DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 12/30/2024. Claims 1-23 are pending and have been examined. The rejections are stated below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
35 USC § 112(f) Notification
Claim 23 recites the limitations of “means for receiving”, “means for augmenting”, and “means for communicating” which have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, because these limitations use non-structural terms coupled with the functional language respectively without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, claim 23 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification appears to show no definitive structure for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph limitation. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). (FP 7.34.21)
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a process, claims 12 and 23 are directed to a system; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for processing a trade, i.e. financial transaction, based on matching a received augmented message data with known message data which is a commercial or legal interaction and mental process and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, stripped of all additional elements and in bold below, recite the abstract idea as follows:
1. A computer implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a receiver, a data message;
augmenting, by the receiver, the data message with signal data; and
communicating, by the receiver to each of a plurality of independently operating processors coupled therewith, the augmented data message, wherein each processor is coupled with a memory in which at least one instruction has been previously stored in association with one of a plurality of different signal data, wherein each of the plurality of processors is configured to determine that the signal data of the received augmented data message corresponds with the signal data associated with one of the stored at least one instruction stored in the memory coupled therewith, and based thereon process the corresponding one of the stored at least one instruction.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial or legal interaction and mental judgements and observations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For instance human beings interacting can perform these steps through mental and manual performance. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of “a receiver”, “a plurality of independently operating processors coupled…… wherein each processor is coupled with a memory in which at least one instruction has been previously stored”, claim 12 being similar, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity and mental processes abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed to perform the limitation steps. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network, see at least Fig.1 and paragraphs [0040-0041] of the specification) such that it amounts no more than adding 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 the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than adding 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 the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For instance, in the process of claim 1, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of processing a trade, i.e. financial transaction, based on matching a received augmented message data with known message data, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-22 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, claims 2 and 13 further refine the abstract idea by associating data received, transaction processing messages or trades, to data already known, i.e. stored, and processing said received data corresponding to the relationship between received and known data. Claims 3 and 14 further refine the abstract idea by defining that an action is to taken at a particular scheduled time with nothing significantly more. This can be completed mentally and through manual means. Claims 4 and 15 further refine the abstract idea by comparing received data to stored data to determine if there is a scheduled time match between any of the known messages. But for the nominal recitation of generic processors this can be completed mentally. Claims 5 and 16 further refine the abstract idea of processing requested trades by reciting that processing the same messages through multiple processors, i.e. automating a multitude of human beings, regardless of the time at which said messages has identical states. Claims 6 and 17 further define actions that can be performed by a human being interacting with a computer or processor as claimed. Claims 7 and 18 further refine the abstract idea as the received message comprises a time stamp generated by the receive, e.g. a human, after a predetermined amount of time has passed from receipt of another message prior. This is claimed at a very high level of generality such that a human being could perform this limitation but for the nominal recitation of generic processors. Claims 8 and 19 recite insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and conventional activity akin to receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec,(utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., (sending messages over a network) and buySAFE, Inc. (computer receives and sends information over a network) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Also, receiving and storing trade instructions further refines the abstract idea. Claims 9 and 20 further refine the abstract idea by reciting that the receiver, e.g. a human, is connected to plurality of separate receivers, e.g. humans, to coordinate the augmenting of data. This is merely applying the abstract idea on generic computing elements. Claims 10 and 21 further refine the abstract idea by reciting processing data at certain times for a first and second processor, e.g. human, based on received data message which is claimed at a very high level of generality. Claims 11 and 22 further refine the abstract idea by reciting that the processing of data causes a same modification in the first and second processor, e.g. human functioning, which is claimed at a very high level of generality such that nothing significantly more is provided.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claim only refines the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for processing a trade, i.e. financial transaction, based on matching a received augmented message data with known message data) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for processing a trade, i.e. financial transaction, based on matching a received augmented message data with known message data) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting (Obviousness-type)
Claims 1-23 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 11,288,744 (‘744 hereinafter). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘744 Patent recite all the limitations of claims 1-23 of the instant application as indicated in the comparison table below.
Claims of 19/005,398
Claims of ‘744
1. A computer implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a receiver, a data message;
augmenting, by the receiver, the data message with signal data; and
communicating, by the receiver to each of a plurality of independently operating processors coupled therewith, the augmented data message, wherein each processor is coupled with a memory in which at least one instruction has been previously stored in association with one of a plurality of different signal data,
wherein each of the plurality of processors is configured to determine that the signal data of the received augmented data message corresponds with the signal data associated with one of the stored at least one instruction stored in the memory coupled therewith, and based thereon process the corresponding one of the stored at least one instruction.
1. A computer implemented method comprising:
receiving, by each of a plurality of transaction processors coupled with a transaction receiver, a plurality of augmented data messages each of which having been
augmented upon receipt by the transaction receiver with time signal data,
wherein each transaction processor is coupled with a memory in which a plurality of scheduled instructions are stored, each of the plurality of scheduled instructions being stored in association with data indicative of a particular time signal, each of the plurality of transaction processors being configured
to process each of the augmented data messages and to process any of the plurality of scheduled instructions stored in the memory when the time signal data of a
received augmented data message corresponds to the particular time signal associated therewith;
determining, by each of the plurality of transaction processors, that the time signal data in at least one of the received augmented data message, upon the processing thereof, corresponds with the data indicative of the particular time signal associated with one of the plurality of scheduled instructions stored in the memory coupled therewith;
upon determining, by any one of the plurality of transaction processors, that the time signal data in a received augmented data message corresponds to the data indicative of the particular time signal associated with
one of the scheduled instructions, processing, by the transaction processor, the corresponding one of the scheduled instructions.
2. wherein the signal data comprises data indicative of a relationship between the received data message and any of a plurality of data messages previously received by the receiver or another receiver, the data message further comprising a transaction to be processed by each processor, wherein each of the plurality of processors is further configured to process the transaction of the received data messages in accordance with the corresponding signal data.
2. wherein the time signal data comprises sequence data indicative of a relationship between a received financial transaction and any of the plurality of data messages previously received by the transaction receiver, the method further comprising processing, by each of the plurality of transaction processors, the received augmented data messages in accordance with the corresponding sequence data.
3. wherein the at least one instruction comprises an action to be taken by the processor and the corresponding particular signal data comprises a scheduled time for the processor to take the action.
3. wherein the scheduled instructions comprise: (i) scheduled time data and (ii) instructions to be processed.
4. wherein each of the plurality of processors are configured to compare the signal data of each received augmented data message with the scheduled time corresponding to each of the stored at least one instruction and determine, based on the comparison, if the signal data of a received augmented data message corresponds to the scheduled time corresponding to any of the stored at least one instruction.
4. wherein the determining comprises comparing, by each of the plurality of transaction processors, the time signal data in each received augmented data message with the scheduled time data in each of the stored scheduled instructions and determining,
based on the comparison, if the time signal data in a received augmented data message corresponds to the scheduled time data in any of the scheduled instructions.
5. wherein each of the plurality of processors, subsequent to having processed the same data messages in accordance with the corresponding signal data, regardless of when those data messages were processed, has an identical state based thereon.
5. wherein the scheduled instructions to be processed cause the transaction processor to modify at least one of a physical configuration or a functional configuration of the transaction processor.
6. wherein the action of the stored at least one instruction to be processed includes at least one of: performing garbage collection; updating software for the processor; enabling the processing by the processor of subsequent transactions; or disabling the processing by the processor of subsequent transactions.
6. wherein the scheduled instructions to be processed include at least one of: garbage collection; updated software for the transaction processor; enabling the processing of financial transactions; disabling the processing of financial transactions.
7. wherein the signal data comprises a time stamp generated by the receiver subsequent to a determination that a predetermined amount of time has elapsed since a prior receipt by at least the one of the one or more receivers of another data message.
7. wherein the time signal data further comprises a time stamp message generated by the transaction receiver subsequent to a determination that a predetermined amount of time has elapsed between receiving one of the plurality of data messages and receiving a subsequent one of the plurality of data messages,
8. wherein each of the plurality of processors is further configured to received and store the at least one instruction before receiving at least the augmented data messages having signal data corresponding thereto.
8. further comprising receiving and storing in the memory, by each of the plurality of transaction processors, the scheduled instructions before receiving the augmented data messages.
9. wherein the receiver is coupled with a plurality of other receivers to coordinate the signal data which to augment received data messages.
9. wherein the memory comprises a plurality of separate memories, each of which is coupled with one of the plurality of
transaction processors.
10. wherein the plurality of processors includes first and second processors configured to process, by the first processor, a first stored at least one instruction at a first time, and process, by the second processor, the first stored at least one instruction at a second time different from the first time in a same relation to the processing of the same received data message by the first processor.
10. wherein the plurality of transaction processors includes first and second transaction processors, and wherein the method further comprises:
processing, by the first transaction processor, a scheduled instruction at a first time; and
processing, by the second transaction processor, the scheduled instruction at a second time different from the first time; and
further wherein both the first and second transaction processors process the scheduled instruction relative to the processing of the same received augmented data message.
11. wherein processing of the first stored at least one instruction by the first and second processors causes a same modification in a physical and/or functional configuration thereof.
11. wherein processing the scheduled instruction by the first and second transaction processors causes a same modification in
the configurations of the first and second transaction processors, respectively.
12. A system comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a data message, augment the received data message with signal data and communicate the augmented data message to each of a plurality of independently operating processors coupled with the receiver, each processor being coupled with a memory in which at least one instruction has been previously stored in association with one of a plurality of different signal data and configured to
receive the augmented data message and determine that the signal data of the received augmented data message corresponds with the signal data associated with one of the stored at least one instruction, and based thereon processing the corresponding one of the stored at least one instruction.
A computer system comprising:
a plurality of transaction processors coupled with a transaction receiver, each transaction processor also coupled with a memory in which a plurality of scheduled instructions are stored, each of the plurality of scheduled
instructions being stored in association with data indicative of a particular time signal, each of the plurality of transaction processors configured to:
process each of a plurality of augmented data messages received from the transaction receiver, each of which having been augmented upon receipt by the transaction
receiver with time signal data, and to process
any of the plurality of scheduled instructions stored in the memory when the time signal data of a received augmented data messages corresponds to the particular time signal associated therewith;
determine, upon the processing thereof, that the time signal data in at least one of the received augmented data messages corresponds with the data indicative
of the particular time signal associated with one of the plurality of scheduled instructions; and upon determining that the time signal data in a received augmented data message corresponds to the data indicative of the particular time signal associated
with one of the scheduled instructions, process the corresponding scheduled instruction.
13. wherein the signal data comprises data indicative of a relationship between the received data message and any of a plurality of data messages previously received by the receiver or another receiver, the data message further comprising a transaction to be processed by each processor, wherein each of the plurality of processors is further configured to process the transaction of the received data messages in accordance with the corresponding signal data.
13. wherein the time signal data comprises sequence data indicative of a relationship
between the received data message and any of the plurality of data messages previously received by the transaction receiver, and further wherein each of the plurality of
transaction processors is further configured to process the received augmented data messages in accordance with the corresponding sequence data.
14. wherein the at least one instruction comprises an action to be taken by the processor and the corresponding particular signal data comprises a scheduled time for the processor to take the action.
14. wherein the scheduled instructions comprise: (i) scheduled time data and (ii)
instructions to be processed.
15. wherein each of the plurality of processors are configured to
compare the signal data of each received augmented data message with the scheduled time corresponding to each of the stored at least one instruction and determine, based on the comparison, if the signal data of a received augmented data message corresponds to the scheduled time corresponding to any of the stored at least one instruction.
15. wherein each of the plurality of transaction processors is further configured to:
compare the time signal data in each received augmented data message with the scheduled time data in each of the stored scheduled instructions; and determine, based on the comparison, if the time signal data in a received augmented data message corresponds to the scheduled time data in any of the scheduled instructions.
16. wherein each of the plurality of processors, subsequent to having processed the same data messages in accordance with the corresponding signal data, regardless of when those data messages were processed, has an identical state based thereon.
16. wherein each transaction processor is further configured to modify at least one of a physical configuration or a functional configuration of the transaction processor upon processing the scheduled instructions.
17. wherein the action of the stored at least one instruction to be processed includes at least one of: performance of garbage collection; performance of an update to software for the processor; enablement of the processing by the processor of subsequent transactions; or disablement the processing by the processor of subsequent transactions.
17. wherein the scheduled instructions to be processed include at least one of: garbage collection; updated software for the transaction processor; enabling the processing of financial transactions, disabling the processing of financial transactions.
18. wherein the signal data comprises a time stamp generated by the receiver subsequent to a determination that a predetermined amount of time has elapsed since a prior receipt by at least the one of the one or more receivers of another data message.
18. wherein the time signal data further comprises a time stamp message generated by the transaction receiver subsequent to a determination that a predetermined amount of time has elapsed between receiving one of the plurality of data messages and receiving a subsequent one of the plurality of data message,
19. wherein each of the plurality of processors is further configured to receive and store the at least one instruction prior to receipt of at least the augmented data messages having signal data corresponding thereto.
8. further comprising receiving and storing in the memory, by each of the plurality of transaction processors, the scheduled instructions before receiving the augmented data messages.
20. wherein the receiver is coupled with a plurality of other receivers to coordinate the signal data which to augment received data messages.
9. wherein the memory comprises a plurality of separate memories, each of which is coupled with one of the plurality of
transaction processors.
21. wherein the plurality of processors includes first and second processors, and wherein the first and second processors are configured to: process, by the first processor, a first stored at least one instruction at a first time; and process, by the second processor, the first stored at least one instruction at a second time different from the first time in a same relation to the processing of the same received data message by the first processor.
19. the plurality of transaction processors including first and second transaction
processors, wherein the first transaction processor processes a scheduled instruction at a first time and wherein the second transaction processor processes the scheduled instruction at a second time different from the first time, and further wherein both the first and second transaction processors process the scheduled instruction relative to the processing of the same received augmented data message.
22. wherein processing of the first stored at least one instruction by the first and second processors causes a same modification in a physical and/or functional configuration thereof.
20. wherein the first and second transaction processors are reconfigured in the same manner upon processing the scheduled instruction.
23. A system comprising:
means for receiving a data message; means for augmenting the data message; and means for communicating the augmented data message to each of a plurality of independently operating processing means coupled therewith, wherein each processing means is coupled with a memory in which at least one instruction has been previously stored in association with one of a plurality of different signal data, wherein each of the plurality of processing means is configured to
determine that the signal data of the received data message corresponds with the signal data associated with one of the stored at least one instruction stored in the memory coupled therewith, and based thereon process the corresponding one of the stored at least one instruction.
21. A computer system comprising:
means for receiving each of a plurality of augmented data messages each of which having been augmented upon receipt by the transaction receiver with time signal
data, wherein each transaction processor is coupled with a memory in which a plurality of scheduled instructions are stored, each of the plurality of scheduled instructions being stored in association with data indicative of a particular time signal, each of the plurality of transaction processors being configured to
process each of the augmented data messages and to process any of the plurality of scheduled instructions stored in the memory when the time signal data of a received augmented data messages corresponds to the
particular time signal associated therewith;
means for determining that the time signal data in at least one of the received augmented data message, upon the processing thereof, corresponds with the data indicative
of the particular time signal associated with one of the plurality of scheduled instructions; and upon determining that the time signal data in a received augmented data message corresponds to the data indicative of the particular time signal associated with
one of the scheduled instructions, means for processing the corresponding one of the scheduled instructions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-23 are allowable over any combination of prior art. The closest combination of prior art is Studnitzer et al. (US 2015/0127510) in view of Tremblay et al. (US 6,065,108)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights