DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment and response filed on 02/06/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 28 have been amended.
Claim 36 has been added.
Claim 27 has been canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11-13, 16-19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 36 are currently pending and have been examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as well as overcoming the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
After careful review of the original specification, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See MPEP §2111.01 IV.
Terms such as “when”, “if”, “only if”, “on the condition”, “in the event” and “in a case where” are representative of optional limitations; therefore, optional or conditional language do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted.
Arguments and Assertions by the Applicant
Applicant’s arguments received 02/06/2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11-13, 16-19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11-13, 16-19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been updated to conform to current guidelines and maintained accordingly.
The relevant question is whether the claims do more than collect, store, display, and compare data to optimize a digital rights management objective on a generic computer. This does not appear to be the case.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and filtering data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. Moreover, the technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. Therefore the claims are not significantly more than recitations of a judicial exception. In summary, each step does no more than require a common computer to perform universal computer functions. Therefore, the claims are directed to using a computer as a tool to follow instructions.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of petitioner's method, system, and/or computer readable medium add nothing that is not already present when the steps reconsidered separately. Viewed as a whole, the method, system, and/or computer readable medium claims simply recite the concept of analyzing storing data in the form of digital data, comparing/categorizing data, and displaying the data.
The method, system, and/or computer readable medium claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of organizing and analyzing data using some unspecified, generic computer. Consequently, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As in TLI, Applicant’s claims are “not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combing the two.” See TLI Communications LLC v. A.V. Automotive, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The specification does not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two. The specification fails to provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominantly describes the system and methods in purely functional terms.” Id. "Instead, the claims, as noted, are simply directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner." Id.
The claims in this case fall into a familiar class of claims “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. The focus of the asserted claims, as illustrated by the claims, is on collecting information, analyzing it, displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and sending instruction to implement result. The outer limits of “abstract idea” need not be defined, nor at this stage exclude the possibility that any particular inventive means are to be found somewhere in the claims, to conclude that these claims focus on an abstract idea - and hence require stage-two analysis under §101. Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the courts have treated, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In a similar vein, the courts have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). In addition, merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In this case, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. This invention claims a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, processing that data, then displaying the results, without any particular or asserted inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
For stage 2 of the analysis, merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.
Referring to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A., the claims in this case do not even require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it. See, e.g., US Patent 8,401,710 B2 (Budhraja et. al.), col. 8, lines 51–62 (referring to existing phasor data sources); J.A. 6969–71 (describing workings and history of phasor data use); Electric Power Group Br. at 21–22; Reply Br. at 5 (new algorithms not claimed). As a result, the claims do not require an inventive set of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques that would generate new data. They do not invoke any novel inventive programming. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information—to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users, Reply Br. at 6; Electric Power Group Br. at 14–15—by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis.
With regard to claims 11, 12, and 26, the common knowledge declared to be well-known in the art is hereby taken to be admitted prior art because the Applicant either failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE or failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE adequately. See MPEP §2144.03. To adequately traverse the examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE, the Applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE would be inadequate. Support for the Applicant’s assertion should be included.
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 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11-13, 16-19, 21, 22, 24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 16 and 36):
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
receiving, via processing circuitry corresponding to one or more processors and from a user account, an indication of a purchase of a digital content package, the digital content package including primary digital content comprising a movie or show and secondary digital content corresponding to a content creator supplement to the movie or show; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors)
assigning, via the processing circuitry and to the user account, a first digital right to the primary digital content for a first limited period of time; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors)
assigning, via the processing circuitry and to the user account, a second digital right to the secondary digital content. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors)
Additional dependent claims do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 16 and 36):
…processing circuitry corresponding
…one or more processors
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
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 of this title, 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 1-4, 6, 7, 13, 16-19, 21, 22, 28, and 36 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapur et al. (USPGP 2023/0070586 A1), in view of Stefik et al. (USPGP 2005/0149450 A1), hereinafter STEFIK.
Claims 1, 16, 36:
KAPUR as shown below discloses the following limitations:
receiving, via processing circuitry corresponding to one or more processors and from a first user account, an indication of a purchase of a digital content package, the digital content package including primary digital content comprising a movie or show and secondary digital content corresponding to a content creator supplement to the movie or show, (see at least paragraphs 0123, 0083, 0006, 0175, 0177, 0200)
assigning, via the processing circuitry, based on the indication, and to the first user account, a first digital right to the primary digital content for a first limited period of time; (see at least paragraphs 0123, 0083, 0006, 0175, 0177, 0200, 0354)
assigning, via the processing circuitry, based on the indication and to the first user account, a second digital right to the secondary digital content. (see at least paragraphs 0123, 0083, 0006, 0175, 0177, 0200, 0354)
KAPUR does not specifically disclose the following limitations, but STEFIK as shown does:
the content creator supplement comprising a content creator review of the movie or show;
receiving, via the processing circuitry, within the first limited period of time, and from the first user account, a second user account, or both, at least one first request to access the primary digital content based on the first digital right;
granting, via the processing circuitry, the first user account, the second user account, or both access to the primary digital content based on the at least one first request;
receiving, via the processing circuitry and from the first user account, the second user account, a third user account, or a combination thereof, at least one second request to access the secondary digital content based on the second digital right; and
granting, via the processing circuitry, the first user account, the second user account, the third user account, or the combination thereof access to the secondary digital content based on the at least one second request.
See at least paragraphs 0149 and 0547; Figure 15 as well as associated and related text. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined/modified as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify method of KAPUR with the DRM techniques of STEFIK because, “The emergence of Non-Fungible Token (NFT) marketplaces has allowed artists to reach buyers.” (KAPUR: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2, 3, 17, 18:
KAPUR discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. KAPUR further discloses:
storing, via the processing circuitry, transaction information corresponding to the purchase of the digital content package on a blockchain.
comprising distributing, via the processing circuitry, at least one non-fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the digital content package to the first user account.
See at least paragraphs 0190-0191
Claims 4, 19:
KAPUR discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. KAPUR further discloses:
distributing, via the processing circuitry, a first non-fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the primary digital content to the first user account; distributing, via the processing circuitry, a second NFT corresponding to the secondary digital content to the first user account;
receiving, via the processing circuitry, within the first limited period of time, and from the first user account, the second user account, or both, the first NFT, first blockchain data corresponding to the first NFT, or both;
granting, via the processing circuitry, the first user account, the second user account, or both access to the primary digital content based on the at least one first request and based on recognizing the first NFT, the first blockchain data corresponding to the first NFT, or both;
receiving, via the processing circuitry and from the first user account, the second user account, the third user account, or the combination thereof, the second NFT or second blockchain data corresponding to the second NFT:
granting, via the processing circuitry, the first user account, the second user account, the third user account, or the combination thereof access to the secondary digital content based on the at least one second request and based on recognizing the second NFT0 the second blockchain data corresponding to the second NFT, or both.
See at least paragraphs 0190-0191, 0123, 0083, 0006, 0175, 0177, 0200, 0354.
Claims 6, 21:
KAPUR discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. KAPUR further discloses:
distributing, via the processing circuitry, a first non-fungible token (NFT) corresponding to the primary digital content to the first user account;
withdrawing or modifying, via the processing circuitry and from the first user account, the first NFT or a first portion thereof in response to the first limited period of time lapsing such that the first digital right is extinguished thereafter;
See at least paragraphs 0046, 0060, 0190-0191, 0123, 0064, 0083, 0006, 0175, 0177, 0200, 0354.
Claims 7, 22:
KAPUR discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. KAPUR further discloses assigning, via the processing circuitry and to the first user account, the second digital right for a second limited period of time, wherein the second limited period of time differs from the first limited period of time. See at least paragraphs 0046, 0060, 0190-0191, 0123, 0064, 0083, 0006, 0175, 0177, 0200, 0354.
Claims 13, 28:
KAPUR discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. KAPUR further discloses:
minting, via the processing circuitry, a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) corresponding to a plurality of second digital rights to the secondary digital content and based at least in part on a minting criteria, wherein the plurality of second digital rights to the secondary digital content includes the second digital right, and the minting criteria is based at least in part on a popularity metric of a content creator corresponding to the content creator supplement, an age of a content creator account corresponding to the content creator, a price of the secondary digital content, an input received from the content creator account, or any combination thereof;
distributing, via the processing circuitry, the plurality of NFTs to a plurality of user accounts, the plurality of user accounts including the first user account.
See at least paragraphs 0006, 0087, 0175, 0183, 0193, 0194.
Claims 11, 12, and 26 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAPUR and further in view of Applicant’s Own Admissions, hereinafter AOA.
Claims 11, 26:
KAPUR discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. KAPUR does not specifically disclose:
assigning, via the processing circuitry and to the first user account, the first digital right to the primary digital content for the first limited period of time across a plurality of digital platforms subscribed to by the first user account;
excluding, via the processing circuitry, the first digital right to the primary digital content for the first limited period of time from being applicable to an additional plurality of digital platforms not subscribed to by the first user account.
However, the Examiner accepts AOA that it is old and well known in the digital rights management arts to restrict usage of digital products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of KAPUR with the technique of denying playback to unauthorized platforms because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 12:
KAPUR discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. KAPUR does not specifically disclose:
receiving, via the processing circuitry, the indication of the purchase of the digital content package in the form of:
data relating to an enhanced ticket corresponding to an in-theater screening of the movie or show;
or data relating to a non-fungible token (NFT) associated with the enhanced ticket.
However, the Examiner accepts AOA that it is old and well known in the entertainment arts to sell upgraded performance packages such as, for example, VIP packages and add-on perks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of KAPUR with the technique of providing enhanced ticket promotions because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
Jon M. Garon. “Legal Implications of a Ubiquitous Metaverse and a Web3 Future Legal Implications of a Ubiquitous Metaverse and a Web3 Future.” (2022). Retrieved online 11/01/2025. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5529&context=mulr
WEB3NEWS. “Decentralized Identity: Passport to Web3.” (Nov 23, 2021). Retrieved online 11/01/2025. https://www.web3news.info/wiki.html
Richard Charkin et al. “Building a Digital Publishing Economy Opportunities and Framework for Development.” (June 2023). Retrieved online 11/01/2025. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_ipr_mvd_23/wipo_ipr_mvd_23_www_615979.pdf
Foreign Art:
ANDON et al. “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVISIONING CRYPTOGRAPHIC DIGITAL ASSETS FOR BLOCKCHAIN-SECURED RETAIL PRODUCTS.” (WO 2021/231911 A1)
VIJAYAN. “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPLEMENTING BLOCKCHAIN-BASED CONTENT ENGAGEMENT PLATFORMS UTILIZING MEDIA WALLETS.” (WO 2020/010023 A1)
BLIVEN et al. “Method For Generating Digital Token That Uniquely Represents Item, Involves Cryptographically Linking Unique Digital Token And Unique Identifier For Unique Unit Of Item Such That Unique Digital Token Of Unique Digital Representation.” (WO 2020/092900 A2)
Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/06/2026 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)
Prosecution Insights