts by examining the timestamp associated with each conflicting parameter, determining the most recent timestamp, and updating all interactions associated with the user to reflect the value associated with the most recent timestamp (e.g., the most recent address) [VanAntwerp 0097, Fig. 3A-3B] note: Fig. 3A-3B shows “Address” as a parameter (as an identifier)),
a creation timestamp of the first user interaction (i.e. a user may have previously completed a credit card application workflow indicating a home address of “123 Main Street.” In a second workflow, however, the user may provide a different address, possibly indicating a change of address by the user. Thus, two conflicting interaction records regarding the user may exist at the system of interaction. Generally, the system of interaction records may resolve conflicts by examining the timestamp associated with each conflicting parameter, determining the most recent timestamp, and updating all interactions associated with the user to reflect the value associated with the most recent timestamp (e.g., the most recent address) [VanAntwerp 0097]), or
text relating to the first user interaction (i.e. a user may have previously completed a credit card application workflow indicating a home address of “123 Main Street.” In a second workflow, however, the user may provide a different address, possibly indicating a change of address by the user. Thus, two conflicting interaction records regarding the user may exist at the system of interaction. Generally, the system of interaction records may resolve conflicts by examining the timestamp associated with each conflicting parameter, determining the most recent timestamp, and updating all interactions associated with the user to reflect the value associated with the most recent timestamp (e.g., the most recent address) [VanAntwerp 0097]).”
Claim 12: VanAntwerp teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second user interactions include one or more of
comments in a form of text-based user interactions (i.e. a user may have previously completed a credit card application workflow indicating a home address of “123 Main Street.” In a second workflow, however, the user may provide a different address [VanAntwerp 0097] note: these are user provided text entry on a form, corresponding to comments in a form of text-based user interactions),
reactions in a form of image-based user interactions, or
views involving a number of times content has been provided by an application.”
Claim 15: VanAntwerp teaches “The method of claim 1, the respective instructions involve displaying information about a user that submitted at least one of the first and second user interactions (i.e. a user may have previously completed a credit card application workflow indicating a home address of “123 Main Street.” In a second workflow, however, the user may provide a different address, possibly indicating a change of address by the user. Thus, two conflicting interaction records regarding the user may exist at the system of interaction. Generally, the system of interaction records may resolve conflicts by examining the timestamp associated with each conflicting parameter, determining the most recent timestamp, and updating all interactions associated with the user to reflect the value associated with the most recent timestamp (e.g., the most recent address) [VanAntwerp 0097] note: the data reconciliation involves displaying address information about the user that filled out the forms).”
Claim 16: VanAntwerp teaches “The method of claim 15, wherein the information about the user includes a name, location, or avatar of the user (i.e. a user may have previously completed a credit card application workflow indicating a home address of “123 Main Street.” In a second workflow, however, the user may provide a different address, possibly indicating a change of address by the user. Thus, two conflicting interaction records regarding the user may exist at the system of interaction. Generally, the system of interaction records may resolve conflicts by examining the timestamp associated with each conflicting parameter, determining the most recent timestamp, and updating all interactions associated with the user to reflect the value associated with the most recent timestamp (e.g., the most recent address) [VanAntwerp 0097] note: a user’s address is location information of the user).”
Claim 17: VanAntwerp teaches a computing system comprising: one or more processors; memory; and program instructions, stored in the memory, that upon execution by the one or more processors (i.e. the processor 108 may be configured to execute software instructions stored in one or more memories [VanAntwerp 0033]) cause the computing system to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18: Claim 18 is similar in content and in scope to claim 2, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19: VanAntwerp teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system (i.e. the processor 108 may be configured to execute software instructions stored in one or more memories [VanAntwerp 0033]), cause the computing system to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20: Claim 20 is similar in content and in scope to claim 2, thus it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanAntwerp, in view of Hui et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20190073596 A1 (hereinafter “Hui”).
Claim 13: VanAntwerp teaches all the limitations of claim 12, above. VanAntwerp teaches “wherein records of the first and second user interactions are stored in a database (i.e. an electronic database (e.g. a relational database, key-value store, flat file, etc.) in which electronic records representing paths and steps may be stored [VanAntwerp 0038] note: Fig. 3A-3B shows stored records), and wherein the database includes:
content base records comprising permission flags associated with the first and second user interactions (i.e. a rule may exist that… may allow SSN sharing only upon affirmative consent by the user [VanAntwerp 0060]… each parameter may further be associated with a “Level of Assurance” (LOA) value [VanAntwerp 0068]… Level of Assurance may be achieved once (i) a dynamic UX application provides, to a user, one or more authentication steps associated with the particular Level of Assurance [VanAntwerp 0069]);
…records linked to… configuration records within the database, and wherein the… records comprise text… (i.e. a user may have previously completed a credit card application workflow indicating a home address of “123 Main Street.” In a second workflow, however, the user may provide a different address, possibly indicating a change of address by the user. Thus, two conflicting interaction records regarding the user may exist at the system of interaction. Generally, the system of interaction records may resolve conflicts by examining the timestamp associated with each conflicting parameter, determining the most recent timestamp, and updating all interactions associated with the user to reflect the value associated with the most recent timestamp (e.g., the most recent address) [VanAntwerp 0097]) (i.e. a source for social media content records and user reaction records 112 [Hui 0023, Fig. 1]… emotion tokens are associated with each user reaction that was obtained… Example emotion tokens may include “love”, “hate”, “excited”, “crazy” and like words or phrases that represent emotion, as shown, for example, in FIG. 2 [Hui 0040, Fig. 2]… user reactions 112 may be one or more databases of social media content records, social media content accessed in real time, or a combination of both. Examples of social media content records include Facebook® posts, Twitter® posts, Youtube® videos, blog postings, LinkedIn® postings, Instagram® postings and the like [Hui 0024, Fig. 1] note: more than one social media network corresponding to more than one application);”
VanAntwerp is silent regarding the records being “reaction” records, and “view records comprising a number of times one of the first and second user interactions has been viewed; and comment records comprising text submitted by a user in reply to content of the first and second applications.”
Hui teaches “reaction records linked to reaction configuration records within the database, and wherein the reaction records comprise text for a reaction or an icon related to the reaction (i.e. a source for social media content records and user reaction records 112 [Hui 0023, Fig. 1]… emotion tokens are associated with each user reaction that was obtained… Example emotion tokens may include “love”, “hate”, “excited”, “crazy” and like words or phrases that represent emotion, as shown, for example, in FIG. 2 [Hui 0040, Fig. 2]… user reactions 112 may be one or more databases of social media content records, social media content accessed in real time, or a combination of both. Examples of social media content records include Facebook® posts, Twitter® posts, Youtube® videos, blog postings, LinkedIn® postings, Instagram® postings and the like [Hui 0024, Fig. 1] note: more than one social media network corresponding to more than one application);
view records comprising a number of times one of the first and second user interactions has been viewed (i.e. One could also access… the number of unique views and shares for a Youtube® video, the number of re-tweets or response to a Twitter® post, or the view count for a video on Instagram® directly on the respective websites [Hui 0025]); and
comment records comprising text submitted by a user in reply to content of the first and second applications (i.e. One could also access… the number of unique views and shares for a Youtube® video, the number of re-tweets or response to a Twitter® post, or the view count for a video on Instagram® directly on the respective websites [Hui 0025]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of VanAntwerp to include the feature of having the ability to store social media records as disclosed by Hui.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to be able to log social media records, which increases the amount of data gathered, which increases the amount of information, so users can make more informed decisions.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanAntwerp, in view of Hui, in view of De Kezel et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20140025767 A1 (hereinafter “De Kezel”).
Claim 14: VanAntwerp and Hui teach all the limitations of claim 13, above. VanAntwerp and Hui are silent regarding “wherein a portion of the comment records comprise a reference to further comment records within the database such that the portion of the comment records are linked together in a chain of comments.”
De Kazel teaches “wherein a portion of the comment records comprise a reference to further comment records within the database such that the portion of the comment records are linked together in a chain of comments (i.e. data comprising the messages, user permissions, communication histories between users like e.g. messages, chat histories, etc., user accounts and information, and other features of the collaboration spaces can be stored in one or more databases [De Kezel 0142]… the message/sub-messages, discussions boards, comment chains, chat histories, etc. all can be stored in one or more central databases [0143]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of VanAntwerp and Hui to include the feature of having the ability to record comment chains as disclosed by De Kazel.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to store related comments together, for ease of search and/or ease of browsing, which decreases resources (e.g. time/energy) required when seeking these records.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parmar (US 20200065152 A1) listed on 892 is related to multiple applications, interaction attributes, and selecting an action (workflow) based on the interaction attributes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHEN whose telephone number is (469)295-9169 and email address is samuel.shen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. 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.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights