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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the communication filed on 5/15/2026.
Claim Status
2. Claims 9, 16, and 18-19 have currently been cancelled and newly added claims 21-24 have been entered.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 5 of the claim should be amended to --required threshold--.
Line 7 of the claim should be amended to --message indicating--.
Line 12 of the claim should be amended to --plurality of transmissions--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 21-22 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.
Response to Arguments
5. The applicant’s arguments filed 5/15/2026 have been taken into consideration, but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
A. The previous double patenting rejection has been withdrawn in light of the terminal disclaimer filed 5/15/2026.
B. The newly added claim amendments have been rejected in light of newly cited prior art reference Pranger et al (US 2023/0360029).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Micali et al (US 2022/0374886) in view of Pen (US 2019/0279210), further in view of Pranger et al (US 2023/0360029).
Regarding claim 1, Micali et al teaches a cryptographic transmission system for making secure transmissions between users of the cryptographic transmission system (par [0047], which discloses processing transactions between two users in a blockchain environment), the cryptographic transmission system comprising:
a plurality of validation units (par [0012], lines 1-5, “validators”) each comprising:
memory storing, for each of a set of users, a plurality of balances of the unified transmission medium (par [0043], lines 6-8, which discloses a plurality of balances being stored in blockchain nodes), the plurality of balances of the unified transmission medium representing amounts of different resources belonging to the user (par [0049], lines 1-6, “balances of assets for each co-chain”); and at least one processor configured to:
obtain, from a device, a request for a first transmission of a first amount of a first resource, of the multiple resources, from a particular user of the set of users to a set of one or more recipients (par [0024], which discloses an entity transmitting a request to another party for a disclosed amount of cryptoassets); and
identify, from among a plurality of balances of the unified transmission medium stored in the memory for the first user, a first balance of the unified transmission medium representing an amount of the first resource belonging to the particular user (par [0024], which discloses each account showing the current balance for each particular cryptoasset).
Micali et al does not explicitly teach determining whether the first balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the first transmission of the first amount of the first resource from the particular user to the set of one or more recipients; when it is determined that the first balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the first transmission: sign a first message with a cryptographic signature indicating that first transmission is valid; and transmit the first message signed with the signature to the device.
However, Pen teaches determining whether the first balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the first transmission of the first amount of the first resource from the particular user to the set of one or more recipients (par [0111], which discloses determining if a user’s blockchain nodes contain a balance large enough to satisfy a transaction another user);
when it is determined that the first balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the first transmission:
sign a first message with a cryptographic signature indicating that first transmission is valid (claim 8, lines 15-25, which discloses determining whether the signed transaction payment message is valid when a client account has a sufficient balance to cover a payment); and
transmit the first message signed with the signature to the device thereby attesting that the first transmission is valid (claim 8, lines 1-20, “sending the signed cryptocurrency transaction message” & “confirms to the sender of the message…whether the signed transaction payment message is valid”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Pen within the disclosure of Micali et al in order to provide the predictive result of increasing payment-related assurance in a blockchain transaction environment by ensuring and requiring that requesting clients have sufficient funds before completing blockchain-based asset requests with another using containing the asset (as disclosed in par [0113] of Pen) because this feature would prevent blockchain users containing desired assets from engaging in transaction requests with requesting users that have insufficient funds and cancelling potential transactions upon determining that a requesting blockchain user contains insufficient funds.
Micali et al and Pen do not explicitly teach making secure transmissions between users of the cryptographic transmission system using a unified transmission medium of the cryptographic transmission system, the unified transmission medium corresponding to multiple resources external to the cryptographic transmission system.
However, Pranger et al teaches making secure transmissions between users of the cryptographic transmission system using a unified transmission medium of the cryptographic transmission system (par [0038], lines 14-17, which discloses using StaksCoin or other cryptographic token to process NFT transactions), the unified transmission medium corresponding to multiple resources external to the cryptographic transmission system (par [0073], lines 6-12, which discloses using StacksCoin for acquiring NFTs from a third party NFT marketplace).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Pranger et al within the disclosure of Micali et al and Pen in order to provide the predictive result of providing safe and more secure exchange of transferring of cryptographic data stored in blockchains by using NFTs and assigning them to a particular NFT resource on a centralized platform (as disclosed in par [0004], lines 20-27 of Pranger et al) because this feature prevents acquiring of a particular resource if the party attempting to access the resource doesn’t have credentials to access the NFT assigned to the requested resource.
Regarding claim 2, Micali et al teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive, from a device, a request for a second transmission of a second amount of a second resource from the particular user to a second set of one or more recipients (par [0046], lines 11-14, which discloses requesting a second cryptoasset); and
identify, from among the plurality of balances of the unified transmission medium stored in the memory for the user, a second balance of the unified transmission medium representing an amount of the second resource belonging to the particular user (par [0043], lines 5-8, “the second commitment corresponds to other balances within the co-chain”).
Micali et al does not explicitly teach determining whether the second balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the second transmission of the second amount of the second resource from the particular user to the second set of one or more recipients; and when it is determined that the second balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the second transmission: sign a second message with the cryptographic signature indicating that second transmission is valid; and transmit the second message signed with the cryptographic signature to the device.
However, Pen teaches determining whether the second balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the second transmission of the second amount of the second resource from the particular user to the second set of one or more recipients (claim 8, lines 14-25, “if the first client account has sufficient balance to cover the cryptocurrency payment and the transaction payment message is valid, data entries are written to the next block of the particular blockchain”); and
when it is determined that the second balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the second transmission:
sign a second message with the cryptographic signature indicating that second transmission is valid (claim 4, lines 10-11, “where the data in the messages is hashed and signed”); and
transmit the second message signed with the cryptographic signature to the device (claim 10, “second signed message”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Pen within the disclosure of Micali et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Micali et al and Pen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Micali et al further teaches receive, from the plurality of validation units, messages including validation unit signatures indicating that the first transmission is valid (par [0033], lines 7-9, “validators determine whether the data is valid”); and
after receiving a threshold number of validation unit signatures indicating that the first transmission is valid (par [0017], lines 1-4, “threshold signature scheme”):
generate a validation message (par [0012], lines 6-8); and
transmit, to the plurality of validation units, the validation message, wherein transmission of the validation message triggers execution of the first transmission (par [0100], lines 12-16, “authenticated transaction authorizes a transfer of the asset”).
Regarding claim 4, Micali et al and Pen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Micali et al further teaches in response to receiving the validation message:
transmit, from the particular user to the set of one or more recipients, the first amount of the unified transmission medium (par [0022], lines 1-5, “transferring amounts of cryptocurrency”).
Regarding claim 5, Micali et al and Pen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Micali et al further teaches after receipt of the validation message:
transmit, from the user and/or the set of one or more recipients to at least one user, a particular amount of the unified transmission medium representing a particular amount of the first resource (par [0023], lines 1-5, “amount of a cryptoasset”).
Regarding claim 6, Micali et al and Pen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Micali et al further teaches a plurality of operator units each associated with a particular one of a plurality of resources (par [0082], lines 1-4, “each co-chain registers with the public blockchain if it wishes to transfer assets between them”), the plurality of operator units comprising a first operator unit associated with the first resource (par [0083], lines 1-6, “each asset class is registered”), the first operator unit configured to:
receive an indication of the amount of the first resource belonging to the particular user (par [0096], lines 6-8, “a first amount of a first cryptoasset from a first cryptoasset account”);
determine an amount of the unified transmission medium representing the amount of the first resource belonging to the particular user (par [0099], lines 1-4); and
transmit, to the plurality of validation units, a message to issue, to the particular user, the amount of the unified transmission medium representing the amount of the first resource belonging to the user (par [0099], lines 10-13, “reflect that the first amount of the first cryptoasset is being transferred”).
Regarding claim 7, Micali et al and Pen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Micali et al further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive, from the first operator unit, the message indicating the amount of the unified transmission medium to issue to the user (par [0056], which discloses assigning the cryptoasset amount to a key that represents the cryptoasset amount to be transferred); and
in response to receiving the message indicating the amount of the unified transmission medium to issue to the user, updating the first balance of the unified transmission medium representing the amount of the first resource belonging to the particular user (par [0049], which discloses updating the remaining cryptoasset balance after payment of the asset has been made).
Regarding claim 8, Micali et al and Pen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Micali et al further teaches wherein the plurality of operator units comprise a second operator unit associated with a second resource (par [0029], lines 1-5, “second entity asserts that it is a validator”), the second operator unit configured to:
receive an indication of an amount of a second resource belonging to the particular user (par [0038], lines 22-24, “second amount of a second cryptoasset”);
determine an amount of the unified transmission medium representing the amount of the second resource belonging to the particular user (par [0036], lines 10-11, “entire balance of each entity”); and
transmit, to the plurality of validation units, a message to issue, to the particular user, the amount of the unified transmission medium representing the amount of the second resource belonging to the particular user (par [0045], “balance table of assets”).
Regarding claim 10, Micali et al and Pen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Micali et al further teaches wherein the request for the first transmission comprises a message indicating:
one or more identifiers of one or more resources to be transmitted in the first transmission, the one or more identifiers including a first identifier of the first resource (par [0083], lines 1-6, “AssetClassID”); and
one or more amounts of the one or more resources to be transmitted in the first transmission, the one or more amounts including the first amount of the first resource (par [0096], which discloses cryptoasset amounts to be transferred, including the first amount).
Regarding claim 11, Micali et al teaches wherein: the first transmission further comprises a transmission of a second amount of a second resource, different from the first resource, from the particular user to the set of one or more recipients (par [0038], lines 23-27, “second amount of a second cryptoasset”); and
the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify, from among the plurality of balances of the unified transmission stored in the memory for the user, a second balance of the unified transmission medium representing an amount of the second resource belonging to the user (par [0036], lines 9-11, “entire balance of each entity owning an asset at a given point”).
Micali et al does not explicitly teach determine whether the second balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the transmission of the second amount of the second resource from the particular user to the set of one or more recipients; and sign the first message with the cryptographic signature indicating that the first transmission is valid when it is determined that the second balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the transmission of the second amount of the second resource from the particular user to the set of one or more recipients.
However, Pen teaches determine whether the second balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the transmission of the second amount of the second resource from the particular user to the set of one or more recipients (par [0111], lines , “enough account balance to cover the transaction”); and
sign the first message with the cryptographic signature indicating that the first transmission is valid when it is determined that the second balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the transmission of the second amount of the second resource from the particular user to the set of one or more recipients (par [0111], lines 1-5, which discloses a signature being provided corresponding to the blockchain asset-related transaction message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Pen within the disclosure of Micali et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Micali et al and Pen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Micali et al further teaches wherein the request for the first transmission comprises:
a first message from the user indicating a current nonce of the user (par [0041], “one time key”), identifiers of the first and second resources, and amounts of the first and second resources to be transmitted by the user (par [0038], which discloses data identifying first and second amounts of crypto-assets to be provided); and
a set of one or more messages from the set of one or more recipients, each of the set of one or more messages indicating a current nonce of a respective recipient (par [0038], “assigns the first amount of the first cryptoasset to the first one-time key”), identifiers of the first and second resources (par [0083], lines 1-6, “each record is uniquely identified by an index I”), and amounts of the first and second resources to be received by the respective recipient (par [0054], lines 1-3, “amount of a cryptoasset”).
Regarding claim 13, Micali et al and Pen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Micali et al further teaches wherein the set of one more recipients comprises multiple recipients (par [0093], line 8, “mappings between users”) and the set of one or more messages comprises multiple messages (par [0111], line 1, “messages sent from the co-chain and the main chain”).
Regarding claim 14, Micali et al and Pen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Micali et al further teaches wherein: the request for the first transmission comprises a first message from the user (par [0035], lines 1-3, “message indicating a desired transfer of the cryptoasset”) and a set of one or more messages from the set of one or more recipients (par [0035], lines 14-16, “message passing architecture”).
Regarding claim 15, Micali et al and Pen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Micali et al further teaches wherein the first message indicates: a current nonce of the user (par [0038], lines 8-10, “associated with a first one-time key”), a first resource identifier of the first resource (par [0083], lines 1-5, “AssetClassID”), the first amount of the first resource to be transmitted (par [0096], lines 6-7, “first amount of a first cryptoasset”) and
each of the set of one or more messages indicates: a current nonce of a respective recipient (par [0034], line 6, “message indicating the identity of each validator”), the first resource identifier of the first resource (par [0035], lines 1-10, which discloses a message indicating the crypto-asset to be transferred), and the first amount of the first resource to be received by the respective recipient (par [0035], lines 1-10, “message indicating a desired transfer”).
Regarding claim 17, Micali et al teaches a method for making secure transmissions between users of a cryptographic transmission system (par [0047], which discloses processing transactions between two users in a blockchain environment), the cryptographic transmission system comprising a network of validation units (par [0012], lines 1-5, “validators”) each storing, for each of a set of users, a plurality of balances of a unified transmission medium (par [0049], lines 1-6, “balances of assets for each co-chain”), the method comprising:
using each of a plurality of validation units of the network of validation units to perform:
obtaining, from a device, a request for a first transmission of a first amount of a first resource, of the multiple resources (par [0024], “cryptoassets”), from a particular user of the set of users to a set of one or more recipients (par [0024], which discloses an entity transmitting a request to another party for a disclosed amount of cryptoassets); and
identifying, from among a plurality of balances of the unified transmission medium stored in memory for the first user, a first balance of the unified transmission medium (par [0024], “current balance”) representing an amount of the first resource belonging to the particular user (par [0024], which discloses each account showing the current balance for each particular cryptoasset).
Micali et al does not explicitly teach determining whether the first balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the first transmission of the first amount of the first resource from the particular user to the set of one or more recipients; when it is determined that the first balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the first transmission: sign a first message with a cryptographic signature indicating that first transmission is valid; and transmit the first message signed with the signature to the device.
However, Pen teaches determining whether the first balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the first transmission of the first amount of the first resource from the particular user to the set of one or more recipients (par [0111], which discloses determining if a user’s blockchain nodes contain a balance large enough to satisfy a transaction another user);
when it is determined that the first balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the first transmission:
signing a first message with a cryptographic signature indicating that first transmission is valid (claim 8, lines 15-25, which discloses determining whether the signed transaction payment message is valid when a client account has a sufficient balance to cover a payment); and
transmitting the first message signed with the signature to the device (claim 8, lines 1-15, “sending the signed cryptocurrency transaction message”) thereby attesting that the first transmission is valid (claim 8, lines 1-15, “confirms to the sender of the message…whether the signed transaction payment message is valid”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Pen within the disclosure of Micali et al in order to provide the predictive result of increasing payment-related assurance in a blockchain transaction environment by ensuring and requiring that requesting clients have sufficient funds before completing blockchain-based asset requests with another using containing the asset (as disclosed in par [0113] of Pen) because this feature would prevent blockchain users containing desired assets from engaging in transaction requests with requesting users that have insufficient funds and cancelling potential transactions upon determining that a requesting blockchain user contains insufficient funds.
Micali et al and Pen do not explicitly teach the plurality of balances of the unified transmission medium corresponding to multiple resources external to the cryptographic transmission system, the plurality of balances of the unified transmission medium representing amounts of the multiple resources belonging to the user.
However, Pranger et al teaches the plurality of balances of the unified transmission medium corresponding to multiple resources external to the cryptographic transmission system (par [0073], lines 8-15, which discloses a StacksCoin balance corresponding to the plurality of requested third party resources), the plurality of balances of the unified transmission medium representing amounts of the multiple resources belonging to the user (fig. 1, ‘116 & par [0073], lines 6-12, which discloses a client’s wallet including a StacksCoin balance corresponding to a list of NFTs owned by a client).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Pranger et al within the disclosure of Micali et al and Pen in order to provide the predictive result of providing safe and more secure exchange of transferring of cryptographic data stored in blockchains by using NFTs and assigning them to a particular NFT resource on a centralized platform (as disclosed in par [0004], lines 20-27 of Pranger et al) because this feature prevents acquiring of a particular resource if the party attempting to access the resource doesn’t have credentials to access the NFT assigned to the requested resource.
Regarding claim 20, Micali et al teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (par [0120], lines 1-3) storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of each of a plurality of validation units in a network of validation units of a cryptographic transmission system (par [0012], lines 1-5, “validators”), causes the at least one processor to perform a method for making secure transmissions between users of a cryptographic transmission system (par [0047], which discloses processing transactions between two users in a blockchain environment), the network of validation each units storing, for each of a set of users, a plurality of balances of a unified transmission medium (par [0049], lines 1-6, “balances of assets for each co-chain”), the method comprising:
obtaining, from a device, a request for a first transmission of a first amount of a first resource, of the multiple resources, from a particular user of the set of users to a set of one or more recipients (par [0024], which discloses an entity transmitting a request to another party for a disclosed amount of cryptoassets); and
identifying, from among a plurality of balances of the unified transmission medium stored in memory for the first user, a first balance of the unified transmission medium representing an amount of the first resource belonging to the particular user (par [0024], which discloses each account showing the current balance for each particular cryptoasset).
Micali et al does not explicitly teach determining whether the first balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the first transmission of the first amount of the first resource from the particular user to the set of one or more recipients; when it is determined that the first balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the first transmission: sign a first message with a cryptographic signature indicating that first transmission is valid; and transmit the first message signed with the signature to the device thereby attesting that the first transmission is valid.
However, Pen teaches determining whether the first balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the first transmission of the first amount of the first resource from the particular user to the set of one or more recipients (par [0111], which discloses determining if a user’s blockchain nodes contain a balance large enough to satisfy a transaction another user);
when it is determined that the first balance of the unified transmission medium is sufficient to complete the first transmission:
signing a first message with a cryptographic signature indicating that first transmission is valid (claim 8, lines 15-25, which discloses determining whether the signed transaction payment message is valid when a client account has a sufficient balance to cover a payment); and
transmit the first message signed with the signature to the device (claim 5, lines 1-15, “sending the signed cryptocurrency transaction message”) thereby attesting that the first transmission is valid (claim 8, lines 1-15, “confirms to the sender of the message…whether the signed transaction payment message is valid”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Pen within the disclosure of Micali et al in order to provide the predictive result of increasing payment-related assurance in a blockchain transaction environment by ensuring and requiring that requesting clients have sufficient funds before completing blockchain-based asset requests with another using containing the asset (as disclosed in par [0113] of Pen) because this feature would prevent blockchain users containing desired assets from engaging in transaction requests with requesting users that have insufficient funds and cancelling potential transactions upon determining that a requesting blockchain user contains insufficient funds.
Micali et al and Pen do not explicitly teach the plurality of balances of the unified transmission medium corresponding to multiple resources external to the cryptographic transmission system, the plurality of balances of the unified transmission medium representing amounts of the multiple resources belonging to the user.
However, Pranger et al teaches the plurality of balances of the unified transmission medium corresponding to multiple resources external to the cryptographic transmission system (par [0073], lines 8-15, which discloses a StacksCoin balance corresponding to the plurality of requested third party resources), the plurality of balances of the unified transmission medium representing amounts of the multiple resources belonging to the user (fig. 1, ‘116 & par [0073], lines 6-12, which discloses a client’s wallet including a StacksCoin balance corresponding to a list of NFTs owned by a client).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Pranger et al within the disclosure of Micali et al and Pen in order to provide the predictive result of providing safe and more secure exchange of transferring of cryptographic data stored in blockchains by using NFTs and assigning them to a particular NFT resource on a centralized platform (as disclosed in par [0004], lines 20-27 of Pranger et al) because this feature prevents acquiring of a particular resource if the party attempting to access the resource doesn’t have credentials to access the NFT assigned to the requested resource.
Regarding claim 23, Micali et al, Pen, and Pranger et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Micali et al further teaches wherein the plurality of validation units can be updated, and the plurality of units are configured to:
update, based on a governance certificate or epoch transition, the plurality of validation units to remove at least one of the plurality of validation units and/or add at least one new validation unit (par [0066], “the set of validators can change”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 Randy A. Scott whose telephone number is (571) 272-3797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, second Fridays 7:30 am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RANDY A SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439 20260608
Prosecution Insights