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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitations that use the word “means” are specifically in claims 2, 4-14, and 22 and are the following:
Referring to claim 2,
Means for analyzing a workload, means for analyzing a product, means for analyzing an alert and means for authorizing an alert.
Referring to claims 4-5,
Means for analyzing the workload.
Referring to claim 6,
Means for analyzing the workload.
Referring to claim 7,
Means for analyzing the product.
Referring to claims 8 and 10,
Means for analyzing an alert.
Referring to claim 9,
Means for authorizing the alert.
Referring to claim 11,
Means for analyzing the alert and means for authorizing the alert.
Referring to claims 12 and 13,
Means for generating a product reference.
Referring to claim 22,
Means for analyzing a product.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function (See paragraphs 31, 40, and 53), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2, 4-8, 11-17, 20, and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 2, 4-8, 11-14, and 22-23 recite a device (machine), Claims 15-17, 20 and 24 recite a non transitory machine-readable medium (manufacture), and Claims 25-27 recite an apparatus (machine) and therefore fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?):
Referring to claims 2, 4-8, 11-17, 20, and 22-27, the claims recites concepts covering managing the communication of alerts to users, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. Further the claims recite concepts for determining a probability used for comparing with a threshold to determine whether to communicate an alert to a user, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts under the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas.
The abstract idea portion of the claims is as follows:
(Claim 2)
[An electronic device, the electronic device to control audit devices comprising: means for analyzing a workload to]
(Claim 15)
[At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed, cause processor circuitry to at least:]
obtain alert data [from a first audit device], the alert data associated with a first workload;
[means for analyzing a product to] determine that the product represented in the alert data is included in a second workload associated with a second audit device;
and obtain characteristics associated with the first audit device;
[means for analyzing an alert to:] execute a regression algorithm based on the characteristics to generate a probability value, the probability value representing a probability of transmitting the alert data for a cluster corresponding to a first one of the characteristics;
and [means for authorizing the alert to]:
responsive to the probability value satisfying a threshold and the product being absent from the second audit device, cause transmission of the alert data [from the first audit device to the second audit device] to cause an adjustment to display of content corresponding to the second workload [on a display screen of the second audit device], the second audit device associated with the first one of the characteristics;
and responsive to on the probability value not satisfying the threshold, reduce network resource consumption by suppressing transmission of the alert data [from the first audit device to the second audit device.]
(Claim 25)
[An apparatus comprising: interface circuitry to:]
obtain alert data [from a first audit device], the alert data associated with a first workload to identify a product;
and obtain characteristics associated with the first audit device;
[machine-readable instructions;]
[and at least one processor circuit to execute the machine-readable instructions to:]
determine a cluster index for each of the characteristics associated with the first audit device;
and execute a logistic regression algorithm to identify one or more coefficients associated with respective ones of the cluster indices;
determine a probability value using the one or more coefficients identified for the cluster index corresponding to a first one of the characteristics, the probability value representing a probability of transmitting the alert data for the cluster index corresponding to the first one of the characteristics;
responsive to the probability value satisfying a threshold and the product being absent from a second audit device, cause transmission of the alert data [from the first audit device to the second audit device] to cause an adjustment to display of content corresponding to a second workload [on a display screen of the second audit device], the second audit device associated with the first one of the characteristics;
and responsive to the probability value not satisfying the threshold, reduce network resource consumption by suppressing transmission of the alert data [from the first audit device to the second audit device].
Where the portions not bracketed recite the abstract idea
Here the claims recite concepts covering to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in particular managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application concepts covering a manner for managing the communication of alerts to users. (See paragraphs 3 and 12-15). Additionally, the claims recite concepts covering Mental Processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application concepts reciting concepts for determining a probability used for comparing with a threshold to determine whether to communicate an alert to a user. (See paragraph 16).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts capable of being performed in managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people it falls under the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts capable of being performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) it falls under the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. See Id.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?):
The examiner views the following as the additional elements:
An electronic device. (See paragraphs 31 and 53)
A means for analyzing a workload. (See paragraphs 31, 40, and 53)
A first/second audit device. (See paragraph 17)
A means for analyzing a product. (See paragraphs 31, 40, and 53)
A means for authorizing the alert. (See paragraphs 31, 40, and 53)
At least one non-transitory computer readable medium. (See paragraph 42)
Machine readable instructions. (See paragraph 41)
Processor circuit. (See paragraphs 41 and 45)
Means for analyzing an alert. (See paragraphs 31, 40, and 53)
An apparatus. (See paragraphs 31 and 53)
Interface circuitry. (See paragraph 47)
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they act to merely “apply” the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f))
The combination of these additional elements and/or results oriented steps are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See Id.) Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?):
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method and system that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 4 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the generic means for authorizing a workload (See paragraphs 31, 40, and 53), auditor profile database (See paragraph 33) and the first audit device (See paragraph 17) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 4 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic means for analyzing the workload (See paragraphs 31, 40, and 53) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 5 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic means for analyzing the workload (See paragraphs 31, 40, and 53) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 6 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic means for analyzing the product (See paragraphs 31, 40, and 53), and text recognition algorithm (See paragraph 35) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 7 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic means for analyzing an alert (See paragraphs 31, 40, and 53), and an alert database (See paragraph 36) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 8 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 11 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic means for analyzing the alert (See paragraphs 31, 40, and 53), means for authorizing the alert ((See paragraphs 31 and 53), and first/third audit device (See paragraph 17) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 11 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 12 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic image database (See paragraph 17) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 12 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 13 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic means for generating a product reference (See paragraphs 31, 40, and 53) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 13 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 14 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic electronic device and central server (See paragraphs 31, 40, and 53) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 14 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 16 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic machine-readable instructions (See paragraph 41), processing circuit (See paragraphs 41 and 45) and first audit device (See paragraph 17) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 16 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 17 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic machine-readable instructions (See paragraph 41), processing circuit (See paragraphs 41 and 45), alert database (See paragraph 36), and second audit device (See paragraph 17) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 17 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 20 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic machine-readable instructions (See paragraph 41), processor circuitry (See paragraphs 41 and 45), and image database (See paragraph 19) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 20 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 22 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic means for analyzing a product (See paragraphs 31, 40, and 53), image database (See paragraph 19), a message database (See paragraph 35), and first/second audit device (See paragraph 17) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 22 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 23 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic means for analyzing a product (See paragraphs 31, 40, and 53) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 23 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 24 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic machine-readable instructions (See paragraph 41) and at least one processor circuit (See paragraphs 41 and 45) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 24 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 26 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic processor circuit (See paragraphs 41 and 45) and alert database (See paragraph 36) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 26 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 27 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of generic processor circuit (See paragraphs 41 and 45) and first/third audit device (See paragraph 17) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 27 is considered to be patent ineligible.
In conclusion the claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on pages 7-11 of the Remarks, pertaining to the 101 rejection, the Examiner finds unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that similar to Desjardins, where the Director explained that the court in Enfish articulated that the claims “are not directed simply directed to any form of storing tabular data, instead are directed to any form of storing tabular data, but instead are specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer database”, the instant claims provide for control of electronic devices in a specific manner as reflected in claim 25. Applicant contends this claimed subject matter is grounded in the Specification that discloses analyzing messages and alert data from auditors to determine if the messages and alert data are to be suppressed to reduce an amount of network, computational and/or personnel resources required for auditing activities, where this analysis can utilize logistic regression and compare the acquired probability with a threshold. (See paragraphs 15-16).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because in Desjardins the recited claims provided for the subject matter that resulted in the identified technical improvement to training machine learning models. Whereas here the Examiner maintains the limitations Applicant contends are additional elements are steps of the recited abstract idea (obtaining alert data associated with a first work load associated with a workload, obtaining characteristics associated with a first audit device, determine a cluster index for each characteristic, executing a logistic regression algorithm to identify one or more coefficients associated with the cluster indices, determining a probability value for transmitting an alert for the cluster index, based on probability value satisfying a threshold cause transmitting the alert data to cause an adjustment to display of content for a second auditor and when the probability value does not satisfy the threshold the alert data is suppressed and not transmitted). The Examiner views the additional elements utilized to perform these steps are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components. The Examiner cites MPEP 2106.05 that states “[a]n inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further MPEP 2106.05 (a) states “[i]t is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” The Examiner views that the proffered benefits of Applicant are a result of the performance of the abstract idea (i.e. managing the communication of alerts to users based on analysis of the collected information) rather than the additional elements.
Applicant contends the specification explains the technical burden of repetitive alerts from audit devices for which the claimed subject matter provides a technical solution, namely that “messages and alerts are often sent repetitively (e.g., the same message or alert is sent by multiple auditors) which causes undue hardship on a processor of the auditing devices and/or a central server. Applicant argues the claims are not directed to a generic method of organizing human activity such as simply manage communication of an alert to a user but rather responsive to a probability value satisfying a threshold claim 25 causes transmission of alert data from a first audit device to a second audit device to cause an adjustment to display of content corresponding to a second workload on a display screen of the second audit device, where the probability value represents a probability of transmitting the alert data for a cluster index corresponding to a first one of characteristics obtained from a first audit where the second audit device is associated with the first one of the characteristics.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The concept of addressing repetitive alerts as reflected in the claims by Applicant are steps of the identified abstract idea, determining whether or not to send alert data based on received information (the probability value in comparison to the threshold, where the probability value is based on the analysis of the obtained information) to the second audit device and if so there is an adjustment of the displayed content in response to the alert data, which the Examiner does not consider as additional elements as presently claimed. Further, the additional elements unlike in Diehr are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components. The Examiner cites MPEP 2106.05 that states “[a]n inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further MPEP 2106.05 (a) states “[i]t is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” The Examiner views that the proffered benefits of Applicant are a result of the performance of the abstract idea (i.e. managing the communication of alerts to users based on the analysis of obtained information) rather than the additional elements. The Examiner maintains the additional elements alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the Examiner has maintained the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Horikawa et al. (US 20160283304) – directed to detecting predictors for the occurrence of faults in a customer monitoring target system and which provides monitoring services for notifying a customer of the detected predictors.
Shaffer et al. (US 20150215463) – directed to an agent rating prediction and routing mechanism.
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 MICHAEL J MONAGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5523. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833. 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.
/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights