DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: The Amendment filed on 04/13/2026. This action is made final.
Claims 4-19 are pending in the case. Claim 4 is the only independent claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/13/26 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants argued that “Neither reference addresses the threshold problem the claimed methods solve – enabling the end user to transition, seamlessly and authentically, from a publicly broadcast message to related and enhanced content from the original broadcaster, using extrinsic broadcast parameters to identify the particular airing of the broadcast the user heard, saw, or otherwise experienced” (see Remark Page 6-7).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and directs the applicants to the fact that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., transition, seamlessly and authentically..using extrinsic broadcast parameters) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In this case, all that recited in the claim are “receiving a request … from a user requesting access to additional communications, content, or services related to a specific broadcast communication that is broadcast publicly to the general public”; that is the “the request” is not limited to automatic and seamless request. The examiner is compelled to apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of what this “receiving a request” may be consistent with the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. The examiner’s conclusion is that “while viewing services such as Home Shopping Network, QVC, etc. on television or the Internet, the user can instantly purchase desired items by scanning barcodes associated with anything being sold and displayed on screen” (see Muni ¶ 0008-0009) is equivalent to the claimed “receiving a request from a user requesting access to additional communications, content, or services related to a specific broadcast communication that is broadcast publicly to the general public”. “scanning a barcode” is equivalent to the user making a request and the system receiving the request from the user requesting access to additional communications, content, or services [the service that allows the user to purchase a displayed item].
II.A. Applicants argued that “Muni reference does not teach any method of activating by voice or by marking or clicking on a watch or other device and activating the system to disambiguate and activate and provide additional content related to the media by external intrinsic parameters as delineated in the specification and claims” (see Remark Page 7-8).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and again directs the applicants to the fact that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., activating by voice or by marking or clicking on a watch or other device and activating the system to disambiguate and activate and provide additional content related to the media by external intrinsic parameters) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
All that recited in the claim is “receiving a request, via an electronic device via a communications network, from a user requesting access to additional communications, content, or services related to a specific broadcast communication…” nowhere does it recite “activating by voice or by marking or clicking on a watch or other device.” In this case, The examiner’s interpretation is that “while viewing services such as Home Shopping Network, QVC, etc. on television or the Internet, the user can instantly purchase desired items by scanning barcodes associated with anything being sold and displayed on screen” (see Muni ¶ 0008-0009) is equivalent to the claimed “receiving a request from a user requesting access to additional communications, content, or services related to a specific broadcast communication that is broadcast publicly to the general public”. “scanning a barcode” is equivalent to the user making a selection/request of a displayed item on the broadcast and the system receiving the request from the user requesting access to additional communications, content, or services [the service that allows the user to purchase a displayed item]. The examiner notes the alternative language in the limitation “additional communications, content, or service”; that is the prior art reads on the claimed limitation if it discloses one of the alternative phrases “communications,” “content,” or “service”.
II.B. Applicants argued that “Muni does not match a user request to a specific broadcast communication.” Specifically, Applicants argued that the claimed “matching” step is fundamentally different; it is an extrinsic parameter disambiguation operation, requiring identification of which broadcast, out of many that might have carried the same triggering message, the user is responding to..” (see Remark Page 8-10).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that all that recited in the claims are “matching the user request with the specific broadcast communication based on one or more of time of day, channel, broadcast area, identifier, and recipient device associated with the media.” That is the claim does not recite any specific matching and the examiner interprets the matching to be “associating,” “linking,” or “mapping”. In this case, the user’s operation of scanning barcode associated with a displayed item on the specific broadcast communication encompasses the matching of the user request with the specific broadcast communication because the barcode is associated with an item displayed on the specific broadcast communication and the matching is done based on identifier [i.e., barcode] or recipient device associated with the media [i.e., the device the user uses to scan the barcode and is used to retrieve account information (see Fig. 2 and ¶ 0012-0012, 0030)
II.C. Applicants argued that “Muni’s screen is not limited to a public broadcast” (see Remark Page 10).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Muni discloses the feature that enables users to instantly purchase desired items with their mobile device while viewing services such as the Home Shopping Network, QVC, etc. on television or the Internet (see ¶ 0008). The television broadcast that is displayed on a television reads on a public broadcast because the broadcast can be displayed/viewed by anyone [i.e., public] that watches broadcast on a television and/or PC.
II.D. Applicants argued that “Muni’s output is a transactional receipt, not additional content relating to a broadcast” (see Remark Page 11).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the phrase “additional content” is a broad term, it can be any data or information for presentation. The examiner again notes the alternative language in the limitation “additional communications, content, or service”; that is the prior art reads on the claimed limitation if it discloses one of the alternative phrases “communications,” “content,” or “service”. . In this case, a transactional receipt reads on additional content related to a broadcast because the transactional receipt is content data obtained after a transaction related to an item displayed on the broadcast being processed (See Muni – Figure 1, paragraphs 23 and 31 – purchasing the item from the home shopping network).
II.E. Applicants argued that “Anticipation requires all elements, arranged as claimed” (see Remark Page 11).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Muni reference anticipates the claimed language as rejected in the 102 rejections below. The examiner further notes that Anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N.V. v. U.S Int’s trade Comm’n 808 F.2D 1471, 1479 n. 11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). That is, “[A]n anticipatory reference …. Need not duplicate word for word what is in claims.” Standard Havens Products, Inc. v. Gencor Indus. Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
III.A. Applicants argued that “Pentz does not supply what Muni lacks”. Specifically, Applicants argued that Pentz reference never teaches or suggests: (a) matching a user request.. (b) enabling a user to activate access to authentic content from the original broadcast…, (c) a location identifier registry verifying uniqueness” (see Remark Page 11-12).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and directs the Applicants to the fact that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicants appear to rely solely on Pentz to conclude that the combined teaching does not teach the disputed feature. However, Examiner has cited the combination of Muni and Pentz for these limitations.
III.B. Applicants argued that “the proposed combination lacks rationale underpinning” (see Remark Page 12-13).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner has provided mapping and articulated reasons as to why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the Muni reference and Pentz reference together for each specific limitations as rejected below in the 103 rejection of claims 7-9, 11 -15 and 17-18 .
III.C. Applicants argued that “claim 9 recites verification of the uniqueness and availability of a location or other identifier within an LID registry as part of processing the activation request” and that “Neither the Muni reference nor the Pentz reference teaches a LID registry for broadcast disambiguation (see Remark Page 14).
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner relied on Muni and Pentz for teaching the limitations of claim 9. Specifically, Pentz discloses a mechanism for a user to register a broadcast station as a stimuli source; the stimuli source coordinates are stored correlatively with information representing the broadcast channel which may include, channel name, an unique ID, location, broadcast perception area, and the like (at 660); then the registration of the particular broadcast channel is complete (at 665) (Pentz – See Fig. 6 and ¶ 0183, 0187, 0195; register including broadcast registration, locations include the locations of billboards, broadcast perception areas are also locations). The motivation to combine the two references is provided in the rejection of claim 9 below.
For at least these reasons, the examiner maintains the previous rejections as addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 4-6, 10, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Muni, US PG Pub No 2005/0125301 A1.
As for Claim 4, Muni teaches: A method to enable end users to obtain instant access to unique, personalized real-time information, communications, content, and services, the method comprising:
receiving a request, via an electronic device via a communications network, from a user requesting access to additional communications, content, or services related to a specific broadcast communication that is broadcast publicly to the general public and is provided in and integrated with one of print, radio, television, billboard, broadcast, and other media and communications media presented to the user (See Muni – Abstract, paragraphs 8-9, 23, 28 – while watching home shopping on television, the user can use a barcode to request additional communications, content, or services of making a purchase of the item);
matching the user request with the specific broadcast communication based on one or more of time of day, channel, broadcast area, identifier, and recipient device associated with the media (See Muni – paragraph 12-13, 30, Figure 1 – decoding the bar code, the bar code links it to the item shown on screen, plus matching the user to their account info); and
providing the user with the additional communications, content, or services relating to the specific broadcast communication for presentation on the electronic device (See Muni – Figure 1, paragraphs 23 and 31 – purchasing the item from the home shopping network).
For Claim 5, Muni also teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the additional communications, content, or services are based at least in part on one of 1) an actual or projected location of the user, 2) a broadcast area of the media, 3) the specific broadcast communication, 4) the identifier, and 5) the location of the electronic device (See Muni – paragraphs 10-11, 28, 30 bar code is an identifier, paragraph 27 - address).
For Claim 6, Muni also teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the additional communications, content, or services are based at least in part on one of 1) the identity of the user, 2) the user's history, 3) the location proximity of the user to an actual or projected location, 4) the date and time of the request, 5) the connectivity of the user to a communications channel or communication providing the specific broadcast communication, 6) date and time of the specific broadcast communication, 7) connectivity of the user to a third party identified in the specific broadcast communications, and 8) the location of the electronic device (See Muni – identity of the user – paragraphs 12 and 27).
For Claim 10, Muni also teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the specific broadcast communication includes a non-unique location or other identifier associated with the media (See Muni – paragraphs 9-11, 28 – bar code identifies the product on screen for purchase).
For Claim 16, Muni also teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the specific broadcast communication comprises radio or television broadcast (See Muni – paragraph 23 – Home Shopping Network viewed on a television).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7-9, 11 -15 and 17-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Muni, US PG Pub No 2005/0125301 A1 in view of Pentz, US PG Pub No 2011/0218864 A1.
As for Claim 7, Muni teaches the method of parent claim 4. Muni does not detail context of request. However, Pentz teaches wherein the additional communications, content, or services are based at least in part on context of the request (See Pentz – paragraphs 12, 14-17 – collecting stimuli sources as context from many media including broadcasts).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the instant purchasing of items from a broadcast media system of Muni with enhanced search system of Pentz, since Pentz states that it is trying to address the limitations of systems like Muni by gathering additional context to search for additional content (See Pentz paragraphs 10 and 186). Both Muni and Pentz are the same field of endeavor of enabling adding content and functionality to other forms of media.
As for Claim 8, Muni teaches the method of parent claim 4. Muni does not teach touch, gesture, eye or other motion, thought or voice command. However, Pentz teaches wherein the user accesses the additional communications, content, or services by one or more of touch, gesture, eye or other motion, thought or voice command using the electronic device (See Pentz – paragraphs 28, 317 – includes touch and voice).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the instant purchasing of items from a broadcast media system of Muni with enhanced search system of Pentz to allow more triggers of the search, since Pentz states that it is trying to address the limitations of systems like Muni by gathering additional context to search for additional content (See Pentz paragraphs 10 and 186). Both Muni and Pentz are the same field of endeavor of enabling adding content and functionality to other forms of media.
As for Claim 9, Muni teaches the method of parent claim 4. Muni does not teach location registration. However, Pentz teaches wherein the specific broadcast communication includes a unique location or other identifier, the method further comprising verifying that the location or other identifier is unique and available within a LID registry processing the request (Pentz – 183-187, 195 – register including broadcast registration, locations include the locations of billboards, broadcast perception areas are also locations).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the instant purchasing of items from a broadcast media system of Muni with enhanced search system of Pentz, since Pentz states that it is trying to address the limitations of systems like Muni by gathering additional context to search for additional content (See Pentz paragraphs 10 and 186). Muni only broadly describes its databases, while Pentz adds details on how the media is tracked and registered. Both Muni and Pentz are the same field of endeavor of enabling adding content and functionality to other forms of media.
As for Claim 11, Muni teaches the method of parent claim 4. Muni teaches a variety of devices (See Muni paragraph 24). Muni does not teach voice input. However, Pentz teaches wherein the request from the user is received by one of voice or other input and wherein the electronic device comprises a wearable device (See Pentz – paragraphs 28, 317 – includes touch and voice; paragraph 22, 30, 126 – devices and devices by functionality that are like wearable devices with clock and GPS, paragraph 249).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the instant purchasing of items from a broadcast media system of Muni with enhanced search system of Pentz, since Pentz states that it is trying to address the limitations of systems like Muni by gathering additional context to search for additional content (See Pentz paragraphs 10 and 186). Pentz adds other normal means of input available in the devices mentioned in both Muni and Pentz. Both Muni and Pentz are the same field of endeavor of enabling adding content and functionality to other forms of media.
As for Claim 12, Muni teaches the method of parent claim 4. Muni does not teach barcode image processing and SMS (See Muni paragraphs 9-13) but does not provide details about it. However, Pentz teaches wherein the request further comprises real-time, micro-location information provided by at least one of voice, text, scanning, phone, interactive televisions, glasses or other wearable devices, visual displays, voice and motion interactive interfaces, application programmer interfaces, SMS, or information imbedded in the file structure or protocol of an image (See Pentz – paragraphs 28, 186, 317 – includes touch and voice; paragraph 22 – devices and 30, 126 – GPS from user devices user location and images).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the instant purchasing of items from a broadcast media system of Muni with enhanced search system of Pentz, since Pentz states that it is trying to address the limitations of systems like Muni by gathering additional context to search for additional content (See Pentz paragraphs 10 and 186). Pentz adds other normal means of input available in the devices mentioned in both Muni and Pentz. Both Muni and Pentz are the same field of endeavor of enabling adding content and functionality to other forms of media.
As for Claim 13, Muni teaches the method of parent claim 4. Muni also teaches addresses for shipping, which can include the details of a floor or room (See Muni paragraph 12). Muni does not expressly teach location of the device at the time of the request. However, Pentz teaches wherein the request further comprises a location comprising at least one of a floor, room, or structural component of a specific building, house, project, or structure associated with the electronic device at the time of the request (See Pentz – paragraph 30-31 – user location and stimuli location, GPS, Figure 23 – LSSS like store window display location).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the instant purchasing of items from a broadcast media system of Muni with enhanced search system of Pentz, since Pentz states that it is trying to address the limitations of systems like Muni by gathering additional context to search for additional content (See Pentz paragraphs 10 and 186) and improved relevance based on location (See Pentz paragraphs 19 and 150). Both Muni and Pentz are the same field of endeavor of enabling adding content and functionality to other forms of media.
As for Claim 14, Muni teaches the method of parent claim 4. Muni also teaches account information (See Muni- paragraph 12). Muni does not expressly teach location of the device at the time of the request. However, Pentz teaches wherein the method is combined with tracking, reporting, and accounting systems that account for one of either payment charges assessed by content providers to users for access to the additional communications, content, or services, or fees paid by providers of communications channels and broadcast media based on the usage of location or other identifiers and access to the additional communications, content, or services. (See Pentz paragraphs 126, 174, 258, 260-262, 304, 340 – user location and profiles, fees).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the instant purchasing of items from a broadcast media system of Muni with enhanced search system of Pentz, since Pentz states that it is trying to address the limitations of systems like Muni by gathering additional context to search for additional content (See Pentz paragraphs 10 and 186) and improved relevance based on location (See Pentz paragraphs 19 and 150). Both Muni and Pentz are the same field of endeavor of enabling adding content and functionality to other forms of media.
As for Claim 15, Muni teaches the method of parent claim 4. Muni also teaches address information (See Muni- paragraphs 8, 12, 14, 30). Muni does not expressly teach location of the device at the time of the request. However, Pentz teaches further comprising identifying a location of the user or broadcast area of the media by reference to one of a public or private two dimensional xy coordinate system, a three-dimensional xyz coordinate system, hierarchical coordinates or alpha-numeric identifiers derived directly from or directly related to the general location or broadcast area (See Pentz – paragraph 19, 24, 30-31, 49, 191– user location and stimuli location, perception area, GPS, Figure 18A, 23).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the instant purchasing of items from a broadcast media system of Muni with enhanced search system of Pentz, since Pentz states that it is trying to address the limitations of systems like Muni by gathering additional context to search for additional content (See Pentz paragraphs 10 and 186) and improved relevance based on location (See Pentz paragraphs 19 and 150). Both Muni and Pentz are the same field of endeavor of enabling adding content and functionality to other forms of media.
As for Claim 17, Muni teaches the method of parent claim 4. Muni also teaches purchasing additional content or services (See Muni- paragraphs 8-13). Muni does not teach curated list of potential broadcast channels. However, Pentz teaches wherein the user selects the additional communications, content, or services from a curated list of potential broadcast channels presented to the user (See Pentz - menu – paragraph 35, 149, 151, 176).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the instant purchasing of items from a broadcast media system of Muni with enhanced search system of Pentz, since Pentz states that it is trying to address the limitations of systems like Muni by gathering additional context to search for additional content (See Pentz paragraphs 10 and 186). Both Muni and Pentz are the same field of endeavor of enabling adding content and functionality to other forms of media.
As for Claim 18, Muni teaches the method of parent claim 4. Muni also teaches purchasing additional content or services from the provider (See Muni- paragraphs 8-13). However, Pentz more clearly teaches wherein the additional communications, content, or services related to the specific broadcast communication are contained in one or more subsequent communications directly to the user and directly or indirectly from and controlled by the specific provider of the first broadcast communication (See Pentz – paragraph 130 – results supplied to the user device or alternate location designated by the user).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the instant purchasing of items from a broadcast media system of Muni with enhanced search system of Pentz, since Pentz states that it is trying to address the limitations of systems like Muni by gathering additional context to search for additional content (See Pentz paragraphs 10 and 186). Both Muni and Pentz are the same field of endeavor of enabling adding content and functionality to other forms of media.
Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Muni, US PG Pub No 2005/0125301 A1 in view of Christensen et al., US PG Pub No 20140257991 A1.
As for Claim 19, Muni teaches the method of parent claim 4. Muni does not teach wherein the matching is performed using contextual information extrinsic to any content carried within the specific broadcast communication itself. However, Christensen teaches wherein the matching is performed using contextual information extrinsic to any content carried within the specific broadcast communication itself (See Christensen – paragraphs 0009, 0109, 0110, 0127 – extrinsic context information is employed to identify matching offers/content for a user, and to prioritize and optionally rank a subset of the matching offers).
It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the instant purchasing of items from a broadcast media system of Muni with enhanced search system of Christensen, since Christensen states that using context information to provide content/service that likely gets user’s attention; thus, enhance user experience with the content (See Christensen paragraphs 0005-0006). Both Muni and Christensen are the same field of endeavor of enabling adding content and functionality to other forms of media.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYETLIEN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1033. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM.
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, Irete (Fred) Ehichioya can be reached on 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights