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 .
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 8 – 13 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
8. A system for wagering on live events, comprising:
at least one server communicatively coupled to a live event application program interface (API) and configured to receive live event data of a live event from the live event API; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the system to carry out actions comprising:
responsive to a start of the live event, enacting a static wagering delay for wagers placed on the live event;
receiving, from a wagering user and via a user computing device, a request to place a wager on the live event;
determining a location of the wagering user;
responsive to determining the location of the wagering user corresponds to an event location of the live event, enacting a first dynamic wagering delay on the wager,
wherein the first dynamic wagering delay is an additive wager delay to the static wagering delay;
receiving, from the wagering user and via the user computing device, a second request to place a second wager on the live event;
responsive to determining, based on the live event data received from the live event API, the live event is in a break state, enacting a second dynamic wagering delay for the second wager; and
processing the second wager in accordance with the static wagering delay and the second dynamic wagering delay.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental Processes and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent managing interactions between people and concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the receiving of a wager request from a user(s), a determination of a user’s location and adding a delay before processing and/or accepting their wager based upon their determined location. This represents a mental process in that an observation of a user’s location is made when they make a wager request, and depending on the determination of their location a judgement is made such as the adding addition of a delay to their wager request before it is accepted and processed. The latter also falls under the grouping of managing interactions between people, i.e., recording wagers based upon location and time delay conditions/rules.)
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): a server, computing devices, processor, API’s and sensors (claim 9, 12)
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed a server, computing devices, processor, API’s and sensors (claim 9, 12), However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0039] Turning to FIG. 1, an exemplary hardware platform for certain embodiments is depicted. Computer 102 can be a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a server computer, a mobile device such as a smartphone or tablet, or any other form factor of general- or special-purpose computing device. Depicted with computer 102 are several components, for illustrative purposes. In some embodiments, certain components may be arranged differently or absent. Additional components may also be present. Included in computer 102 is system bus 104, whereby other components of computer 102 can communicate with each other. In certain embodiments, there may be multiple buses or components may communicate with each other directly. Connected to system bus 104 is central processing unit (CPU) 106. Also attached to system bus 104 are one or more random-access memory (RAM) modules 108. Also attached to system bus 104 is graphics card 110. In some embodiments, graphics card 110 may not be a physically separate card, but rather may be integrated into the motherboard or the CPU 106. In some embodiments, graphics card 110 has a separate graphics-processing unit (GPU) 112, which can be used for graphics processing or for general purpose computing (GPGPU). Also on graphics card 110 is GPU memory 114. Connected (directly or indirectly) to graphics card 110 is display 116 for user interaction. In some embodiments no display is present, while in others it is integrated into computer 102. Similarly, peripherals such as keyboard 118 and mouse 120 are connected to system bus 104. Like display 116, these peripherals may be integrated into computer 102 or absent. Also connected to system bus 104 is local storage 122, which may be any form of computer-readable media and may be internally installed in computer 102 or externally and removably attached.
[0040] Computer-readable media include both volatile and nonvolatile media, removable and nonremovable media, and contemplate media readable by a database. For example, computer-readable media include (but are not limited to) RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile discs (DVD), holographic media or other optical disc storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage, and other magnetic storage devices. These technologies can store data temporarily or permanently and may be non-transitory computer-readable media storing data or computer-executable instructions. However, unless explicitly specified otherwise, the term “computer-readable media” should not be construed to include physical, but transitory, forms of signal transmission such as radio broadcasts, electrical signals through a wire, or light pulses through a fiber-optic cable. Examples of stored information include computer-useable instructions, data structures, program modules, and other data representations.
[0041] Finally, network interface card (NIC) 124 is also attached to system bus 104 and allows computer 102 to communicate over a network such as network 126. NIC 124 can be any form of network interface known in the art, such as Ethernet, ATM, fiber, Bluetooth®, or Wi-Fi (i.e., the IEEE 102.11 family of standards). NIC 124 connects computer 102 to local network 126, which may also include one or more other computers, such as computer 128, and network storage, such as data store 130. Generally, a data store such as data store 130 may be any repository from which information can be stored and retrieved as needed. Examples of data stores include relational or object-oriented databases, spreadsheets, file systems, flat files, directory services such as LDAP and Active Directory, or email storage systems. A data store may be accessible via a complex API (such as, for example, Structured Query Language), a simple API providing only read, write, and seek operations, or any level of complexity in between. Some data stores may additionally provide management functions for data sets stored therein such as backup or versioning. Data stores can be local to a single computer such as computer 128, accessible on a local network such as local network 126, or remotely accessible over Internet 132. Local network 126 is in turn connected to Internet 132, which connects many networks such as local network 126, remote network 134 or directly attached computers such as computer 136. In some embodiments, computer 102 can itself be directly connected to Internet 132.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Gurin et al (US 2025/0131131) establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0062] IoT devices can be selected from a wide range of well-known solutions for information exchange, for example: sensors, actuators, smartphones, tablets, TVs, game consoles, computers, laptops, terminals, mainframes, various types of measuring devices (thermometers, manometers, counters, etc.). The presented range of devices is only an example for this technical solution, and other devices that can be equipped with the necessary hardware and software logic for interaction in the IoT environment can be used.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. 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 a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 8, 11, 14 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 2022/0406146) in view of Reddit post r/Sportsbook, “FYI if you are successful with live betting, FanDuel Sportsbook will put a substantial delay on your account's ability to live bet” (hereinafter “Reddit”)
As per claim 1,
receiving, at a server and from a wagering user, a first wager request to place a first wager on a live event; (Hall discloses the user making a wager request to place a wager on a server) (Hall 0017, 0033, 0040, 0049, 0051)
determining a geolocation of the wagering user; (Hall discloses the determination of a user’s location via GPS) (Hall 0061)
responsive to determining the geolocation of the wagering user corresponds to an event location of the live event, enacting a first dynamic wager delay for the first wager that is additive to a static wager delay for the live event; (Hall disclose the use of a delay with respect to a players location) (Hall 0061)
processing the first wager in accordance with the first dynamic wager delay and the static wager delay;(Hall discloses the processing of the wager in accordance with the delay) (Hall 0061, 0065)
receiving, at the server and during the live event, a plurality of live event data for the live event, wherein the plurality of live event data comprises data indicative of a state of the live event; responsive to determining that the plurality of live event data indicates the state of the live event is a break state, enacting a second dynamic wager delay that is distinct from the first dynamic wager delay; (Hall discloses the determination of event state such as the time between plays, batters etc. (i.e. break state). Hall discloses the determination of a context or state of the game such as a break in action wherein time intervals are created that enable a user to only be able to place wagers after an "open" time and thus prevent a wager from being prior to the "open" time) (Hall 0078)
receiving, at the server and from the wagering user, a second wager request to place a second wager on the live event; and processing the second wager in accordance with the second dynamic wager delay and the static wager delay. (Hall discloses the user placing a wager that is subject to the betting delay based upon a user location and the time intervals (i.e. dynamic delay) between wagering gates) (Hall 0078)
In the event that Hall fails to disclose a dynamic delay that is additive to a static delay, Reddit discloses a technique used by bookmakers to ensure that betters are not having an undue advantage by means of having an awareness of events that occur such as at a venue location and submitting a bet prior to the bookmaker being able to update the odds of the proposition or betting line. Reddit discloses the use of dynamic delays when a user is “too successful” that is added on to the standard wager delays such as a static delay of 4 seconds and an additional delay that adds up to a total of 15 seconds (Reddit, page 1, user MicMichaelman post, page 2, post by “Chitheads”; Page 3, post by “Subagogo”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Hall in view of Reddit to use a known technique to induce wagering delays onto a game network by means of static and dynamic wagering delays. This would be beneficial to a bookmaker as it would potentially effects the success of a bettor who is utilizing inside knowledge that is not open to all including the bookmaker to make bets before the odds can be updated.
As per claim 2, wherein the second dynamic wager delay is shorter than the first dynamic wager delay. (Hall discloses the use of delay based upon wagering gates or windows that may increase or decrease based upon the time between plays or batters, wherein that time may be short or longer, i.e. in the game of football teams begin the next play immediately after the proceeding play or up to a play clock expiring and by extension the opening and closing of the wagering gate will also change) (Hall 0078)
As per claim 3, wherein the second dynamic wager delay is a subtractive delay applied to the static wager delay. (Hall discloses the use of delay based upon wagering gates or windows that may increase or decrease based upon the time between plays or batters, wherein that time may be short or longer, i.e. in the game of football teams begin the next play immediately after the proceeding play or up to a play clock expiring and by extension the opening and closing of the wagering gate will also change) (Hall 0078)
As per claim 5, wherein determining that the geolocation of the wagering user corresponds to the event location comprises determining the wagering user is within a threshold distance of the event location based on the geolocation. (Hall discloses determining that the user is within a distance of the venue) (Hall 0061)
As per claim 6, receiving, at the server and from a second wagering user, a third wager request to place a third wager on the live event; determining a second geolocation of the second wagering user; and responsive to determining the second geolocation does not correspond to the event location, processing the third wager request in accordance with the static wager delay. (Hall discloses the determination of a user within and not within a threshold of the venue and processing the users bet or wager with each associated delay) (Hall 0061)
As per claim 7, determining, based on the plurality of live event data, a type of the break state, wherein a length of the second dynamic wager delay is set based on the type. (Hall discloses the use of delay based upon wagering gates or windows that may increase or decrease based upon the time between plays (type) or batters (type), wherein that time may be short or longer, i.e. in the game of football teams begin the next play immediately after the proceeding play or up to a play clock expiring and by extension the opening and closing of the wagering gate will also change) (Hall 0078)
Independent claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are made obvious by the combination of Hall and Reddit based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
As per claim 11, receiving, from a second wagering user, a third wager on the live event; and responsive to determining a second location of the second wagering user does not correspond to the event location, processing the third wager without applying the first dynamic wagering delay. (Combination of Hall in view of Reddit, wherein Reddit discloses the standard static delay of 4 seconds applied to all wagers regardless of suspected location. Reddit discloses a technique used by bookmakers to ensure that betters are not having an undue advantage by means of having an awareness of events that occur such as at a venue location and submitting a bet prior to the bookmaker being able to update the odds of the proposition or betting line. Reddit discloses the use of dynamic delays when a user is “too successful” that is added on to the standard wager delays such as a static delay of 4 seconds and an additional delay that adds up to a total of 15 seconds (Reddit, page 1, user MicMichaelman post, page 2, post by “Chitheads”; Page 3, post by “Subagogo”)
As per claim 15, wherein processing a wager of the plurality of wagers in accordance with the plurality of wagering delays comprises adding for each wagering user, the wagering delay to a static wagering delay to obtain a total wagering delay for the wager.(Combination of Hall in view of Reddit, wherein Reddit discloses a technique used by bookmakers to ensure that betters are not having an undue advantage by means of having an awareness of events that occur such as at a venue location and submitting a bet prior to the bookmaker being able to update the odds of the proposition or betting line. Reddit discloses the use of dynamic delays when a user is “too successful” that is added on to the standard wager delays such as a static delay of 4 seconds and an additional delay that adds up to a total of 15 seconds (Reddit, page 1, user MicMichaelman post, page 2, post by “Chitheads”; Page 3, post by “Subagogo”)
As per claim 16, responsive to determining, for a wagering user of the plurality of wagering users, the location does not correspond to an event location of the live event, setting the wagering delay to be zero. (Hall discloses the setting of a wagering delay when a user is withing a predetermined distance , if the user is not within that distance, then there is no need to set the delay, which is effectively setting a delay of zero) (Hall 0061).
As per claim 17, responsive to determining for a second wagering user of the plurality of wagering users, the location does correspond to the event location of the live event, setting the wagering delay to be non-zero. (Combination of Hall in view of Reddit wherein a wager delay can be set based upon location and the user having a history of too many “successful” bets that the bookmaker notices and the delay can be set to a non-zero delay that may total up to 15 seconds) ((Reddit, page 1, user MicMichaelman post, page 2, post by “Chitheads”; Page 3, post by “Subagogo”)
As per claim 18, receiving, for a wagering user of the plurality of wagering users, historical wager data; and determining, based on the historical wager data, that the historical wager data is indicative of suspicious activity, wherein the wagering delay for the wagering user is further based on the historical wager data being indicative of suspicious activity. (Combination of Hall in view of Reddit wherein a wager delay can be set based upon location and the user having a history of too many “successful” bets that the bookmaker notices and the delay can be set to a non-zero delay that may total up to 15 seconds) ((Reddit, page 1, user MicMichaelman post, page 2, post by “Chitheads”; Page 3, post by “Subagogo”)
As per claim 19, wherein a time for the updated plurality of wagering delays is set based on a type of the break. (Hall discloses the use of delay based upon wagering gates or windows that may increase or decrease based upon the time between plays (type) or batters (type), wherein that time may be short or longer, i.e. in the game of football teams begin the next play immediately after the proceeding play or up to a play clock expiring and by extension the opening and closing of the wagering gate will also change) (Hall 0078)
As per claim 20, receiving, via a live event application programming interface, a plurality of live event information for the live event; and determining the type of the break by parsing the plurality of live event information. (Hall discloses the use of delay based upon wagering gates or windows that may increase or decrease based upon the time between plays (type) or batters (type), wherein that time may be short or longer, i.e. in the game of football teams begin the next play immediately after the proceeding play or up to a play clock expiring and by extension the opening and closing of the wagering gate will also change) (Hall 0078) (Hall further discloses the use of application programming interface to parse data such as live play data on the network (Hall 0072)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 2022/0406146) in view of Reddit post r/Sportsbook, “FYI if you are successful with live betting, FanDuel Sportsbook will put a substantial delay on your account's ability to live bet” (hereinafter “Reddit”) in view of Howard (US 2016/0012676).
As per claim 4, Hall fails to disclose:
increasing, by the server, a wager limit for the wagering user responsive to enacting the second dynamic wager delay.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Howard disclose the modification of a user’s wagering limits with respect to a period of time or a time window to place the wager. (Howard 0028).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by means of changing the amount that they are limited to wager with respect to a time period such as a timed delay. This would be beneficial as the user would be given more time to clearly think about how much they are wagering and not make a rash decision of wagering too much when the wagering event has a quick turnaround before the wagering event outcome is known or occurs.
Claim(s) 9, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 2022/0406146) in view of Reddit post r/Sportsbook, “FYI if you are successful with live betting, FanDuel Sportsbook will put a substantial delay on your account's ability to live bet” (hereinafter “Reddit”) in view of Leonardo et al “A Framework for Infrastructure-Free Indoor Localization based on Pervasive Sound Analysis”
As per claim 9, Hall fails to disclose:
a first audio sensor associated with the event location configured to capture first audio data of the live event; and a second audio sensor associated with the user computing device configured to capture second audio data of the live event, wherein the location of the wagering user is determined based on a comparison of the first audio data to the second audio data.
However, Leonardo teaches a system of locating a user within an environment based upon a first sound sample associated with the location, and a second sound sample associated with a user carrying a mobile device (Leonardo pg. 4140, “B. SoundSimilarity”) and comparing the captured sounds with respect to portion of time to determine of the user of detected in the area. (Leonardo pg. 4141, “B. SoundSimilarity”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Hall in view of Leonardo to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by means of detecting a user’s location based upon a microphone capturing a sound such as by means of a mobile device the user carries when compared to a location sensor that captures a sound of the location. This would be beneficial as it would not require a user to carry an additional sensor such as a mobile phone microphone that they typically carry already.
As per claim 10, wherein the comparison comprising comparing a temporal difference between the first audio data and the second audio data (Combination of Hall and Leonardo as applied to claim 9, Leonardo Pg 4141, par 2 –3)
As per claim 12, wherein determining the location of the wagering user comprises at least one of: obtaining the location via a geolocation sensor of the user computing device; or determining the location based on at least one of a cellular tower or a Wi-Fi network the user computing device is connected with the event location. (Combination of Hall in view of Leonardo, wherein Leonardo teaches it is well known to determine a user’s location based upon signals transmitted between WIFI beacons and user devices) (Leonardo Pg 4136, par 4)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 2022/0406146) in view of Reddit post r/Sportsbook, “FYI if you are successful with live betting, FanDuel Sportsbook will put a substantial delay on your account's ability to live bet” (hereinafter “Reddit”) in view of Alberson “Using XML and JSON with Android, Part 1: Explore the benefits of JSON and XML in Android applications”, 2010
As per claim 13, Hall discloses: wherein the actions further comprise: parsing, by the at least one server, the live event data for data indicating a state of the live event. (Hall 0072)
Hall fails to disclose:
wherein the live event data is received in one of a JSON file or an XML file, and
However, in a similar field of endeavor wherein data is processed and transmitted, Ableson teaches “Although parsing XML with the SAX parser is nontrivial in terms of building up, managing, and navigating the resulting structure, its main advantages are speed and the opportunity to reduce significantly the amount of RAM required both during and after the parsing step.” (Ableson page 15) “Although JSON parsing is much more simple programmatically, it is not cost-free. It adds the burden of memory consumption for reading in the entire data stream before it can be worked on, and for storing all of the data. In contrast, the SAX XML approach uses only the data of interest. That caveat aside, if memory for parsing a particular JSON object is ample, this approach can be favorable for many applications, particularly if working with the DOM is of little interest.” (Ableson page 16)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Hall in view of Ableson to utilize the JSON or XML file formats when transmitting and parsing data as using XML can significantly reduce the amount of RAM needed during and after parsing data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
7/28/2026
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights