DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to amendments filed July 7th, 2026, in which claims 1, 10, and 16 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled nor added. The amendments have been entered, and claims 1-20 are currently pending in the case. Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent claims.
Response to Amendment
37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) states:
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
The amendment filed July 7th, 2026 does not include strike-throughs of deleted matter in the claims. The amendment otherwise complies with 37 CFR 1.121., and the amendment has been entered.
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.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to [a] method, therefore it falls under the statuary category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“extracting base embeddings from the video and performing self-attention on the base embeddings to generate at least one video embedding” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“identifying at least one music track…based on the at least one video embedding” this encompasses the mental identification of a music track based on an observed video embedding.
“generating a first set of sentences…the first set of sentences depicting the at least one music track and recommendation reasons in natural languages” this encompasses the mental creation of a set of sentences depicting a chosen music track and recommendation reasons in natural languages.
“in response to receiving input text indicating that the user prefers music different from the at least one music track, extracting text embeddings from the input text and combining the text embeddings with at least one music embedding associated with the at least one music” this encompasses the mental extraction of text embeddings a from observed text and combining with observed music embeddings.
“performing self-attention on the combined text embeddings and at least one music embedding …to generate a text-music embedding” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“performing cross-attention on the at least one video embedding and the text-music embedding to identify at least one other music track based on the video, the at least one music track, and the input text indicative of the user's preference” this encompasses the mental identification of another music track based on an observed video, an observed music track and an observed response indicating a user's preference. Further, this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“generating a second set of sentences depicting the at least one other music track in natural languages” this encompasses the mental creation of sentences depicting an observed music track in natural language.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows:
“inputting a video into a machine learning model…and the machine learning model is configured to implement the dialog-based music recommendations for the input videos”, “by the first sub-model”, “by the first sub-model”, “by the second sub-model”, “causing to display the first set of sentences on a computing device associated with a user”, “track by the first sub-model”, “by the first sub-model” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
“wherein the machine learning model comprises a first sub-model and a second sub-model”, “for display on the computing device” these limitations are an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“calculating a cosine similarity between each of a plurality of videos and each of a set of music tracks” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“selecting candidate music tracks corresponding to each of the plurality of videos based on cosine similarities between each of the plurality of videos and the set of music tracks” this encompasses the mental selection of candidate music tracks corresponding to observed videos based on cosine similarities. Further, this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“determining music tags and music metadata of an original music track associated with each of the plurality of videos and the candidate music tracks corresponding to each of the plurality of videos” this encompasses the mental determination of music tags and music metadata of an observed original music track associated with each of observed videos and candidate music tracks corresponding to the videos.
“generating simulated music recommendation conversations based on the music tags and the music metadata” this encompasses the mental creation of simulated music recommendation conversations based on observed music tags and observed music metadata.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows:
“using a generative pre-training transformer (GPT)” the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“each of the simulated music recommendation conversation begins with recommending one of the candidate music tracks with associated reasons, and then recommends the original music track with reasonings based on recognizing musical differences between the one of the candidate music tracks and the original music track and in response to a simulated input indicating a preference for the original music track” a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations, thus does not further recite any additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“generating simulated music recommendation training data in which each sample contains information indicating a video, an original music track associated with the video, at least one candidate music track corresponding to the video, and simulated conversation text” a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations, thus does not further recite any additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“pair at least one music track from a music pool to fit an overall video” this encompasses the mental pairing of an observed music track with an observed video.
“alter music recommendation from a previously recommended music track to a currently recommended music track” this encompasses the mental alteration of a music recommendation from a previously recommended music track to a currently recommended music track.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows:
“the first sub-model is trained to” (line 1 of the claim), “the first sub-model is trained to” (line 2 of the claim) the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows:
“the first sub-model comprises a trainable linear projection layer to project video modality, music modality, and text modality into a same embedding space” the limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows:
“the first sub-model is trained on video data, music data, and text data comprising simulated music recommendation conversation text” the limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“express music recommendations and recommendation reasons in natural languages” this encompasses the mental expression of music recommendations and recommendation reasons in natural languages.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows:
“the second sub-model is trained to” the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows:
“the second sub-model comprises trainable linear projection layers, and wherein the second sub-model is trained on data each instance of which comprises a music representation from the first sub-model and corresponding recommendation reasoning statements from simulated conversational music recommendation dataset” the limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 10:
Step 1: Claim 10 is directed to [a] system, therefore it falls under the statuary category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“extracting base embeddings from the video and performing self-attention on the base embeddings to generate at least one video embedding” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“identifying at least one music track…based on the at least one video embedding” this encompasses the mental identification of a music track based on an observed video embedding.
“generating a first set of sentences…the first set of sentences depicting the at least one music track and recommendation reasons in natural languages” this encompasses the mental creation of a set of sentences depicting a chosen music track and recommendation reasons in natural languages.
“in response to receiving input text indicating that the user prefers music different from the at least one music track, extracting text embeddings from the input text and combining the text embeddings with at least one music embedding associated with the at least one music” this encompasses the mental extraction of text embeddings a from observed text and combining with observed music embeddings.
“performing self-attention on the combined text embeddings and at least one music embedding …to generate a text-music embedding” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“performing cross-attention on the at least one video embedding and the text-music embedding to identify at least one other music track based on the video, the at least one music track, and the input text indicative of the user's preference” this encompasses the mental identification of another music track based on an observed video, an observed music track and an observed response indicating a user's preference. Further, this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“generating a second set of sentences depicting the at least one other music track in natural languages” this encompasses the mental creation of sentences depicting an observed music track in natural language.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows:
“inputting a video into a machine learning model…and the machine learning model is configured to implement the dialog-based music recommendations for the input videos”, “by the first sub-model”, “by the first sub-model”, “by the second sub-model”, “causing to display the first set of sentences on a computing device associated with a user”, “track by the first sub-model”, “by the first sub-model” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
“at least one processor”, “at least one memory comprising computer-readable instructions”,
“wherein the machine learning model comprises a first sub-model and a second sub-model”, “for display on the computing device” these limitations are an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 11-15:
The rejection of claim 10 is further incorporated, the rejection of claims 2-5 and 8 are applicable to claims 11-15, respectively.
Regarding claim 16:
Step 1: Claim 16 is directed to [a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, therefore it falls under the statuary category of a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“extracting base embeddings from the video and performing self-attention on the base embeddings to generate at least one video embedding” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“identifying at least one music track…based on the at least one video embedding” this encompasses the mental identification of a music track based on an observed video embedding.
“generating a first set of sentences…the first set of sentences depicting the at least one music track and recommendation reasons in natural languages” this encompasses the mental creation of a set of sentences depicting a chosen music track and recommendation reasons in natural languages.
“in response to receiving input text indicating that the user prefers music different from the at least one music track, extracting text embeddings from the input text and combining the text embeddings with at least one music embedding associated with the at least one music” this encompasses the mental extraction of text embeddings a from observed text and combining with observed music embeddings.
“performing self-attention on the combined text embeddings and at least one music embedding …to generate a text-music embedding” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“performing cross-attention on the at least one video embedding and the text-music embedding to identify at least one other music track based on the video, the at least one music track, and the input text indicative of the user's preference” this encompasses the mental identification of another music track based on an observed video, an observed music track and an observed response indicating a user's preference. Further, this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“generating a second set of sentences depicting the at least one other music track in natural languages” this encompasses the mental creation of sentences depicting an observed music track in natural language.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows:
“inputting a video into a machine learning model…and the machine learning model is configured to implement the dialog-based music recommendations for the input videos”, “by the first sub-model”, “by the first sub-model”, “by the second sub-model”, “causing to display the first set of sentences on a computing device associated with a user”, “track by the first sub-model”, “by the first sub-model” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
“wherein the machine learning model comprises a first sub-model and a second sub-model”, “for display on the computing device” these limitations are an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 17-20:
The rejection of claim 16 is further incorporated, the rejection of claims 2-3, 5 and 8 are applicable to claims 17-20, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
After detailed search, the cited arts, neither alone nor in combination, teach the claimed subject matter of claim 1, “A method of implementing dialog-based music recommendations for input videos…
performing self-attention on the combined text embeddings and at least one music embedding by the first sub-model to generate a text-music embedding…
performing cross-attention on the at least one video embedding and the text-music embedding to identify at least one other music track based on the video, the at least one music track, and the input text indicative of the user's preference”.
Pertinent art McKee et al. (“Language-Guided Music Recommendation for Video via Prompt Analogies”, McKee et al., 22 August 2023) (as cited in the IDS, hereinafter “McKee”) discloses using a Transformer-based model architecture with a video-text fusion module for music recommendation, but does not specifically disclose a recommender system that recommends music from the combination of audio and text using a just music-text embedding, as in the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7th, 2026 (hereinafter “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objections to the drawings, Applicant’s replacement Fig 5. has overcome the objections, which are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of the prior Office Action have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Argument 1:
“Applicant's claims, especially as clarified, recite multiple limitations that cannot
practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. In particular, a human cannot
practically, in his mind or using pen and paper, perform: inputting a video into a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model comprises a first sub-model and a second sub-model, and the machine learning model is configured to implement the dialog-based music recommendations for the input videos; extracting base embeddings from the video and performing self-attention on the base embeddings to generate at least one video embedding by the first sub-model; identifying at least one music track by the first sub-model based on the at least one video embedding; generating a first set of sentences by the second sub-model, the first set of sentences depicting the at least one music track and recommendation reasons in natural languages; causing to display the first set of sentences on a computing device associated with a user; in response to receiving input text indicating that the user prefers music different from the at least one music track, extracting text embeddings from the input text and combining the text embeddings with at least one music embedding associated with the at least one music track by the first sub-model; performing self-attention on the combined text embeddings and at least one music embedding by the first sub-model to generate a text-music embedding; performing cross- attention on the at least one video embedding and the text-music embedding to identify at least one other music track based on the video, the at least one music track, and the input text indicative of the user's preference; and generating a second set of sentences depicting the at least one other music track in natural languages for display on the computing device."” (Remarks, pages 10-11).
Examiners Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the MPEP states “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As identified in Step 2A Prong 1 above, many elements of the claim can be considered to fall within the mental process grouping, as they can practically be performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper. Furthermore, under Step 2A Prong 1, portions of the amended limitations were also identified as being directed to mathematical concepts. The use of generic computing components to perform the claims falls amounts to adding the words “apply it or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)(2). 2106.05(h).
Argument 2:
“Even if it could be shown that the claims recite an abstract idea, these "additional
elements" of the claims clearly integrate any alleged abstract idea into practical application. A claim is not directed to a judicial exception "if the claim as a whole 'integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception."' October 2019 Update. Applicant's claims are inextricably tied to a technique for improving music recommendation systems.” (Remarks, page 11).
Examiners Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the MPEP states “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” See MPEP § 2106.05(I). Further, “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II). This argument is unpersuasive — the applicant merely uses a computer to perform processes which can be performed by a human mind. An improvement to a music recommendation system may be an improvement in an abstract idea, but not an improvement in the functioning of a computer, as a computer nor an improvement to technology. Further, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Argument 3:
“Claim 1 as a whole, especially as clarified, reflects the practical application of improving music recommendation systems, as described in Applicant's specification. More specifically, … [claim 1] as claimed, improves music recommendation systems by providing music track recommendations that align with user needs for specific videos. Consequently, the claims integrate into a practical application of improving music recommendation systems.” (Remarks, pages 12-13).
Examiners Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the MPEP states “It should be noted that while this consideration is often referred to in an abbreviated manner as the "improvements consideration," the word "improvements" in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Further, “…if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). While the claims may show an improvement in music recommendation systems, this cannot be considered an improvement in technology. A person can, using a variety of modalities as inputs, recommend musical tracks in their head or with the aid of pen and paper, even if the recommendations involve the following of algorithms or formulas. The addition of computing components to perform these recommendations either amounts to adding the words “apply it or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)(2). 2106.05(h).
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 JACOB Z SUSSMAN MOSS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached on (571) 272-3719. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/MICHAEL H HOANG/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights