DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 3, 2026, has been entered.
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 . 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed June 3, 2026, are responsive to the office action mailed March 9, 2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending and claims 1, 8, and 15, have been amended. Claims 1-20 are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 101 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant argues
“The recited improvements include generating, for the custom product, a parametric fit model to be transmitted to a manufacturer to produce a parametric physical product that provides an improved fit of the custom product based on the user-specific data for the custom product and having a plurality of fit model parameters. Indeed, among other things, Claim 1 recites generating, for the custom product, a parametric fit model to be transmitted to a manufacturer to manufacture a parametric physical product that provides an improved fit of the custom product in relation to the user-specific data for the custom product, and having a plurality of fit model parameters.
Furthermore, the recited improvements include transmitting the parametric fit model to a manufacturer to cause the manufacturer to generate one or more manufacturing instructions based on the parametric fit model having the plurality of fit model parameters; [and] based on the one or more manufacturing instructions, manufacture the parametric physical product using the received manufacturing instructions to manufacture the parametric physical product that improves the fit of the custom product in relation to the user-specific data for the custom product in accordance with the plurality of fit model parameters. Indeed, among other things, Claim 1 recites transmitting the parametric fit model to a manufacturer to cause the manufacturer to generate one or more manufacturing instructions [based on which] the manufacturer manufactures the parametric physical product that improves the fit of the custom product in relation to the user-specific data for the custom product in accordance with the plurality of fit model parameters.” Remarks pp.14-15.
This recites improving the fit of a product based on user input of adjustment parameters, but no improvement to manufacturing technology is evident from the claims. There are no additional elements directed to manufacturing. All additional elements identified in the claims are generic computer devices and are treated in the detailed rejection, including a detailed explanation regarding the manufacturer and why it cannot be considered an additional element or even any kind of technology. Essentially the “manufacturer” is not an additional element because it is a legal or commercial entity that manufactures, but no additional elements addressing the manufacture of the product are identified. The claim recites sending data to a manufacturer with the intention that the manufacturer produce the product described in the data. The data is the abstract result of an abstractly recited process. There is no identification of the technology that is improved. Applicant refers to many claim recitations but does not offer argument directed to the detailed rejection or to countering the rationale explained therein.
Examiner notes that applicant’s references to Desjardins are inapposite because Desjardins did not change or modify the application of the analysis with regard to any of the issues referenced in applicant’s argument. The substantive relevance of Desjardins was in considering claims directed to improvements in the application of machine learning. The present clams bear no resemblance to those considered in Desjardins and the consideration of issues applicant raises was not changed or modified by Desjardins.
Under the PEG Step 2A, Prong 1:
Applicant argues the claims are “not directed to organizing human activity” because they recite technical steps and “address a technological problem.” Remarks p.16. At step 2A prong 1, it is determined whether the claims recite at least one abstract idea and what category of abstract idea is recited, determining whether the claims are directed to said abstract idea(s) is considered at prong 2. Applicant recites claim limitations and argues that they “address a technological problem in custom product manufacturing: creating products that actually fit the user, rather than implementing or automating methods for organizing human interactions or relationships,” but does not offer reasoning supporting either that these recitations or the stated problem are technical in nature, or that they do not recite an abstract idea in the organizing human activity category. Ibid. Applicant makes a similar declaration regarding the mental process category, simply reciting limitations and perhaps relying on the implication that generating and transmitting information precludes the mental process category. Applicant declares
“These operations require specialized computing hardware and software to process image data and perform complex feature extraction and matching, making them fundamentally technological rather than mental acts.” Remarks p.17.
There is no evidence that these claims perform operations that “require specialized computing hardware and software to process image data and perform complex feature extraction and matching,” and applicant does not offer any explanation for the position. As noted in the rejection, an indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a). If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims.
Under the PEG Step 2A Prong 2:
Applicant’s argument does not address the recognized standard for consideration as detailed in the MPEP and as explained and relied upon in the rejection, instead again merely reciting claim limitations and declaring without rationale in support of the conclusion that they recite improvements to technology. Ibid. This is not persuasive.
Under the PEG Step 2B:
Applicant’s argument relies on excerpts from the specification and extended alliterative discussion thereof, untethered to any claim recitation. Remarks pp.18-19. There is no indication how the recitations in the claims embody any of the represented “improvements.” As noted in the rejection and again above, if the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1-7 are directed to a process, claims 8-14 are directed to a manufacture, and claims 15-20 are directed to a machine. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“generating a parametric model of a custom product based on, at least in part, past learned data pertaining to the custom product and user-specific data of a user for the custom product; translating the parametric model of the custom product to a plurality of parameters of the custom product; wherein each parameter, of the plurality of parameters of the custom product, is represented as a key-value pair; based on, at least in part, the plurality of parameters of the custom product, generating a first graphical representation of the custom product; generating a first user interface and displaying... the first user interface comprising at least the first graphical representation of the custom product; receiving, via the first user interface, a plurality of adjustment parameters for improving a fit of the custom product in relation to the user-specific data for the custom product; based on the plurality of adjustment parameters and the plurality of parameters of the custom product, generating, for the custom product, a parametric fit model to be transmitted to a manufacturer to manufacture a parametric physical product that provides an improved fit of the custom product in relation to the user-specific data for the custom product, and having a plurality of fit model parameters; wherein each fit model parameter, of the plurality of fit model parameters, is computed by interpolating between one or more corresponding 3D control points of a first particular parametric model and one or more corresponding 3D control points of a second particular parametric model; wherein a fit model parameter, of the plurality of fit model parameters of the parametric fit model, is represented as a fit key-value pair; transmitting the parametric fit model to a manufacturer to cause the manufacturer to: generate one or more manufacturing instructions based on the parametric fit model having the plurality of fit model parameters; based on the one or more manufacturing instructions, manufacture the parametric physical product using the received manufacturing instructions to manufacture the parametric physical product that improves the fit of the custom product in relation to the user-specific data for the custom product in accordance with the plurality of fit model parameters.” Claim 1.
A careful analysis of the above limitations, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they altogether simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract ideas fall within the groupings of abstract ideas described as mental processes such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in the present claims are, in all claims, computer display devices. Additional elements in claims 8-14 also include non-transitory computer-readable media with instructions potentially executed by one or more processors, and additional elements in claims 15-20 also include a memory unit, one or more processors, and a computer.
These additional elements have been considered individually, in combination, and altogether as a whole together with the functions they perform, e.g., the computer display device displays an interface to a user. Together with said interface it functions as a non-specific simple input/output node standing in for the user. In claims 8-20 the processor(s) are broadly and generally recited as performing all remaining steps in terms of the intended results of functionally nonspecific activities, the additional computer of claims 15-20 only storing the instructions implemented by the processor(s). Claims 1-7 have no processor(s) or other additional elements beyond the display device and do not indicate what performs the method or how it would be implemented by any particular entity. All claims recite the manufacture of a product by a manufacturer. A manufacturer is not an additional element because as described in the specification it merely identifies a commercial or legal entity rather than any device or machine specifically described in a way that would enable it to produce the claimed result. The claimed “manufacture” of “a parametric physical product” can therefore only be understood as a hoped for intended result. There is no indication how this limitation is implemented or what device or machine performs any involved function. The model is only recited as being intended “to be transmitted to a manufacturer to manufacture a parametric physical product.” The transmitting of the model to the manufacturer is only intended “to cause the manufacturer” to generate instructions and manufacture the product “using the received… instructions.” It therefore can only be regarded as a recitation of the abstract idea of manufacturing a product from a parametric fit model, with the recitation of a manufacturer to “apply it.” The manufacturer as explained above is not even an additional element.
The additional elements do not therefore integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims are almost entirely a recitation of abstract ideas and intended uses with no indication of any particular additional element(s) that practically apply any of the abstract concepts. The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract intended results of steps without indicating any particular functional acts performed by any device or structural element to perform the steps or otherwise obtain the intended results. The claimed subject matter does not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, it does not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, it does not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and it fails to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims. Any claimed elements that are not abstract are identified broadly and generally as applying the method, and the method itself is described only by way of the intended functional results of unidentified activities, without reference to any particular functional acts or specific functions performed by any particularly identified machines, and without reference to its use in conjunction with any particular item of manufacture.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (e.g., a technical solution to a technical problem, or “significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are mere props supporting instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception by a generic computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply adding general purpose computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”); MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The elements fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
No technical problem is indicated and the claims are not directed to a technical solution to such a problem. This conclusion is supported by applicant's disclosure, which elaborates upon the performance of the presently claimed method at length by describing the abstract ideas in detail while only incidentally or tangentially explaining the preexisting (prior art) computer equipment, without identifying any technical problem that arises within said equipment and without offering a technical solution to any such problem. It ultimately only describes the abstract idea while indicating the intention to “apply it.”
Finally, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further describe the identification and manipulations of data that comprise the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potentially allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 1 recites
“A method for custom fitting and manufacturing parametric products, the method comprising: generating a parametric model of a custom product based on, at least in part, past learned data pertaining to the custom product and user-specific data of a user for the custom product; translating the parametric model of the custom product to a plurality of parameters of the custom product; wherein each parameter, of the plurality of parameters of the custom product, is represented as a key-value pair; based on, at least in part, the plurality of parameters of the custom product, generating a first graphical representation of the custom product; generating a first user interface and displaying, on a computer display device, the first user interface comprising at least the first graphical representation of the custom product; receiving, via the first user interface, a plurality of adjustment parameters for improving a fit of the custom product in relation to the user-specific data for the custom product; based on the plurality of adjustment parameters and the plurality of parameters of the custom product, generating, for the custom product, a parametric fit model to be transmitted to a manufacturer to manufacture a parametric physical product that provides an improved fit of the custom product in relation to the user-specific data for the custom product, and having a plurality of fit model parameters; wherein each fit model parameter, of the plurality of fit model parameters, is computed by interpolating between one or more corresponding 3D control points of a first particular parametric model and one or more corresponding 3D control points of a second particular parametric model; wherein a fit model parameter, of the plurality of fit model parameters of the parametric fit model, is represented as a fit key-value pair; transmitting the parametric fit model to a manufacturer to cause the manufacturer to: generate one or more manufacturing instructions based on the parametric fit model having the plurality of fit model parameters; based on the one or more manufacturing instructions, manufacture the parametric physical product using the received manufacturing instructions to manufacture the parametric physical product that improves the fit of the custom product in relation to the user-specific data for the custom product in accordance with the plurality of fit model parameters.”
The most closely applicable prior art has been previously introduced and distinguished by amendment and argument during the course of prosecution. The most closely applicable prior art relevant to the most recent distinguishing amendment is Sareen et al. (Paper No. 20250503; Pub. No. US 2022/0215224 A1) and Zhou (Paper No. 20250820; CN114462216A).
Sareen teaches interpolation between points in two 2D models in garment design. Sareen “creates points and interpolates splines between points to create a 2D shape or CAD drawing” (¶0076) and “stores the digital pattern as a collection of points and hermite splines that are interpolated between points” (¶0095). Sareen further discloses
“estimating the three-dimensional coordinates of points on an object. … by measurements made in two or more photographic images taken from different positions. Common points are identified on each image. A line of sight (or ray) can be constructed from the camera location to the point on the object. It is the intersection of these rays (triangulation) that determines the three-dimensional location of the point. More sophisticated algorithms can exploit other information about the scene that is known a priori, for example symmetries, in some cases allowing reconstructions of 3D coordinates from only one camera position.” ¶0155
“A morph (sometimes called a control) is applied to the base avatar 158 that links to the morph target, and can be used to interpolate between the two objects, changing the size/shape of the base object to match the morph target's geometry either partially or completely. In other words, by adjusting the morph target, one can approximate the shape of a new avatar. When several morphs are adjusted such that the new avatar similarly match the consumer body 22's or fit model body 151's body shape and or measurements, then one has arrived at consumer avatar 171 or fit model avatar 173 respectively.” ¶0194, and
“Each morph target may correspond to one or many points of measure. Points of measure are control points for a specific body measurement from body measurements and other shape data 176 (e.g. the circumferential waist measurement may have a control point). Therefore, when the point of measure needs to be changed to a specific body measurement value (given by the user, extracted from raw scan data, or derived by some other means), the morph target is adjusted.” ¶0195.
Sareen however does not disclose the combination of limitations recited above, including inter alia
“wherein each fit model parameter, of the plurality of fit model parameters, is computed by interpolating between one or more corresponding 3D control points of a first particular parametric model and one or more corresponding 3D control points of a second particular parametric model; wherein a fit model parameter, of the plurality of fit model parameters of the parametric fit model, is represented as a fit key-value pair.”
Zhou teaches performing point-to surface planar projection on a 3D model but does not disclose "interpolating between one or more corresponding 3D control points of a first particular parametric model and one or more corresponding 3D control points of a second particular parametric model." Neither Sareen nor Zhou, alone or in combination with other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, or otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as recited above.
BEAVER Ill (CANADIAN PATENT CA 3139083 C) teaches role-based collaborative design comprising a user interface to collaborate on a design comprising a visual representation of a physical product capable of custom manufacture with variable attributes, receiving modifications to the design and generating an updated product based on the modifications, the interactive design associated with product comprising a plurality of key-value pairs, comprising attributes and an attribute values for custom manufacture with variable product attributes. BEAVER Ill does not however disclose the combination of limitations recited above, including inter alia “interpolating between one or more corresponding 3D control points of a first particular parametric model and one or more corresponding 3D control points of a second particular parametric model.”
In light of the above and examiner’s overall review of the prior art it is examiner’s conclusion that the body of prior art currently known to the examiner does not alone or in combination disclose, anticipate, or otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the above noted features of the present method. It should be noted that this conclusion is based on the presence of all claimed features as they operate in conjunction rather than solely on any one feature or isolated group of features.
The most relevant applicable and nonduplicative prior art having thus been introduced, addressed, and distinguished, by amendment and argument during the course of prosecution, it is examiner’s position that together with the above the record is clear with regard to the reasons for allowability of the claimed invention over the prior art.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights