DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 21 January 2026.
Claim(s) 10, 13, 26, 29, 31, and 34 is/are amended. Claim(s) 36-38 is/are new.
Claim(s) 10-13, 15, and 25-38 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-13, 15, and 25-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 26, which is representative of claims 10 and 31, recites: a method comprising:
obtaining,
extracting the execution information via decoding the at least one graphical pattern;
retrieving a patient identification information
comparing a patient identification information component of the execution information with the retrieved patient identification information to confirm the execution information is for the medical imaging task to be executed; and
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe a concept of evaluating patient information prior to an imaging task. This concept describes a mental process that healthcare provider should follow to evaluate patient information prior to an imaging task similar to the “mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. As such, these limitation set forth a method of organizing human activity. Alternatively, the identified concept is analogous to the examples of “observation”, “evaluation”, “judgement”, and “opinion” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and can be performed in the human mind. As such, these limitations set forth a mental process. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites the additional element of an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory storage medium. Claim 31 recites the additional element of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. These additional elements are all recited at a high level of generality, and may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of obtaining data via one or more images acquired by a camera. This additional element does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea and amount to necessary data input. As such, this additional element is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of information from an electronic database. This additional element amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computing device. As previously noted, such additional elements do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of configuring a medical imaging device to execute the medical imaging task in accordance with execution information. This additional element does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea and amount to necessary data output. As such, this additional element is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of computing devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of obtaining data via one or more images acquired by a camera. However, Singh (US 2006/0006238 A1) demonstrates (“In some conventional barcode readers, a digital camera or other imaging technology is used to capture an image or otherwise sense the barcode” [0003]) that obtaining data via an image acquired by a camera was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of information from an electronic database. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), retrieving information from a memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of configuring a medical imaging device to execute the medical imaging task in accordance with execution information. Rofsky et al. (US 2010/0092056 A1) demonstrates (“As known in the art, in a conventional MRI, parameters are selected by an operator, and a processor (e.g., processor 14 in FIG. 1) controls the MRI apparatus scan based on the inputted parameters” [0033]) that configuring a medical imaging device to execute a medical imaging task in accordance with execution information was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. This further supports the understanding of this additional element as insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of computing devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 11-13, 15, 25, 27-30, and 32-38 further describe the abstract idea, but the dependent claims continue to set forth an abstract idea, albeit a narrowed one. Claims 11, 12, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, and 35 only further describe the narrowed abstract idea and recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements continue to fail to either integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea for the same reasons indicated above.
Claim 13, 29, and 34 further recite the additional element of a display. Claim 15 further recites the additional element of a defining device having a display and at least one user input device. Similar to the independent claims above, these additional elements, individually and as a combination with the prior additional elements, only generally link the narrowed abstract ideas to a technological environment of computing devices. As such, these additional elements of these dependent claims do not integrate the narrowed abstract ideas into a practical application. Further, as indicated above, Kho (US 6167473) demonstrates that these additional elements of these dependent claims were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. Therefore these additional elements of these dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract ideas. Claims 36-38 recite the additional element of a user interface of a computing device. The incorporation of this additional element amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computing device. As such, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior identified additional elements, does not integrate the narrowed abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10, 25, 26, 30, 31, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shreiber et al. (US 2016/0292360 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, 26, and 31: Shreiber discloses an apparatus, comprising:
one or more processors; and a non-transitory storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform operations (steps of the method and system of the invention could be described as being performed by a data processor, such as a computing platform for executing a plurality of instructions. See at least [0019] and Fig. 1) comprising:
obtaining, via one or more images acquired by a camera, at least one graphical pattern displayed by a defining device, wherein the at least one graphical pattern includes execution information for the medical imaging task, the execution information having been encoded in the at least one graphical pattern; extracting the execution information via decoding the at least one graphical pattern (the identity of the patient is determined either by the technician or other image tool worker that scans the tag that is attached to the patient's wrist using a barcode reader or electronically by RFID or by any other suitable automatic identification means. This method identifies the patient and the equipment/room that is used and sends the information to the RIS. The scanner may optionally be part of the RIS or directly connected to the RIS. See at least [0037]. Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of “execution information” includes information identifying a patient).
retrieving a patient identification from an electronic database for a patient who is to be imaged via the medical imaging task; comparing a patient identification information component of the execution information with the retrieved patient identification to confirm the execution information is for the medical imaging task to be executed (In stage 206, RIS filters the general modality worklist by the name of the patient present in the room. If the patient is not on the modality worklist, then the RIS notifies the technician of the discrepancy. See at least [0038]).
configuring a medical imaging device to execute the medical imaging task in accordance with the extracted execution information (automatically selecting a medical imaging process according to the identifying the patient by a medical imaging process controller. See at least [0043]. Also: In stage 208, the RIS generates to the image tool control a new patient worklist consisting of a single entry for that patient only; alternatively the RIS could permit the image tool control to display only a single entry from the worklist. Thus the technician cannot select the wrong patient for any reason, since there is only a single patient on the worklist or at least there is only a single entry from the worklist that is displayed. Alternatively, even if more than one entry, or even all entries, are displayed, the technician preferably cannot take action to invoke any entry for activating the image tool control except for the entry designated by the RIS as belonging to the identified patient. See at least [0039]. Also: The modality worklist determines the operation of image tool 112 as controlled by image tool control 102. See at least [0028]).
Regarding Claim 25, 30, and 35: Shreiber discloses the above limitations. Shreiber further discloses wherein the configuring comprises adjusting settings for the medical imaging device according to the execution information (In stage 208, the RIS generates to the image tool control a new patient worklist consisting of a single entry for that patient only; alternatively the RIS could permit the image tool control to display only a single entry from the worklist. Thus the technician cannot select the wrong patient for any reason, since there is only a single patient on the worklist or at least there is only a single entry from the worklist that is displayed. Alternatively, even if more than one entry, or even all entries, are displayed, the technician preferably cannot take action to invoke any entry for activating the image tool control except for the entry designated by the RIS as belonging to the identified patient. See at least [0039]. Also: The modality worklist determines the operation of image tool 112 as controlled by image tool control 102. See at least [0028]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 27, 28, 32, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shreiber et al. (US 2016/0292360 A1) in view of Wu (US 2019/0052697 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, 27, and 32: Shreiber discloses the above limitations. Shreiber further discloses wherein the at least one graphical pattern comprises a barcode, and wherein the extracting of the execution information comprises decoding the barcode (the identity of the patient is determined either by the technician or other image tool worker that scans the tag that is attached to the patient's wrist using a barcode reader or electronically by RFID or by any other suitable automatic identification means. This method identifies the patient and the equipment/room that is used and sends the information to the RIS. The scanner may optionally be part of the RIS or directly connected to the RIS. See at least [0037]). Shreiber does not disclose a two-dimensional matrix barcode.
Wu teaches a two-dimensional matrix barcode (the code player 245 may initiate playing of the sequence of QR codes, each for a predetermined time period (e.g., 5 to 45 seconds). In some embodiments, the code player 245 may sequentially display via the display 250 each QR code in the sequence for the predetermined time period. In some embodiments, the media device 245 may sequentially display the image files generated for each QR code in the stream via the display 250 for the predetermined time period. See at least [0065]).
Shreiber provides a system which reads information from a barcode, upon which the claimed invention’s use of a two-dimensional barcode can be seen as an improvement. However, Wu demonstrates that the prior art already knew of using QR codes for machine reading purposes. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially substituted Wu’s QR codes into the system of Shreiber. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such a substitution would have allowed Shreiber’s system to read more data than could be contained with a barcode. As such, the substitution of Wu, and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosure of Shreiber and the teachings of Wu.
Regarding Claim 12, 28, and 33 : Shreiber in view of Wu makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Wu teaches wherein the obtaining comprises obtaining, via a time sequence of images acquired by the camera, a time sequence of graphical patterns displayed by the defining device (the code player 245 may initiate playing of the sequence of QR codes, each for a predetermined time period (e.g., 5 to 45 seconds). In some embodiments, the code player 245 may sequentially display via the display 250 each QR code in the sequence for the predetermined time period. In some embodiments, the media device 245 may sequentially display the image files generated for each QR code in the stream via the display 250 for the predetermined time period. See at least [0065]).
Claim(s) 13, 15, 29, 34, and 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shreiber et al. (US 2016/0292360 A1) in view of Perscheid (US 2020/0120430 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, 29, and 34: Shreiber discloses the above limitations. Shreiber does not disclose wherein the computing device includes a display, and is configured to: construct a graphical pattern encoding information about one or more of the medical imaging device or about the medical imaging task; and displaying the graphical pattern on the display of the computing device.
However, Perscheid teaches wherein the computing device includes a display, and is configured to: construct a graphical pattern encoding information about one or more of the medical device or about the medical task; and display the graphical pattern on the display of the computing device (In FIG. 2, a patient's smartphone 40, which either is currently or was previously in communication with the hearing aid 10, communicates information to the audiologist's computer system 38 using a visual code such as a QR code 42 or a bar code. The smartphone 40 generates a QR code 42 and displays the QR code 42 on its screen. At least part of the data in the generated QR code 42 is patient-specific audiological usage data for the hearing aid 10. The patient-specific audiological usage data could be originally derived within the hearing aid 10 and transmitted to the smartphone 40, or could be originally derived within the smartphone 40 during use of the hearing aid 10. The audiologist's computer system 38 uses a camera 44 to visually capture the code 42, with a processor (not separately shown) in the audiologist's computer 38 analyzing the captured image to interpret the QR code 42. See at least [0015]).
Shreiber provides a imaging system which receives information via barcode, upon which the claimed invention’s outputting of information via barcode can be seen as an improvement. However, Perscheid demonstrates that the prior art already knew of generating a QR code and displaying it on a display as a way to output information regarding a medical device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Perscheid to the controller of Shreiber. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Perscheid would have resulted in an improved system which could easy output information to other devices. As such, the application of Perscheid and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosure of Shreiber and the teachings of Perscheid.
Regarding Claim 15: Shreiber discloses the above limitations. Shreiber does not disclose a defining device having a display and at least one user input device and configured to: provide a user interface (UI) for receiving the execution information via the at least one user input device of the associated defining device; construct the at least one graphical pattern encoding the execution information; and display the at least one graphical pattern encoding the execution information on the display of the associated defining device.
However, Perscheid teaches a defining device having a display and at least one user input device and configured to: provide a user interface (UI) for receiving the execution information via the at least one user input device of the associated defining device; construct the at least one graphical pattern encoding the execution information; and display the at least one graphical pattern encoding the execution information on the display of the associated defining device (In FIG. 3, the audiologist's computer system 38 communicates information to the patient's computing device 40 using a visual code such as a QR code 46 or a bar code. The audiologist's computer system 38 generates a QR code 46 and displays the QR code 46 on its screen 48. At least part of the data in the generated QR code 46 is patient-specific audiological control data for adjusting the parameter settings within the hearing aid 10. See at least [0016]. Also: the audiologist provided a set of DSP parameter settings customized for that particular patient when in that particular acoustic environment. See at least [0027]. Also: The audiologist can thus read the usage data pertaining to the hearing aid 10 from the patient's smart device 40. With this information, the audiologist can better adjust hearing device settings to gain better results. See at least [0048] and Fig. 3).
Shreiber provides a imaging system which receives information via barcode on a static device, which differs from the claimed invention which uses a configurable display device. However, Perscheid demonstrates that the prior art already knew of configurable display devices which could receive a user input and display a generated barcode for the transmission of medical device information. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially substituted Perscheid’s display device into the system of Shreiber. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a substitution would have resulted in an improved system which could update the information contained in the patient’s barcode. As such, the substitution of Perscheid and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosure of Shreiber and the teachings of Perscheid.
Regarding Claim 36-38: Shreiber discloses the above limitations. Shreiber does not disclose a defining device presenting, via a user interface of the computing device, a selectable object indicating to receive the execution information via the camera; and responsive to a user selection of the selectable object, placing the computer device into a mode to acquire the one or more images by the camera. However, Perscheid teaches presenting, via a user interface of the computing device, a selectable object indicating to receive the execution information via the camera; and responsive to a user selection of the selectable object, placing the computer device into a mode to acquire the one or more images by the camera (The patient uses their smartphone camera 50 to take a photo or video of the QR code 46, visually importing the captured image of the QR code 46 so it can be analyzed with a processor. See at least [0016]. Examiner notes: One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be expected to draw from this disclosure that the user utilizes a control of the user interface of the smartphone to activate and utilize the smartphone’s camera. See MPEP 2144.01).
Shreiber provides a imaging system which receives information via barcode on a static device using a barcode reader, upon which the claimed invention’s activation of a barcode reader can be seen as an improvement. However, Perscheid indicates that the prior art already knew of activatable barcode readers. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied these techniques to the system of Shreiber. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a modification would have resulted in an improved system which would save energy by not constantly being in a mode to receive barcode data. As such, the application of Perscheid and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosure of Shreiber and the teachings of Perscheid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-13, 15, and 25-35:
“extracting the execution information via decoding the at least one graphical pattern” cannot be practically performed in the human mind, and thus, the claim does not recite a mental process.
These aspects of the claimed invention provide a technical solution to technical problems and support the conclusion that the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claims include elements which, taken as a whole, are not merely well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At the level of generality claimed, extracting information from a graphical pattern can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that text constitutes a graphical pattern.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.” Here, there is no technical disclosure regarding the features applicant asserts to provide an improvement. For example, the disclosure does not provide a technical description of how to implement execution information, how to extract execution information, or how to configure a medical imaging device. As such, the invention does not appear to constitute a technical improvement.
Examiner notes that the quoted portion of MPEP 2106.05 describing unconventionality favoring eligibility refers to the additional elements of the claim. Current guidance does not resolve the eligibility analysis on whether the entirety of the claim is conventional or not.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 102 Rejections of claims 10, 25-26, 30-31, and 35: Shreiber does not disclose or teach these features as claimed. Rather, Shreiber merely discloses using a barcode reader to read a fixed tag, attached to or worn by a patient, to identify the patient.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is unclear to the examiner how applicant considers the present claims to be distinguished from Shreiber. To facilitate prosecution, Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of execution information includes information identifying a patient. The specification does not appear to define the term execution information and provides various non-limiting examples of execution information “ imaging device configuration data” [0017], “information for a task to be performed by the execution device “ [0042], and “scan settings, an anatomy of a patient to be imaged, a number of images to be acquired” [0042]. The specification further describes “a patient identification information component of the execution information” [0048], thus making it unambiguous that patient identifying information falls within the scope of execution information.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 103 Rejections of claims 11-12, 27-28, 32-33, 13, 15, 29, and 34: Applicant asserts that the references do not satisfy a prima facie case of obviousness because not all of the claimed features are disclosed, taught or suggested by the references or rendered obvious by market forces present at the time the claimed invention was made.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office action dated 26 September 2024.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-02-04