DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to papers filed on 9/17/2025.
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 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, 3-11, 13-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 18, the claims recite, in part, receiving, by a dynamic routing service, one or more requests, wherein the one or more requests include an identifier associated with an initial destination; transmitting, by the dynamic routing service, the one or more requests; receiving, by the dynamic routing service, a response indicating whether a connection is established with the initial destination, the connection being initiated through a handshaking operation with the initial destination; determining, by the dynamic routing service, a status code associated with at least one request from the one or more requests based on the response, wherein the status code indicates an error in processing the at least one request by the initial destination; determining, by the dynamic routing service, a final destination for the at least one request based on routing directives and contextual data; updating, by the dynamic routing service, the at least one request with an identifier associated with the final destination; and transmitting, by the dynamic routing service, the at least one updated request, wherein generates at least one response indicating whether the final destination successfully processed the at least one request.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, recites determining routing of payments, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more specifically commercial interactions including business relations. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of computer-implemented (claim 1), one or more devices (claims 1, 11, 18), initial destination processor (claims 1, 11, 18), final destination processor (claims 1, 11, 18), payment gateway (claims 1, 11, 18), one or more processors (claims 11, 18), non-transitory computer readable medium (claims 11, 18). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving, determining, updating, and transmitting) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using computer-implemented (claim 1), one or more devices (claims 1, 11, 18), initial destination processor (claims 1, 11, 18), final destination processor (claims 1, 11, 18), payment gateway (claims 1, 11, 18), one or more processors (claims 11, 18), non-transitory computer readable medium (claims 11, 18) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification Paragraph 0076); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 3-10, 13-17, and 20-23 appear to merely limit storing a status code with a time of receipt, specifics of the routing parameters, specifics of the contextual data, updating of a request for compatibility, storing a time with an indication of successful processing, storing a time with an indication of unsuccessful processing, updating of a request with an alternate destination identifier, updating routing conditions based on performance metrics, generating a response based on a connection failure during a handshaking operation, the response including a status code, and transmission of a test message to check for receipt of a test response, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The computer-implemented (claim 1), one or more devices (claims 1, 11, 18), initial destination processor (claims 1, 11, 18), final destination processor (claims 1, 11, 18), payment gateway (claims 1, 11, 18), one or more processors (claims 11, 18), non-transitory computer readable medium (claims 11, 18) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of receiving, determining, updating, and transmitting, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the computer-implemented (claim 1), one or more devices (claims 1, 11, 18), initial destination processor (claims 1, 11, 18), final destination processor (claims 1, 11, 18), payment gateway (claims 1, 11, 18), one or more processors (claims 11, 18), non-transitory computer readable medium (claims 11, 18) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1, 3-11, 13-18, and 20-23 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway (WO 2010/106395) in view of Levy (U.S. Pub No. 2017/0364915), and further in view of Rucker (U.S. Pub No. 2016/0164777).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 18, Conway teaches receiving, by a dynamic routing service, one or more requests from one or more devices (Paragraphs 0032, 0043); transmitting, by the dynamic routing service, the at least one request to the payment gateway (Claim 1, Paragraph 0019); determining, by the dynamic routing service, a status code associated with at least one request from the one or more requests (Paragraph 0068, unavailability); determining, by the dynamic routing service, a final destination processor for the at least one request based on routing directives and contextual data (Paragraph 0068, 0089); and transmitting, by the dynamic routing service, the at least one updated request to a payment gateway (Claim 1, Paragraph 0019).
Conway does not appear to specify receiving, by the dynamic routing service, at least one response from the payment gateway, wherein the at least one response indicates an error in processing the at least one request by the initial destination processor, and wherein the one or more requests include an identifier associated with an initial destination processor, and updating, by the dynamic routing service, the at least one request with an identifier associated with the final destination processor. However, Levy teaches receiving, by the dynamic routing service, at least one response from the payment gateway, wherein the at least one response indicates an error in processing the at least one request by the initial destination processor and determining a status code (up/down) based on the response from the payment gateway (Paragraph 0022-0024, 0063, 0090), and wherein the one or more requests include an identifier associated with an initial destination processor (Paragraph 0082, merchant has default acquirer so identification of merchant is identification of the default acquirer), determining, by the dynamic routing service, a status associated with at least one request from the one or more requests, wherein the status indicates an error in processing the at least one request by the initial destination processor (Paragraphs 0022-0024, 0063, 0090), updating, by the dynamic routing service, the at least one request with an identifier associated with the final destination processor (Paragraph 0082, initial processor is the default acquirer unless a rule directs the transaction to a different final acquirer), and wherein the payment gateway generates at least one response indicating whether the final destination processor successfully processed the at least one request (Paragraphs 0022-0024, 0063, 0090). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to update a request with a final destination processor and to receive responses indicating successful or unsuccessful processing in order to ensure the most applicable payment processor handles each specific transaction.
Conway and Levy do not appear to specify the connection being initiated by the payment gateway through a handshaking operation with the initial destination processor. However, Rucker teaches receiving a response indicating whether a connection is established with the initial destination processor the connection being initiated by the payment gateway through a handshaking operation with the initial destination processor (Paragraph 0040). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a handshaking operation since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 3, 13, Conway does not appear to specify determining, by the dynamic routing service, a time of receipt of the at least one request from the payment gateway; and storing, by the dynamic routing service, the status code and the time of receipt of the at least one request in a database. However, Levy teaches determining, by the dynamic routing service, a time of receipt of the at least one request from the payment gateway; and storing, by the dynamic routing service, the status code and the time of receipt of the at least one request in a database (Paragraph 0019). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to record a time stamp in order to determine in real time whether a payment processer is currently functional or not.
Regarding claims 4, 14, Conway teaches the routing directives are configured based on one or more routing parameters, and wherein the one or more routing parameters include one or more of: (i) a message type, (ii) a routing directive type, (iii) an error type, or (iv) a destination selection criteria (Paragraph 0073).
Regarding claims 5, 15, Conway teaches the contextual data include one or more of: (i) origination points for the at least one request, (ii) destination for the at least one request, (iii) temporal data associated with transmission of the at least one request to the payment gateway, (iv) origination points for the at least one response, (v) destination for the at least one response, (iv) temporal data associated with a receipt of the at least one response, (v) status codes associated with the initial destination processor or the final destination processor, (vi) temporal data associated with the status codes, or (vii) historical and current fees associated with the initial destination processor or the final destination processor (Paragraph 0068).
Regarding claims 6, 16, Conway does not appear to specify updating, by the dynamic routing service, payload of the at least one request for compatibility with a requirement or protocol of the final destination processor. Levy, however, teaches updating, by the dynamic routing service, payload of the at least one request for compatibility with a requirement or protocol of the final destination processor (Paragraph 0064, each processor may have its own API, so when a processor is changed, it could be a different API). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to update a request with a final destination processor and to receive responses indicating successful or unsuccessful processing in order to ensure the most applicable payment processor handles each specific transaction.
Regarding claims 7, 17, 20, Conway does not appear to specify determining, by the dynamic routing service, a time of transmission of the at least one request to the payment gateway; storing, by the dynamic routing service, the time of transmission of the at least one request in a database; and receiving, by the dynamic routing service, the at least one response from the payment gateway, wherein the at least one response indicates successful processing of the at least one request by the final destination processor. Levy, however, teaches determining, by the dynamic routing service, a time of transmission of the at least one request to the payment gateway; storing, by the dynamic routing service, the time of transmission of the at least one request in a database; and receiving, by the dynamic routing service, the at least one response from the payment gateway, wherein the at least one response indicates successful processing of the at least one request by the final destination processor (Paragraphs 0019, 0022-0024, 0063, 0090). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to update a request with a final destination processor and to receive responses indicating successful or unsuccessful processing in order to ensure the most applicable payment processor handles each specific transaction.
Regarding claim 8, Conway does not appear to specify determining, by the dynamic routing service, a time of transmission of the at least one request to the payment gateway; storing, by the dynamic routing service, the time of transmission of the at least one request in a database; and receiving, by the dynamic routing service, the at least one response from the payment gateway, wherein the at least one response indicates an error in processing the at least one request by the final destination processor. Levy, however, teaches determining, by the dynamic routing service, a time of transmission of the at least one request to the payment gateway; storing, by the dynamic routing service, the time of transmission of the at least one request in a database; and receiving, by the dynamic routing service, the at least one response from the payment gateway, wherein the at least one response indicates an error in processing the at least one request by the final destination processor (Paragraphs 0019, 0022-0024, 0063, 0090). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to update a request with a final destination processor and to receive responses indicating successful or unsuccessful processing in order to ensure the most applicable payment processor handles each specific transaction.
Regarding claim 9, Conway teaches determining, by the dynamic routing service, an alternate destination processor for the at least one request based on the routing directives and the contextual data (Paragraph 0089). Conway does not appear to specify updating, by the dynamic routing service, the at least one request with an identifier associated with the alternate destination processor; and transmitting, by the dynamic routing service, the at least one request to the payment gateway. Levy, however, teaches updating, by the dynamic routing service, the at least one request with an identifier associated with the alternate destination processor; and transmitting, by the dynamic routing service, the at least one request to the payment gateway (Paragraph 0082, initial processor is the default acquirer unless a rule directs the transaction to a different final acquirer). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to update a request with a final destination processor and to receive responses indicating successful or unsuccessful processing in order to ensure the most applicable payment processor handles each specific transaction.
Regarding claim 10, Conway does not appear to specify monitoring, by the dynamic routing service, performance metrics of one or more destination processors, wherein the performance metrics includes one or more of response time or error rate, and updating, by the dynamic routing service, one or more routing conditions based on the performance metrics. Levy, however, teaches monitoring, by the dynamic routing service, performance metrics of one or more destination processors, wherein the performance metrics includes one or more of response time or error rate, and updating, by the dynamic routing service, one or more routing conditions based on the performance metrics (Paragraphs 0019, 0022-0024). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to update a request with a final destination processor and to receive responses indicating successful or unsuccessful processing in order to ensure the most applicable payment processor handles each specific transaction.
Regarding claim 21, Conway and Levy do not appear to specify the payment gateway generates the response indicating a connection error based on failure to establish a communication link with the initial destination processor during the handshaking operation. However, Rucker teaches the payment gateway generates the response indicating a connection error based on failure to establish a communication link with the initial destination processor during the handshaking operation (Paragraph 0040). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a handshaking operation since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 22, Conway does not appear to specify the response from the payment gateway include a status code representative of the connection error. However, Levy teaches the response from the payment gateway include a status code representative of the connection error (Paragraphs 0022-0024, 0063, 0090, any data received to determine that a processor should be set to up/down” is considered to be indicative of a “status code”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to update a request with a final destination processor and to receive responses indicating successful or unsuccessful processing in order to ensure the most applicable payment processor handles each specific transaction.
Regarding claim 23, Conway does not appear to specify the payment gateway transmits a test message to check whether a test response is received within a predetermined time threshold, and wherein the payment gateway generates the response indicating a connection error upon expiration of the predetermined time threshold without receiving the test response from the initial destination processor. However, Levy teaches the payment gateway transmits a test message to check whether a test response is received within a predetermined time threshold, and wherein the payment gateway generates the response indicating a connection error upon expiration of the predetermined time threshold without receiving the test response from the initial destination processor (Paragraphs 0022-0024, 0063, 0090, system uses a combination of not receiving a response within a time period and a number of API calls to determine up/down status, if the number of API calls is set to 1, this meets the claim language). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to transmit a test message to check whether a test response is received within a predetermined time threshold since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “None of the steps recited in the independent claims can be reasonably interpreted to include concepts relating to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Therefore, the claims do not recite a method of organizing human activity”. However, the claims recite routing of payments using payment processors and a payment gateway. This is directly correlated to commercial interactions. Further, the claims are similar to other abstract ideas found by the courts to be ineligible, including “Sending information, directing sent information, and monitoring and accumulating records about receipt of sent information” (Two-Way Media ‘187 and ‘005 patents) and “Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group). Therefore, the claims indeed recite an abstract idea.
Applicant cites paragraphs 0036 and 0067 from the instant specification and argues “the claims recite additional elements that reflect an improvement to other technology or technical fields, such as computer-based routing of electronic requests, where automated connectivity verification may ensure that requests are routed only to available processors, thereby reducing failed transmissions, improving system reliability, and enhancing the overall efficiency of electronic payment processing networks” and “This architecture is rooted in computer technology and improves the functioning of the transaction routing system by routing requests only to available processors, thereby reducing failed transmissions, improving system reliability, and enhancing the overall efficiency of electronic payment processing networks”. However, the improvements mentioned in the specification claim to improve processing speed and efficiency of electronic transactions. The processing of electronic transactions is directly tied to the abstract idea. In the SAP decision (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the courts found that an improvement made to the abstract idea is not patent eligible. SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract. Further, the claims recite receiving, transmitting, and storing (updating) steps, which have been held to be insignificant extra solution activity. The remaining steps are merely determining steps, which are handled by a dynamic routing “service”, which at most is a general purpose computer, and at the least may be considered a mere process or business entity under a broadest reasonable interpretation. This combination of insignificant extra solution activity and mere determining steps appears to provide no improvement to a technology beyond the abstract idea, and therefore this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the examiner is required to cite to an admission by the applicant in the specification or during prosecution, court cases holding elements conventional, or a written publication establishing that the elements are well understood, routine or conventional. The Office Action does not contain such analyses or citations”. However, the rejection above does not reference any elements in the claim as being “well understood, routine, or conventional”. Therefore, this is not required.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art are believed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights