DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 01/03/2025 and the Amendment & Remark filed on 05/11/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the claims as a whole are to a process, an apparatus and a manufacture , which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES) The recitation of the claimed invention is then further analyzed as follow, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
displaying one or more contests;
receiving, from a user, a selection of a contest of the one or more contests;
receiving a user profile associated with the user;
identifying a comparison set associated with the selected contest based on the user profile exceeding a threshold similarity when compared to a set of user profiles associated with the comparison set;
managing a size of comparison set via operations comprising:
monitoring, for a plurality of users within the comparison set, an activity level of the plurality of users; and
identifying and removing, based on the monitored activity levels, inactive users from the comparison set;
categorizing one or more user actions and, for each of the one or more user actions, tracking a user performance metric associated with the user action;
categorizing one or more comparison transactions by the comparison set, and for each of the one or more comparison transactions, tracking a comparison performance metric associated with the comparison transaction;
throughout a performance of the selected contest;
determining one or more insights through steps comprising:
determining one or more of the user performance metrics exceeds a performance threshold representing a difference in user behavior, a corresponding comparison performance metric;
identifying a corrective action based on corresponding comparison performance metric; and
displaying one or more alert associated with the one or more insight.
Claim 11 recites:
A system comprising:
one or more processors configured to:
display one or more contests;
receive, from a user, a selection of a contest of the one or more contests;
receive a user profile associated with the user;
identify a comparison set associated with the selected contest based on the user profile exceeding a threshold similarity when compared to a set of user profiles associated with the comparison set;
manage a size of comparison set via operations comprising:
monitor, for a plurality of users within the comparison set, an activity level of the plurality of users; and
identify and remove, based on the monitored activity levels, inactive users from the comparison set;
categorize one or more user actions and, for each of the one or more user actions, track a user performance metric associated with the user action;
categorize one or more comparison transactions by the comparison set, and for each of the one or more comparison transactions, tracking a comparison performance metric associated with the comparison transaction;
throughout a performance of the selected contest;
determine one or more insights through steps comprising:
determine one or more of the user performance metrics exceeds a performance threshold representing a difference in user behavior, a corresponding comparison performance metric;
identify a corrective action based on corresponding comparison performance metric; and
displaying one or more alert associated with the one or more insight.
Claim 20 recites:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
display one or more contests;
receive, from a user, a selection of a contest of the one or more contests;
receive a user profile associated with the user;
identify a comparison set associated with the selected contest based on the user profile exceeding a threshold similarity when compared to a set of user profiles associated with the comparison set;
manage a size of comparison set via operations comprising:
monitor, for a plurality of users within the comparison set, an activity level of the plurality of users; and
identify and remove, based on the monitored activity levels, inactive users from the comparison set;
categorize one or more user actions and, for each of the one or more user actions, track a user performance metric associated with the user action;
categorize one or more comparison transactions by the comparison set, and for each of the one or more comparison transactions, tracking a comparison performance metric associated with the comparison transaction;
throughout a performance of the selected contest;
determine one or more insights through steps comprising:
determine one or more of the user performance metrics exceeds a performance threshold representing a difference in user behavior, a corresponding comparison performance metric;
identify a corrective action based on corresponding comparison performance metric; and
displaying one or more alert associated with the one or more insight.
Claims 2 and 12 recites:
wherein determining the insight further comprises:
tracking the one or more user performance metrics in response to a previously displayed alert associated with a previous insight;
determining an effectiveness of the previous insight; and
modifying the corrective action based on the effectiveness of the previous insight.
Claims 3 and 13 recite:
wherein determining the insight further comprises:
tracking the one or more comparison performance metrics in response to a previously displayed alert associated with a previous insight;
determining an effectiveness of the previous insight; and
modifying the corrective action based on the effectiveness of the previous insight.
Claims 4 and 14 recite:
wherein determining the insight is based in part on a location of the user.
Claims 5 and 15 recite:
wherein the comparison set is not associated with the selected contest, and the one or more comparison transactions by the comparison set are tracked external to the selected contest.
Claims 6 and 16 recite:
wherein the user profile is based in part on the user performance metrics.
Claims 7 and 17 recite:
wherein the selected contest includes a target and one or more micro-targets, wherein the user performance metrics are further is based on whether the user reaches one of the one or more micro-targets.
Claims 8 and 18 recite:
wherein one of the one or more micro-targets are adjusted based on the user performance metrics.
Claims 9 and 19 recite:
wherein the alert is displayed via an interface comprising a machine learning trained chat model.
Claim 10 recites:
wherein the one or more contests displayed are determined based on the user profile.
Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers providing transaction performance advice. Providing transaction performance advice is considered to be a commercial interaction between a client and an advisor, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claim(s) recite(s) a Judicial Exception. (Step 2A prong one: Yes)
This analysis then evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited Judicial Exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element(s) of “processor” as a mere tool to perform the steps of the Judicial Exception, which encompasses no more than Mere Instruction to Apply.
For example, the limitation “display one or more contests” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of showing the one or more contests to a user;
the limitation “receive, from a user, a selection of a contest of the one or more contests” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving selection of a contest from the user;
the limitation “receive a user profile associated with the user” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving the user profile;
the limitation “identify a comparison set associated with the selected contest based on the user profile exceeding a threshold similarity when compared to a set of user profiles associated with the comparison set” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of identifying a comparison set associated with the selected contest based on the user profile exceeding a threshold similarity;
the limitation “manage a size of comparison set via operations comprising:
monitor, for a plurality of users within the comparison set, an activity level of the plurality of users; and identify and remove, based on the monitored activity levels, inactive users from the comparison set” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of managing the size of the comparison set via monitoring user activity level, identifying and removing inactive users from the comparison set;
the limitation “categorize one or more user actions and, for each of the one or more user actions, tracking a user performance metric associated with the user action;” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of categorizing one or more user action and tracking the user performance metric associated with the user action;
the limitation “categorize one or more comparison transactions by the comparison set, and for each of the one or more comparison transactions, tracking a comparison performance metric associated with the comparison transaction” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of categorizing the one or more comparison transaction by comparison set and tracking the comparison performance metric associated with comparison transaction;
the limitation “throughout a performance of the selected contest, determine an insight through steps comprising: determine one or more of the user performance metrics exceeds a performance threshold representing a difference in user behavior, a corresponding comparison performance metric; identify a corrective action based on corresponding comparison performance metric” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining one or more user performance metrics exceeds a threshold from a corresponding comparison performance metric and identifying a corrective action;
the limitation “display an alert associated with the insight to the user” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of showing an alert associated with the insight to the user;
the limitation “wherein determining the insight further comprises:
tracking the one or more comparison performance metrics in response to a previously displayed alert associated with a previous insight;
determining an effectiveness of the previous insight; and
modifying the corrective action based on the effectiveness of the previous insight” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of tracking the comparison performance metrics of a previously alert, determining the effectiveness of the previous insight and modifying the corrective action based on the effectiveness of the previous insight;
the limitation “wherein determining the insight is based in part on a location of the user” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining the insight based in part of the location of the user;
the limitation “wherein the comparison set is not associated with the selected contest, and the one or more comparison transactions by the comparison set are tracked external to the selected contest” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of tracking comparison set not associated with the selected contest;
the limitation “wherein the alert is displayed via an interface comprising a machine learning trained chat model” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of showing the alert;
the limitation “wherein the one or more contests displayed are determined based on the user profile” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of showing the one or more contests based on the user profile.
Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the additional elements in the above step(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality, without technological detail of how the particular steps are performed technologically.
The additional element(s) of “memory” and/or “non-transitory storage medium” are generically recited to store data and/or instructions of the Judicial Exception.
The additional element(s) of “via an interface comprising a machine learning trained chat model” are generically recited to perform input/output steps described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the interface accomplish it.
The examiner noted generic computer components are mere instructions to implement the Judicial Exception idea on a computer. Indeed, the instant claims (1) attempted to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) used of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply added a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the Judicial Exception and (3) generally applied the Judicial Exception to a generic computing environment without limitation indicative of practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)I). Thus, the claims are no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application (Step 2A prong two: No) The claims are directed to a Judicial Exception.
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 element of using a processor to provide transaction advice amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Dependent claim 6-8 and 16-18 merely limit the abstract idea but do not recite any additional element beyond the cited abstract idea, thus, do not amount to significantly more. No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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)1-8, 10-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzpatrick et al. (US 2020/0380889) in view of Shukla et al. (US 2019/0050868)
As per claim 1, Fitzpatrick teaches a method comprising:
displaying one or more contests; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0026-0027, 0029, 0035 and 0050)
receiving, from a user, a selection of a contest of the one or more contests; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0026-0027, 0029, 0040, 0061 and 0084)
receiving a user profile associated with the user; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0051, 0061, 0079 and 0084-0086)
identifying a comparison set associated with the selected contest based on the user profile exceeding a threshold similarity when compared to a set of user profiles associated with the comparison set; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0050-0051 and 0061-0062)
categorizing one or more user actions and, for each of the one or more user actions, tracking a user performance metric associated with the user action; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0030, 0050-0051, 0061-0062, 0071-0072 and 0094)
categorizing one or more comparison transactions by the comparison set, and for each of the one or more comparison transactions, tracking a comparison performance metric associated with the comparison transaction; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0030, 0050-0051, 0061-0062, 0071-0072 and 0094)
throughout a performance of the selected contest, determining an insight through steps comprising:
determining one or more of the user performance metrics exceeds a performance threshold representing a difference in user behavior, a corresponding comparison performance metric; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0073-0074)
identifying a corrective action based on corresponding comparison performance metric; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0073-0074) and
displaying an alert associated with the insight. (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0026-0027, 0073-0074 and 0076)
Fitzpatrick does not explicitly teach managing a size of comparison set via operations comprising: monitoring, for a plurality of users within the comparison set, an activity level of the plurality of users; and identifying and removing, based on the monitored activity levels, inactive users from the comparison set.
Shukla teaches monitoring using activity, identifying and removing inactive users. (See Shukla Paragraph 0063)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the financial advising system taught by Fitzpatrick with teaching from Shukla to monitoring using activity, identifying and removing inactive users from the comparison set. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as removing inactive users promotes participation and competition.
As per claim 11, Fitzpatrick teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors configured to:
display one or more contests; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0026-0027, 0029, 0035 and 0050)
receive, from a user, a selection of a contest of the one or more contests; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0026-0027, 0029, 0040, 0061 and 0084)
receive a user profile associated with the user; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0051, 0061, 0079 and 0084-0086)
identify a comparison set associated with the selected contest based on the user profile exceeding a threshold similarity when compared to a set of user profiles associated with the comparison set; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0050-0051 and 0061-0062)
categorize one or more user actions and, for each of the one or more user actions, tracking a user performance metric associated with the user action; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0030, 0050-0051, 0061-0062, 0071-0072 and 0094)
categorize one or more comparison transactions by the comparison set, and for each of the one or more comparison transactions, tracking a comparison performance metric associated with the comparison transaction; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0030, 0050-0051, 0061-0062, 0071-0072 and 0094)
throughout a performance of the selected contest, determining an insight through steps comprising:
determine one or more of the user performance metrics exceeds a performance threshold representing a difference in user behavior, a corresponding comparison performance metric; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0073-0074)
identify a corrective action based on corresponding comparison performance metric; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0073-0074) and
display an alert associated with the insight. (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0026-0027, 0073-0074 and 0076)
Fitzpatrick does not explicitly teach managing a size of comparison set via operations comprising: monitoring, for a plurality of users within the comparison set, an activity level of the plurality of users; and identifying and removing, based on the monitored activity levels, inactive users from the comparison set.
Shukla teaches monitoring using activity, identifying and removing inactive users. (See Shukla Paragraph 0063)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the financial advising system taught by Fitzpatrick with teaching from Shukla to monitoring using activity, identifying and removing inactive users from the comparison set. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as removing inactive users promotes participation and competition.
As per claim 20, Fitzpatrick teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
display one or more contests; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0026-0027, 0029, 0035 and 0050)
receive, from a user, a selection of a contest of the one or more contests; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0026-0027, 0029, 0040, 0061 and 0084)
receive a user profile associated with the user; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0051, 0061, 0079 and 0084-0086)
identify a comparison set associated with the selected contest based on the user profile exceeding a threshold similarity when compared to a set of user profiles associated with the comparison set; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0050-0051 and 0061-0062)
categorize one or more user actions and, for each of the one or more user actions, tracking a user performance metric associated with the user action; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0030, 0050-0051, 0061-0062, 0071-0072 and 0094)
categorize one or more comparison transactions by the comparison set, and for each of the one or more comparison transactions, tracking a comparison performance metric associated with the comparison transaction; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0030, 0050-0051, 0061-0062, 0071-0072 and 0094)
throughout a performance of the selected contest, determining an insight through steps comprising:
determine one or more of the user performance metrics exceeds a performance threshold representing a difference in user behavior, a corresponding comparison performance metric; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0073-0074)
identify a corrective action based on corresponding comparison performance metric; (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0073-0074) and
display an alert associated with the insight. (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0026-0027, 0073-0074 and 0076)
Fitzpatrick does not explicitly teach managing a size of comparison set via operations comprising: monitoring, for a plurality of users within the comparison set, an activity level of the plurality of users; and identifying and removing, based on the monitored activity levels, inactive users from the comparison set.
Shukla teaches monitoring using activity, identifying and removing inactive users. (See Shukla Paragraph 0063)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the financial advising system taught by Fitzpatrick with teaching from Shukla to monitoring using activity, identifying and removing inactive users from the comparison set. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as removing inactive users promotes participation and competition.
As per claims 2 and 12, Fitzpatrick in view of Shukla teaches:
wherein determining the insight further comprises:
tracking the one or more user performance metrics in response to a previously displayed alert associated with a previous insight; determining an effectiveness of the previous insight; and modifying the corrective action based on the effectiveness of the previous insight. (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0047, 0050, 0056 and 0095)
As per claims 3 and 13, Fitzpatrick in view of Shukla teaches:
wherein determining the insight further comprises:
tracking the one or more user performance metrics in response to a previously displayed alert associated with a previous insight; determining an effectiveness of the previous insight; and modifying the corrective action based on the effectiveness of the previous insight. (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0047, 0050, 0056 and 0095)
As per claims 4 and 14, Fitzpatrick in view of Shukla teaches:
wherein determining the insight is based in part on a location of the user. (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0039, 0051 and 0059)
As per claims 5 and 15, Fitzpatrick in view of Shukla teaches:
wherein the comparison set is not associated with the selected contest, and the one or more comparison transactions by the comparison set are tracked external to the selected contest. (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0061)
As per claims 6 and 16, Fitzpatrick in view of Shukla teaches:
wherein the user profile is based in part on the user performance metrics. (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0039, 0051 and 0059)
As per claims 7 and 17, Fitzpatrick discloses:
wherein the selected contest includes a target and one or more micro-targets, wherein the user performance metrics are further is based on whether the user reaches one of the one or more micro-targets. (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0047, 0050, 0056 and 0095)
As per claims 8 and 18, Fitzpatrick discloses:
wherein one of the one or more micro-targets are adjusted based on the user performance metrics. (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0047, 0050, 0056 and 0095)
As per claim 10, Fitzpatrick discloses:
wherein the one or more contests displayed are determined based on the user profile. (See Fitzpatrick Paragraph 0050-0051 and 0061-0062)
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) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzpatrick et al. (US 2020/0380889) ) in view of Shukla et al. (US 2019/0050868) in view of Mohanty et al. (US 2020/0395001)
As per claim 9 and 19, Fitzpatrick in view of Shukla does not teach that the alert is displayed via an interface comprising a machine learning trained chat model.
Mohanty teaches providing financial recommendation using a machine learning trained chat model. (See Mohanty Paragraph 0035 and 0044)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the financial advising system taught by Fitzpatrick in view of Shukla with teaching from Mohanty to display alert via an interface comprising a machine learning trained chat model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as machine learning trained chat model can provide human-like conversation with a client without labor cost.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the claims do not recite one of ineligible enumerated groupings of abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the rejection, providing transaction performance advice is considered to be a commercial interaction between a client and an advisor, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the claims provide a technological solution to a technological problem, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant alleged that “the claims recite a technical improvement to computer technology through operations including managing a size of the comparison set, then implemented in downstream operations to improve user interface experiences”. However, the examiner noted that the alleged improvement is non-technological and at best only improve the Judicial Exception of providing financial advice. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL W ANDERSON can be reached at 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.
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights