Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 11/3/25.
Claims 1-2 are now pending and have been addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 at line 6 (step c) recites "markings". This should be corrected to include a comma after "markings". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 at line 4 (Step B) recites "the result". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to include "a result."
Claim 1 at line 11 recites "said identification markings". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to include "said unique identification markings."
Claim 1 at line 18 recites "said online database". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to include "said online accessible database."
Claim 2 at line 2 recites "said online database". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to include "said online accessible database."
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 1-2 are directed to a method. Thus, this claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claim falls within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 1 Identifying a Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, prong 1, Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recite methods that verifying the safety of a baby product, said method comprising the steps of: A. inspecting said baby product, B. generating safety compliance documents as the result of said baby product inspection, said safety compliance documents including safety inspection results, C. marking said baby product with unique identification markings D. recording said unique identification markings on said safety compliance documents, E. forwarding said baby product and said safety compliance documents to a safety verification and recording company, F. verifying said baby product passed inspection, G. verifying said identification markings on said baby product match said identification markings on said safety compliance documents, H. issuing a certificate of compliance, I. uploading said certificate of compliance and said safety inspection results, J. marking said baby product with a scan code, and K. scanning said scan code to view said certificate of compliance and said safety inspection results
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (including commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as online accessible database, scanner, cell phone), the claims are directed to verifying the safety of a baby product. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, analyzing it, and providing certificate of compliance. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – accessible database, scanner, cell phone. The database, scanner, cell phone are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. a) The limitations of a database, scanner, cell phone merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” to; provide verification of safety of a baby product. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims are not significantly more because they are part of the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to the database, scanner, cell phone these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Fig 1 # 16 cell phone, 20 database. These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above, receiving, analyzing, transmitting and displaying data. Furthermore, the use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); Also see MPEP 2106.05(d). Lastly, the additional elements provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the function of any computer itself, applying the exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment such as computing. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 2, add additional limitations, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as representative claim 1.
Claim 2 recites a consumer users a cell phone with a scan code reader to access database. This limitations merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The dependent claim do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computing system is merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, the claims do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (US 8,712,870 B2) in view of Otero (US 2016/0027084).
Regarding Claim 1, Baker discloses the method for verifying the safety of a product (Abstract a certificate verifying at least one of efficacy or safety and methods of providing such certificates., Col 1 lines 62-67 The certificate can have a unique identification code that allows a consumer to obtain data on efficacy and safety of the product by inputting the identification code manually or by scanning it into a computing device.), said method comprising the steps of:
Baker discloses A. inspecting said product (Col 2 lines 1-12 confirming the efficacy and safety of a product comprising analyzing existing data with or without generating new data to certify at least one of efficacy and safety, wherein safety is based on a determination of adverse physical or psychological effect of the product),
Baker discloses B. generating safety compliance documents as the result of said product inspection, said safety compliance documents including safety inspection results (Col 2 lines 12-15 if the safety or efficacy is: i. confirmed, the third party or the retail chain store applying a certificate to the product confirming the efficacy, safety, or both; ii. not confirmed, the third party or the retail chain store not applying the certificate.),
Baker discloses C. marking said product with unique identification markings (Col 2 lines 12-15 if the safety or efficacy is: i. confirmed, the third party or the retail chain store applying a certificate to the product (marking) confirming the efficacy, safety, or both, Fig 8 shows making on certified product and Col 3 lines 6-9 FIG. 8 is an illustration of a certificate confirming efficacy and/or safety of a product. The certificate has the trademark (StrongScience) of the certifying company (third party), Col 5 lines 55-65 The certificate is preferably put on the product in such way as to be visible to a consumer. The certificate can also have a unique identification code. Col 2 lines 57-60 FIG. 4 is an illustration of containers holding bulk raw ingredients to be sold to manufacturers or other suppliers having a certificate confirming at least one of efficacy or safety)
Baker discloses D. recording said unique identification markings on said safety compliance documents (Col 2 lines 18-25 a database comprising data on efficacy or safety of one or more products containing at least one ingredient for animal use, wherein the database is maintained by a third party not having a financial interest other than for certifying the product or from a retail chain store that may have a financial interest Col 5 lines 55-67 The certificate can also have a unique identification code (FIGS. 2 and 4). For example it can have unique UPC number or a QR, allowing a user to input the number or scan the certificate to electronically view (recording) efficacy and/or safety of the product.) ,
Baker discloses E. forwarding said product and said safety compliance documents to a safety verification and recording company (Col 6 lines 4-8 The certificate can come with assurances from the third party (verification) to the manufacturer. Such assurances can include for example assurance to defend the efficacy and safety of the product in court or before administrative agencies, and to indemnify part or all of the manufacturer's costs. Col 6 lines 9-16 The certificate certifies that a product is safe and/or has the efficacy based on data after a product is launched. Col 7 lines 8-16 a database comprising data on efficacy and safety of one or more products containing at least one ingredient for animal use, wherein the database is maintained by a third party not having a financial interest other than for certifying the product or from a retail chain store that may have a financial interest, wherein the third party or the retail chain store analyzes existing data or generates new data to certify the efficacy or safety of the product, Col 8 lines 52-55 For products that are certified, the database can provide reasons for its certification. For example, the next to each certification, the database can provide a cite or a link to one or more references that were used to certify the product for efficacy and/or safety. Col 2 lines 67-60 FIG. 4 is an illustration of containers holding bulk raw ingredients to be sold to manufacturers or other suppliers having a certificate (forward the product & safety compliance) confirming at least one of efficacy or safety, Col 4 lines 16-25 A retail chain store has at least about 10 stores, such as more than about 100 stores, in a single country (US, Canada, UK, France, India, Germany, China). In this case, a typical pharmacy chain, supermarket chain or dietary supplement chain has a certificate that it applies to products to certify its efficacy or safety. The certificate can be applied to some or all products, including products that are sold under the name of the pharmacy chain, supermarket chain, or dietary supplement chain. Col 5 lines 45-48 The products having a certificate can be put together in a retail display in a section devoted solely to such products (e.g. FIG. 5). For example, a shopper who enters a supermarket or a dietary supplement store can go directly to section having products with certificates and be assured that the products purchased have a certificate for efficacy and safety.),
Baker discloses F. verifying said product passed inspection (Col 2 lines 12-15 if the safety or efficacy is: i. confirmed, the third party or the retail chain store applying a certificate to the product confirming the efficacy, safety, or both,)
Baker discloses H. issuing a certificate of compliance (Col 3 lines 6-9 FIG. 8 is an illustration of a certificate confirming efficacy and/or safety of a product. The certificate has the trademark (StrongScience) of the certifying company (third party), Col 5 lines 55-65 The certificate is preferably put on the product in such way as to be visible to a consumer. The certificate can also have a unique identification code),
Baker discloses I. uploading said certificate of compliance and said safety inspection results to an online accessible database (Col 7 lines 9-15 a database comprising data on efficacy and safety of one or more products containing at least one ingredient for animal use, wherein the database is maintained by a third party not having a financial interest other than for certifying the product or from a retail chain store that may have a financial interest, wherein the third party or the retail chain store analyzes existing data or generates new data to certify the efficacy or safety of the product, Col 7 lines 40-42 The database can only have products that are certified),
Baker discloses J. marking said product with a scan code that directs a scanner to said online accessible database (Col 7 lines 46-58 Database can be queried (006) by a Mobile Phone Application (009) using the SCAN (009b) or other technique. SCAN will utilize the mobile phone camera to read QR (012), UPC (013), images to be interpreted by Goggles (014) and gather results (015) from the database), and
Baker discloses K. scanning said scan code to access said online database to view said certificate of compliance and said safety inspection results (Col 7 lines 46-54 SCAN will utilize the mobile phone camera to read QR (012), UPC (013), images to be interpreted by Goggles (014) and gather results (015) from the database. If Goggles is used, preferably only a portion of the software is used that scans and interprets a product so that a user is then directed to the website that allows viewing of the database. Results (015) are then presented to the user through a graphics display (016).).
Baker does not specifically teach baby product and (G). verifying said identification markings on said product match said identification markings on said safety compliance documents,
Otero teaches verifying the safety of a baby product ( [0002]tracking, reporting and relaying product safety recall information to consumers., Fig 1 #130 stroller (baby product) ) and verifying said identification markings on said product match said identification markings on said safety compliance documents ([0033] Existing product database comparison module 511 may utilize all or a portion of the received product name, a serial number, a model number, manufacturer name, barcode, optical recognition data, or any other received information in order to select the most likely product matches from the existing product databases 430. [0037] and Fig. 6 The visual alert 605 may initially display several pieces of pertinent information, including an image of the recalled product, the name, model number, and date of the recall. More or fewer details may be included on the visual alert in other embodiments. The visual alert 605 may be presented in a bright color, and may cover a large portion of the past recall display screen 600 in order to call the user's attention to the recall in an alarming manner. The visual alert 605 may also contain a “more info” button 610 to provide additional details regarding the dangers or defects present in the product and information about manufacturer's remedies Fig 9 # 900 recall alert for product, [0034] compare the selected product information to one or more past recall databases 440, via the past recall database comparison module 512. Because the past recall databases 440 may be stored outside of the device 500, the past recall database comparison module may access the past recall databases 440 through the transceiver 530. Similarly to the existing product database comparison module 511, the past recall database comparison module 512 may use any portion of the selected product information to check against the past recall databases, in order to ensure that any relevant past recall will be correctly matched.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included verifying the safety of a baby product and verifying said identification markings on said product match said identification markings on said safety compliance documents, as disclosed by Otero in the system disclosed by Baker, for the motivation of providing a method of identifying new recalls issued against the saved product, and if a new recall is issued, a visual alert to the user may be created. (Abstract Otero)
Regarding Claim 2, Baker as modified by Otero teaches the discloses the method as in Claim 1,
Baker teaches wherein a consumer uses a cell phone with a scan code reader to access said online database (Col 7 lines 46-58 Database can be queried (006) by a Mobile Phone Application (009) using the SCAN (009b) or other technique. SCAN will utilize the mobile phone camera to read QR (012), UPC (013), images to be interpreted by Goggles (014) and gather results (015) from the database
Otero also teaches wherein a consumer uses a cell phone with a scan code reader to access said online database ([0021] a mobile app on a mobile device such as a smartphone or tablet computer., [0023], Fig 1 # 110, 150 scan product code) Otero discloses the method for verifying the safety of a baby product ( [0002]tracking, reporting and relaying product safety recall information to consumers., Fig 1 #130 stroller ).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejection, applicant states that claims are directed to patentable subject matter. Examiner has considered all argument and maintains the 101 rejections. The claims are directed to verifying the safety of a baby product. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, analyzing it, and providing certificate of compliance. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – accessible database, scanner, cell phone. The database, scanner, cell phone are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. a) The limitations of a database, scanner, cell phone merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims are directed to an abstract idea
Regarding 103 rejection, arguments are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kong (WO2019212264A1)teaches G. verifying said identification markings on said product match said identification markings on said safety compliance documents (Claim 1 A product safety certification approval unit for authenticating and registering the safety of the product in a database when the product safety certification application unit is verified and verified according to the product information for which the safety certification is applied; audit verifies product information verification data, Fig 17 a digital certificate is matched with a test certification service, Claim 9 a regulation item default label setting module for matching the label template designed from the web page information to the regulation item category for setting the default label setting item and set the default label for each item History management system.); providing a method of a product safety certification management system in which related businesses, such as product manufacturing, importing, and selling businesses, can manage product safety, and a product safety history can be managed even after the product is sold.(Abstract Kong)
Fordyce (US 2011/0258065) discloses receiving a set of product identifiers associated with a set of transactions. A product recall database including products is queried for recall with the received product identifiers. A matching product identifier is determined via a processor based on the querying, where the matching product identifier is associated with one of the products for recall.
Popp (US 2016/0205990A1) discloses monitoring a baby formula manufacturing process are disclosed herein. Consequently, the methods and systems provide a way to perform monitoring of a standardization process on an integrated level whereby baby formula manufacturers can achieve data and product integrity and ultimately minimize cost.
Young (US 2012/0290490A1) discloses a product certification code is provided. The product certification code is associated with a target product and comprises a uniform resource identifier (URI). The URI is configured to identify certification information at a certification data provider, which is configured to maintain the certification information about the target product
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGEETA BAHL whose telephone number is (571)270-7779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 4PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626