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 .
Status of Amendments
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1 – 7 are currently pending.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 7 are drawn to a method.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 – 7 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. A method for customizing and displaying a ticker feed on a sport wagering network, comprising:
automatically retrieving at least one wager preference associated with a user from a user database;
retrieving at least one available wager from an odds database;
retrieving two or more active ticker elements from a ticker database;
determining relevance for each active ticker element based on the at least one wager preference from the user database, wherein the relevance represents how closely the ticker element aligns with the at least one wager preference associated with the user;
determining at least one ticker priority for each active ticker element, wherein the ticker priority indicates the relevance of the two or more active ticker elements to the user in the context of at least one available wager, artificial intelligence is trained to assign a ticker priority score which maximizes the relevance of the two or more active ticker elements for the user;
automatically displaying an active ticker element based on the at least one ticker priority on a user device, wherein the two or more ticker elements are displayed to the user in order based upon relative ticker priority scores;;
determining input selection of at least one ticker element on the wagering application;
receiving at least one input selection from the wagering application; and
offering at least one available wager on the wagering application.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, mental processes
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the offering of a wager to a user based upon the selection of displayed ticker elements that are determined upon a to be displayed in a prioritized manner that match with a player’s wagering preferences. A human can carry out this method utilizing manual means such as pen and paper.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): databases, user devices, artificial intelligence, applications and using sensor data .
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed computer various devices, applications, artificial intelligence, databases and sensors. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0063] Further, embodiments may include a plurality of sensors 104 that may be used such as motion, temperature, or humidity sensors, optical sensors, and cameras such as an RGB-D camera which is a digital camera capable of capturing color (RGB) and depth information for every pixel in an image, microphones, radiofrequency receivers, thermal imagers, radar devices, lidar devices, ultrasound devices, speakers, wearable devices, etc. Also, the plurality of sensors 104 may include but are not limited to, tracking devices, such as RFID tags, GPS chips, or other such devices embedded on uniforms, in equipment, in the field of play and boundaries of the field of play, or on other markers in the field of play. Imaging devices may also be used as tracking devices, such as player tracking, which provide statistical information through real-time X, Y positioning of players and X, Y, Z positioning of the ball.
[0064] Further, embodiments may include a cloud 106 or a communication network that may be a wired and/or wireless network. The communication network, if wireless, may be implemented using communication techniques such as visible light communication (VLC), worldwide interoperability for microwave access (WiMAX), long term evolution (LTE), wireless local area network (WLAN), infrared (IR) communication, public switched telephone network (PSTN), radio waves, or other communication techniques that are known in the art. The communication network may allow ubiquitous access to shared pools of configurable system resources and higher-level services that can be rapidly provisioned with minimal management effort, often over the internet, and relies on sharing resources to achieve coherence and economies of scale, like a public utility. In contrast, third-party clouds allow organizations to focus on their core businesses instead of expending resources on computer infrastructure and maintenance. The cloud 106 may be communicatively coupled to a peer-to-peer wagering network 114, which may perform real-time analysis on the type of play and the result of the play. The cloud 106 may also be synchronized with game situational data such as the time of the game, the score, location on the field, weather conditions, and the like, which may affect the choice of play utilized. For example, in an exemplary embodiment, the cloud 106 may not receive data gathered from the sensors 104 and may, instead, receive data from an alternative data feed, such as Sports Radar®. This data may be compiled substantially immediately following the completion of any play and may be compared with a variety of team data and league data based on a variety of elements, including the current down, possession, score, time, team, and so forth, as described in various exemplary embodiments herein.
[0065] Further, embodiments may include a mobile device 108 such as a computing device, laptop, smartphone, tablet, computer, smart speaker, or I/O devices. I/O devices may be present in the computing device. Input devices may include but are not limited to, keyboards, mice, trackpads, trackballs, touchpads, touch mice, multi-touch touchpads and touch mice, microphones, multi- array microphones, drawing tablets, cameras, single-lens reflex cameras (SLRs), digital SLRs (DSLRs), complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensors, accelerometers, IR optical sensors, pressure sensors, magnetometer sensors, angular rate sensors, depth sensors, proximity sensors, ambient light sensors, gyroscopic sensors, or other sensors. Output devices may include but are not limited to, video displays, graphical displays, speakers, headphones, inkjet printers, laser printers, or 3D printers. Devices may include, but are not limited to, a combination of multiple input or output devices such as, Microsoft KINECT, Nintendo Wii remote, Nintendo WII U GAMEPAD, or Apple iPhone. Some devices allow gesture recognition inputs by combining input and output devices. Other devices allow for facial recognition, which may be utilized as an input for different purposes such as authentication or other commands. Some devices provide for voice recognition and inputs including, but not limited to, Microsoft KINECT, SIRI for iPhone by Apple, Google Now, or Google Voice Search. Additional user devices have both input and output capabilities including but not limited to, haptic feedback devices, touchscreen displays, or multi- touch displays. Touchscreen, multi-touch displays, touchpads, touch mice, or other touch sensing devices may use different technologies to sense touch, including but not limited to, capacitive, surface capacitive, projected capacitive touch (PCT), in-cell capacitive, resistive, IR, waveguide, dispersive signal touch (DST), in-cell optical, surface acoustic wave (SAW), bending wave touch (BWT), or force-based sensing technologies. Some multi-touch devices may allow two or more contact points with the surface, allowing advanced functionality including, but not limited to, pinch, spread, rotate, scroll, or other gestures. Some touchscreen devices, including but not limited to, Microsoft PIXELSENSE or Multi-Touch Collaboration Wall, may have larger surfaces, such as on a table-top or on a wall, and may also interact with other electronic devices. Some I/O devices, display devices, or groups of devices may be augmented reality devices. An I/O controller may control one or more I/O devices, such as a keyboard and a pointing device, or a mouse or optical pen. Furthermore, an I/O device may also contain storage and/or an installation medium for the computing device. In some embodiments, the computing device may include USB connections (not shown) to receive handheld USB storage devices. In further embodiments, an I/O device may be a bridge between the system bus and an external communication bus, e.g., USB, SCSI, FireWire, Ethernet, Gigabit Ethernet, Fiber Channel, or Thunderbolt buses. In some embodiments, the mobile device 108 could be an optional component and may be utilized in a situation where a paired wearable device employs the mobile device 108 for additional memory or computing power or connection to the internet.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Wells et al (US 2020/0108315) establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0035] A conventional embodiment of the systems and methods as disclosed herein may include a video game application executed on a user-based hardware device that is communicatively connected to a game server, the game server further connected to one or more databases of written works, the written works comprising at least text and optionally additional associated information (e.g. author, title, meter, rhythm, pitch, audio, video, images, metadata, copyright information, permissions, album cover, volume, publication information, and the like). A user may query, or in alternative embodiment enter, written works via the game application for inclusion. In an alternative embodiment, a third-party user may specify the written works to be included in accordance with user-associated advertising text.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopra (US 8,540,574) in view of Parthimos (2019/0035223) in view of Kline et al (US 2019/0362601) in view of Pollak (US 2014/0250132.
As per claim 1,
retrieving at least one available wager from an odds database; (Kopra discloses the retrieving of available wagers from an odds database) (Kopra 6:4 – 16)
retrieving two or more active ticker elements from a ticker database; (Kopra discloses the retrieving of news items (ticker elements) from a news database that are related user actions on the betting pages of the betting service. Kopra further discloses the displaying of graphical illustrations of warning lights (i.e. ticker elements) that are related to the wagering event) (Kopra 7:11 – 25, 48 – 57; 7:58-8:22)
determining at least one ticker priority for each active ticker element, wherein the ticker priority indicates the relevance of the two or more active ticker elements to the user in the context of at least one available wager…; (Kopra discloses the displaying of information (i.e. ticker elements) based upon a priority, wherein the priority is based upon how important the information is to the user in the context of the betting event or wagering window) (Kopra 7:58 – 8:22
Automatically displaying an active ticker element based on the at least one ticker priority on a user device wherein the two or more ticker elements are displayed to the user in order…; (Kopra 7:58 – 8:22)
determining input selection of at least one ticker element on the wagering application; receiving at least one input selection from the wagering application; and (Kopra disclose receiving input selection of news information (i.e. ticker elements) (Kopra 7:20 – 25)
offering at least one available wager on the wagering application. (Kopra 8:44 – 56)
Kopra fails to specifically disclose:
automatically retrieving at least one wager preference associated with a user from a user database;
determining relevance for each active ticker element based on the at least one wager preference from the user database, wherein the relevance represents how closely the ticker element aligns with the at least one wager preference associated with the user and automatically updating the wager preference after placement of a wager
or “…artificial intelligence is trained to assign a ticker priority score which maximizes the relevance of the two or more active ticker elements for the user”
or “…based upon relative ticker priority scores
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Parthimos discloses a system that utilizes wager preferences that are stored in a preference profile (Parthimos 0034), wherein future race event and betting recommendations (i.e. ticker elements) are selected to be displayed to the user based upon a match between details of the future race event (Parthimos 0082 - 0083) and the preferences of the user (Parthimos 0077 – 0079).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Kopra in view of Parthimos to select and display betting or wagering information that is relevant to a player’s preferences in a preference profile. This would enable the player to stay well informed of dynamically changing betting information that may be useful to a player from the time they are able to wager until the wagering event window closes.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kline discloses a wagering system that utilizes a user’s wagering activity to thereby determine which wagering opportunities will be prioritized for the user to view. N Specifically, Kline discloses: “[0057] Similarly, the application may learn and store the preferences of the user 204 such that the offers are adapted to the style of betting and preferred bets of the user 204. For example, if the user 204 accepts a large fraction of corner-kick bets, then the user 204 may be offered more corner-kick bets in the future. Similarly, if the user 204 places a large number of bets on plays involving a particular player, then more bets for that player may be offered during future games. This may occur in real time during the course of the game and the profile of the user 204 may be updated during or after the game to enhance the experience for the user 204 for the next game. Similarly, bets offered to the user 204 that the user 204 does not accept may not be offered in the future. This decreases the amount of undesired bets that the user 204 receives, thus providing higher satisfaction to the user 204.” (Kline 0057)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Kopra in view of Parthimos in view of Kline to utilize a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way to utilize a player’s pattern or history of previous placed wagers to influence which further wagering opportunities are thereby presented to the player. This would provide a player with more wagers opportunities that they are more likely than not interested in.
In a similar field of endeavor, Pollak discloses a system of displaying content to a user, wherein artificial intelligence assigns a priority score to multiple discrete content elements and displays the content elements to the user based upon the assigned priority score to thereby maximize the relevant items displayed to the user (Pollak 0050, 0051, 0054, 0060).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Kopra in view of Pollak to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way by utilizing artificial intelligence to assign priority scores to content that is deemed most relative to a user and display that content based upon the scored priority. This would enable the system to deliver the most relevant content to the user upon a user interface such as a display in an automated manner.
As per claim 3, wherein the active ticker element further comprises at least one of a news event, a statistic, a live event status update, a sporting event, a player update, a team update, a weather update, and a score update. (Kopra discloses an event status update) (Kopra 7:11 – 25, 48 – 57; 7:58-8:22)
As per claim 6, wherein displaying at least one ticker element further comprises at least one of a banner, a band, a notification, a pop-up, and a text message. (Kopra discloses the retrieving of news items (ticker elements) from a news database that are related user actions on the betting pages of the betting service. Kopra further discloses the displaying of graphical illustrations of warning lights (i.e. ticker elements) that are related to the wagering event) (Kopra 7:11 – 25, 48 – 57; 7:58-8:22)
As per claim 7, further comprising collecting sensor data from a live event and using the sensor data to determine availability of the at least one available wager (Combination of Kopra , Parthimos and Kline as applied to claim 1, wherein Kline discloses “[0050] In some embodiments, betting offers are changed based on a determined excitement level and based on in-game activities. For example, different bets may be offered at exciting moments such as when a goal is scored or when the home team steals the ball from the visiting team and bets may be offered more frequently when the game is close or at critical moments. For example, the opposing team scores with five minutes left to tie the game, based on the expected excitement level of the fans, a bet that the home team scores in the next five minutes may be offered. As such, the betting features may take advantage of the exciting moments in the sporting event.
[0051] The measured excitement level described above may also be affected by physiological data such as a heart rate of the user 204 as determined by a biometric sensor or a sound level in the arena 202 as measured by sensors in the arena 202 or on the mobile device 206 of the user 204. The application may also access features of the mobile device 206 such as the accelerometer. When the accelerometer indicates that the user 204 has raised their hands in a celebratory motion, additional or different betting offers may be presented to the user 204. For example, the home team scores and the user 204 raises their hands as determined by the accelerometer on the mobile device 206. Simultaneously, the microphone on the mobile device 206 detects loud cheers that may be compared to stored data to determine if the cheers are for a relatively good experience or bad experience. The application may determine that the cheers are for a good experience and also determine that this set of events relates to high betting conditions and high concession sales. A bet is then offered to the user 204 along with a coupon for a free beverage if the user 204 accepts the bet.”) (Kline 0050, 0051)
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopra (US 8,540,574) in view of Parthimos (2019/0035223) in view of Kline et al (US 2019/0362601) in view of Pollak (US 2014/0250132 in view of Alderucci et al (US 8,150,956).
As per claim 2, Kopra fails to disclose:
wherein the wager preference further comprises at least a wager type and a wager characteristic.
However in a similar field of endeavor, Alderucci teaches a game system wherein a user enters wagering preferences that include at least a wager characteristic and type such as default wager to be made (Alderucci 11:54 – 57). Alderucci further discloses the utilization of player gaming preferences such as wager type to thereby provide the user with alerts of gaming events (i.e. ticker elements) that match the user’s supplied gaming preferences based upon relevance (Alderucci 12:13 – 21; 14:49 – 59)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Kopra in view of Alderucci to provide alerts to a user based upon game events matching gaming preferences that include wager types and characteristics. This would enable the user to stay informed in real time of events that match their preferences, be alerted graphically of these events and thus enable the player to participate in the event, thus increasing their participation.
As per claim 4, wherein the wager is further determined by comparing at least one wager characteristic and at least one ticker element for a match. (Combination of Kopra in view of Alderucci as applied to claim 2, wherein Alderucci teaches the use of gaming preferences that are used to compare wager characteristics (i.e. default wager type) to a possible game event (i.e. ticker elements) for a match) (Alderucci 12:13 – 21; 14:49 – 59))
As per claim 5, wherein the relevance is further determined by comparing at least one wager preference and at least one ticker element for a match. (Combination of Kopra in view of Alderucci as applied to claim 2, wherein Alderucci teaches the use of gaming preferences that are used to compare wager characteristics (i.e. default wager type) to a possible game event (i.e. ticker elements) for a match (i.e. relevance) (Alderucci 12:13 – 21; 14:49 – 59))
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see above rejection addressing the newly amended claim language.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues:
“Claim 1, as amended, recites: "determining at least one ticker priority for each active ticker element, wherein the ticker priority indicates the relevance of the two or more active ticker elements to the user in the context of at least one available wager and artificial intelligence is trained to assign a ticker priority score which maximizes the relevance of the two or more active ticker elements for the user" (emphasis added). Paragraph [0079] discloses that artificial intelligence may be trained by a third party or an administrator of network 114 to assign a ticker priority score which maximizes the relevance of ticker elements for a user.
This subject matter necessarily requires a computer system with trained artificial intelligence. Hence, the human mind is not equipped to perform the claimed subject matter.
As set forth in M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(1), a claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field.
Claim 1, as amended, also recites: "automatically displaying an active ticker element based on the at least one ticker priority on a user device, wherein the two or more ticker elements are displayed to the user in order based upon relative ticker priority scores." The ticker priority score may be associated with its corresponding ticker element and represents the relative priority for displaying the ticker element to the user. A ticker element with a higher ticker priority score should be displayed to a user before a ticker element with a lower ticker priority score. This subject matter has the practice application of improving the display based upon the trained artificial intelligence determining the relative priorities for different ticker elements.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of these rejections.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant’s arguments towards subject matter eligibility hinge upon the use of a computer system that utilizes trained artificial intelligence to a ticker priority score to multiple ticker elements and display ticker elements according to the ticker priority score. The Applicant argues essentially that this use of artificial intelligence cannot be performed by the human mind and provides a practical application of the abstract idea and this the claims are directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements recited in claim 1 (retrieving and storing data in databases, user devices, the training of artificial intelligence, utilization of applications gathering or collection of sensor data) are recited generically and at a high level. Claim 1 merely recites retrieval of data from databases, determining of relevance, determinations of ticker priority and using AI to determine ticker priority scores, displaying of ticker elements based upon priority scores, determination of inputs from an application and offering a wager upon an application, applying the analyzing, determining, calculating, generating, and providing steps using generic computers, which is not sufficient to confer patent-eligibility. These additional elements do not constitute improvements to computers or any other technology or technical field. Rather, claim 1 recites improvements to the abstract idea directed towards the offering of a wager to a user based upon the selection of displayed ticker elements that are determined upon a to be displayed in a prioritized manner that match with a player’s wagering preferences and using computers to perform routine calculations and display.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
12/23/2025
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715