DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
• The following is an office action in response to the communications filed 07/25/2025.
• Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 have been amended.
• Claims 4, 11, and 18 have been canceled.
• Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-3, 5-7, and 21 are directed to a process, claims 8-10, 12-14, and 22 are directed to a manufacture, and claims 15-17, 19-20, and 23 are directed to a machine. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-23 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
storing, in a taxonomy implemented using a graph data structure, information about products to enable efficient execution of search queries related to products, wherein the graph data structure is configured for dynamic updates and comprises a plurality of nodes and edges, wherein each node represents a ranked category or product in a hierarchical taxonomy and each edge represents a hierarchical relationship, wherein each product is labeled with a category of the plurality of ranked categories based on product attributes;
accessing the taxonomy and an inventory to identify a product in the inventory that is not included in the graph data structure, wherein the product is an unlabeled product that is not labeled with any category in the hierarchical taxonomy;
adding the unlabeled product to a category of a labeled product based on a likelihood that a user would select the labeled product as a replacement for the unlabeled product, wherein adding the unlabeled product to the category of the labeled product comprises:
inputting the unlabeled product to a replacement model, wherein the replacement model outputs, for each of one or more labeled products from the hierarchical taxonomy, the likelihood that the user would select the labeled product as the replacement for an input product that is not included in the hierarchical taxonomy, wherein the replacement model is generated based on historical data describing products selected by customers as replacements for an unavailable product, and the replacement model is generated by:
accessing a training dataset including a plurality of training examples, each training example including a label indicating whether a user replaces a target product with a labeled product associated with the training example,
receiving feedback from one or more users on a replacement made for the target product with the labeled product,
updating the label of the labeled product based on the received feedback, and
updating the replacement model using the training examples associated with the updated labels;
selecting the labeled product from the one or more labeled products based on the likelihoods; and
adding the unlabeled product to the category of the hierarchical taxonomy based on the selected labeled product, comprising:
adding, in the graph, the unlabeled product under a node representing the category associated with the labeled product, and
storing an updated graph comprising adding a label to the unlabeled product;
in response to receiving a search query related to products in the category of the hierarchical taxonomy,
identifying a node in the updated graph that represents the category;
identifying nodes in the updated graph that represent products in the category;
retrieving, from the updated graph, information about the products in the category; and
displaying retrieved information about at least one of the products in the category.
The above limitations recite the concept of classifying products in a taxonomy based on substitutes and providing product information. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Specifically, analyzing labeled products in a hierarchical taxonomy to determine a likelihood that a labeled product may be a replacement for an input product and adding an unlabeled product to the taxonomy based on this analysis represents mental processes such as observations and evaluations. The examiner notes a human could make a graph data structure with pen and paper. The claims are similar to the Mental Process of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations as claim 1, and as such, independent claims 8 and 15 fall within the same identified grouping of abstract ideas as claim 1. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite additional elements, such as a computer, a taxonomy database, an inventory database, a computer system, an online concierge system, the model being trained, a machine learning model, the machine learning model being trained, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a processor, a computer system, and a computer processor. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1, 8, and 15 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1, 8, and 15 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., classifying products in a taxonomy based on substitutes) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1, 8, and 15 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1, 8, and 15 specifying that the abstract idea of classifying products in a taxonomy based on substitutes is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 8, and 15 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, these claims recites additional elements, such as a computer, a taxonomy database, an inventory database, a computer system, an online concierge system, the model being trained, a machine learning model, the machine learning model being trained, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a processor, a computer system, and a computer processor. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, analyzing information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1, 8, and 15 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1, 8, and 15 specifying that the abstract idea of classifying products in a taxonomy based on substitutes is executed in a computer merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1, 8, and 15 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 8, and 15 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-23, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Dependent claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17, and 21-23 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 further identify additional elements such as a query system, a graph database, and a mobile device. Similar to discussion above the with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-23 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-23 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-23, analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely indicate a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-23 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes previously cited Starostenko et al. (US 20220129920 A1), hereinafter Starostenko, in view of previously cited Xu et al. (US 20200380578 A1), hereinafter Xu, in view of previously cited Laserson et al. (US 20220092670 A1), hereinafter Laserson, previously cited Motwani et al. (US 20200273083 A1), hereinafter Motwani, and previously cited NPL Reference U, initially cited in the Office action dated 05/10/2023.
Although individually the references teach concepts such as adding an unlabeled product to a category, and displaying retrieved products, none of the references teach nor render obvious adding the unlabeled product in the specific way, based on a selected labeled product, and based on a likelihood that a user would select the product as a replacement, where a replacement model is trained in a specific way, and identifying a node in order to display retrieved information.
Previously cited Starstenko discloses a taxonomy method (Starstenko: [0086]). Starstenko further discloses a taxonomy that is a tree-like structure where each branch of the tree corresponds to a category, and typically each branch under a parent branch (i.e. a child branch) also adheres to the category of the parent branch. For example, two parent branches may be ‘Apparel’ and ‘Electronics’ and some child branches under ‘Apparel’ may be ‘Tops’, ‘Bottoms’ and ‘Accessories’, which each describe a type of apparel (Starstenko: [0067]). Starstenko additionally discloses that each item is assigned to a leaf of the taxonomy, representing the most likely (deepest) category that the item belongs to. As new items are added to the system, this assignment can be done automatically by determining the new item's similarity to each set of items belonging to taxonomy nodes, and assigning it to the one with the highest similarity. Additionally, the level of belonging of the item to each of the ancestor categories in a node's lineage (i.e. parent, grandparent, great-grandparent, etc) can also be used to determine a final similarity “score” for that node with that item (Starstenko [0122]). Yet Starstenko does not explicitly disclose all of the limitations relating to the replacement model and the likelihoods.
Previously cited Xu teaches a method of shopping (Xu: [0002]). Xu involves determining the one or more substituted items, where the item substitution computing device may employ one or more machine learning algorithms, such as a neural network algorithm. In some examples, the machine learning algorithms are trained with previously accumulated historical item substitution data, such as item substitution data identifying originally ordered items that are out of stock, as well as substitute items for the out of stock item that were either accepted, or rejected, by the customer (Xu: [0028]). Xu further teaches the machine learning models use confidence scores (Xu: [0078]). However, Xu does not teach all of the limitations regarding the taxonomy and updating.
Previously cited Laserson teaches an item suggestion method (Laserson: [0012]). Laserson further teaches feedback is received as an indication for whether the specific suggested replacement item was or was not purchased. The MLAs are continually retrained, and the item code vectors along with the item codes updated at configured intervals using updated product catalogues, new transaction data, and the feedback (Laserson: [0035-0036]). Laserson further teaches the trained result to which the MLAs configure to achieve based on the provided input parameters is a selection of a specific substitute/replacement code where the feedback indicates the given customer actually purchased for the given transaction (Laserson: [0034]). However, Laserson does not teach the limitations regarding the taxonomy and the likelihoods.
Previously cited Motwani et al. (US 20200273083 A1) teaches a method of determining a substitute for an item (Motwani: [abstract]). The probability that a product is an acceptable substitute is calculated (Motwani: [0079]). An item taxonomy database may be accessed (Motwani: [0049]). However, Motwani does not teach the limitations regarding the specific replacement model and taxonomy.
Previously cited NPL reference U, initially cited in the Office action dated 05/10/2023, teaches a method of automatically associating product data into graphs. The data may be structured or unstructured. Products are input into a known product graph. Machine learning is used to determine product information. However, U does not explicitly teach the limitations regarding the specific replacement model and taxonomy.
While these references arguably teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, these references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15, taken as a whole, are indicated to be allowable over the cited prior art. The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims allowable over the prior art/additional art. Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-23 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, and therefore the dependent claims are also indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
The examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of the Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by the examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/25/2025, have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues the claims do not recite a judicial exception (Remarks page 14). The examiner disagrees. Initially, the examiner notes that a computer, a computer system, an online concierge system, an inventory database, the model being trained, a machine learning model, the machine learning model being trained, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a processor, a computer system, and a computer processor have been analyzed as additional elements and accordingly are not analyzed as part of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. The claims recite analyzing labeled products in a hierarchical taxonomy to determine a likelihood that a labeled product may be a replacement for an input product and adding an unlabeled product to the taxonomy based on this analysis. This represents mental processes such as observations and evaluations. Accordingly, the claims are directed to a mental process.
Applicant argues the claims are patent eligible because “the claimed invention solves a concrete technical problem—manual taxonomy construction and maintenance---through a computationally implemented solution that improves the functioning of the underlying computer system” Remarks page 17. The examiner disagrees. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” The MPEP further states that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner…the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” (see MPEP 2106.04). That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
While the examiner acknowledges that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field may constitute integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement. Rather, the claims provide an improvement to the abstract idea of classifying products in a taxonomy based on substitutes and providing product information. This is illustrated in specification paragraph [0001-0002] which discusses that the invention is related to labeling products. With respect to Applicant’s argument regarding a dynamic graph, the examiner notes that the graph is recited at a high level without technical detail and is merely encompassed by the abstract idea.
Although the claims include computer technology such a computer, a taxonomy database, an inventory database, a computer system, an online concierge system, the model being trained, a machine learning model, the machine learning model being trained, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a processor, a computer system, and a computer processor, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of predicting business outcomes in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to technological improvements but are directed to improving the business method of classifying products in a taxonomy based on substitutes and providing product information. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in a more efficient classification, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the server and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing data sets related to products while still employing the same server and/or computer components used in conventional systems to improve classifying products in a taxonomy based on substitutes and providing product information, e.g. a business method, and therefore is merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing components. With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding Enfish (remarks page 17), the examiner disagrees. Unlike in Enfish, wherein the specific data structure achieved increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements for a wide range of data processing applications (i.e. improvement to the supporting computing structure for said data processing applications), the instant invention provides a specific process for classifying products and providing product information without reciting any improvement to the way in which applied database(s) store or organize information. As such, the claims are not integrated into practical application.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because the claims “are analogous to USPTO Example 47, Claim 3” (Remarks pages 17-18). The examiner disagrees. The subject matter eligibility examples are hypothetical and only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis under the MPEP. These examples are to be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth in each example, as other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes. Example 47 provided a technical improvement to the technical problem of difficulty in anomaly detection in network systems. Example 47 claim 3 provided solutions by detecting network intrusions and taking remedial actions, including automatically dropping suspicious packets and blocking traffic from suspicious source addresses without the need for alerting a network administrator. Unlike conventional network remediation solutions, the invention of Example 47, claim 3 was able to identify malicious network packets and take remediation actions, including dropping suspicious packets and blocking traffic from suspicious source addresses in real time. The present claims provide no analogous technical solution. The claimed invention provides no similar technical solution to a technical problem in network security. Rather, the instant invention provides an improvement to the abstract idea of classifying products and providing product information. Furthermore, unlike Example 47, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. While the Examiner agrees that the specification addresses shortcomings in the field of product classification, the discussions present in the specification do not go as far as to address shortcomings in a technical field. Rather, the specification focuses on problems related to the business aspects of product classification rather than problems related to the technical field. Accordingly, there is no evidence, short of attorney argument, that a technological improvement is provided.
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 ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689