DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendments and Arguments submitted on August 25, 2025 for Continuation Application # 18/765,280 filed on July 7, 2024 in which claims 1-7 are presented for examination.
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 claims
Claims 1-11 are pending, of which claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and also claims 1, 8 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are amended.
No claims are canceled.
Claims 8-11 are newly added.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Provisional Application# 62/788,880 and 62/788,883 are acknowledged with priority date January 06, 2019.
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, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims recite a method, apparatus and computer system. Therefore, Step 1 is satisfied for claims 1-11.
Step 2A Prong One: The independent claims analyzing selected data, technician words and providing solutions, abstract ideas. Given the breadth of the present claim language, claim that recites of automating the cooking and preparing food machine through interface to a tangible recipe to be included can be performed in a human mind, which is a “mental process” of abstract idea set forth in the 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826. The recitations of method, computer device and computer readable medium does not change the mental process nature of these limitations because the computing machinery and automating cooking machine is a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. The method that is recited in the independent claim limitation can be performed by using a pen and paper can be drawn on a paper.
For purposes of further discussion, the limitations are treated as a single abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The examiner finds no additional claim elements beyond the judicial exception, whether individually or in combination, that integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
system for use with connected kitchen appliances, wherein the system includes an appliance interface, implemented by hardware in combination with software, the appliance interface responsive to a user progressing through a tangible recipe, and wherein the tangible recipe includes a plurality of recipe steps, at least some of the recipe steps to be carried out with at least some connected kitchen appliances, and
wherein a first at least one step of the tangible recipe is to be carried out with a first connected kitchen appliance, and a second at least one step of the tangible recipe is to be carried out with a second connected kitchen appliance, distinct from the first connected kitchen appliance, wherein the first connected kitchen appliance has an associated first electronic display, and wherein the second connected kitchen appliance has an associated second electronic display,
the method comprising:
(A) based, at least in part, on progress of the user through the recipe steps of the tangible recipe, the appliance interface activating and/or controlling at least one of the kitchen appliances associated with steps in the tangible recipe as the user progresses through the steps;
(B) said appliance interface presenting information about the tangible recipe on one or more electronic displays associated with the at least some of the connected kitchen appliances as the user progresses through the tangible recipe; and
(C) said appliance interface presenting information regarding said activating and/or controlling the at least one of the kitchen appliances in (A) on one or more electronic displays associated with the at least some of the connected kitchen appliances.
Claim 8
A method, in a system for use with connected kitchen appliances, wherein the system includes an appliance interface, implemented by hardware in combination with software, the appliance interface responsive to a user progressing through a tangible recipe, and wherein the tangible recipe includes a plurality of recipe steps, at least some of the recipe steps to be carried out with at least some connected kitchen appliances, and
wherein a first at least one step of the tangible recipe is to be carried out with a first connected kitchen appliance, and a second at least one step of the tangible recipe is to be carried out with a second connected kitchen appliance, distinct from the first connected kitchen appliance, wherein the first connected kitchen appliance has an associated first electronic display, and wherein the second connected kitchen appliance has an associated second electronic display,
the method comprising:
(A) based, at least in part, on progress of the user through the recipe steps of the tangible recipe, the appliance interface activating and/or controlling at least one of the kitchen appliances associated with steps in the tangible recipe as the user progresses through the steps; and
(B) said appliance interface presenting information regarding said activating and/or controlling the at least one of the kitchen appliances in (A) on one or more electronic displays associated with the at least some of the connected kitchen appliances.
Claim 10
A method, in a system for use with connected kitchen appliances, wherein the system includes an appliance interface implemented by hardware in combination with software, the appliance interface configured to control and coordinate multiple connected kitchen appliances in real-time electronically,
the appliance interface being responsive to a user progressing through a tangible recipe comprising a plurality of recipe steps, wherein a first at least one recipe step is to be carried out with a first connected kitchen appliance and a second at least one recipe step is to be carried out with a second connected kitchen appliance distinct from the first, the first connected kitchen appliance including a first electronic visual display and the second connected kitchen appliance including a second electronic visual display,
the method comprising:
(A) the appliance interface automatically activating and/or controlling at least one of the connected kitchen appliances associated with the recipe steps of the tangible recipe as the user progresses through the steps; and
(B) the appliance interface causing presentation of information regarding the activating and/or controlling of the at least one connected kitchen appliance on at least one of the electronic visual displays of the connected kitchen appliances, wherein said presentation is updated dynamically based on real-time status data received from the connected kitchen appliances.
The computer elements are recited at a high degree of generality by amending the claim that display is electronic instead of visual and represent instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. There is no indication of any specialized programming algorithm or specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components. These limitations can also be viewed as applying the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Please see MPEP 2106.05(I).
The examiner finds no claimed improvement to computers or other technology to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner therefore concludes that the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception? The examiner finds no additional elements or combination that provide an inventive concept.
The examiner concludes that none of the claims as presently drafted recite patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vishnu Gurusamy Sundaram US 2017/0116661 A1 (hereinafter ‘Sundaram’) in view of David Benjamin Buehler US 2005/0193901 A1 (hereinafter ‘Buehler’).
As per claim 1, Sundaram disclose, A method, in a system for use with connected kitchen appliances (Sundaram: paragraph 0015: disclose method and system for creating a machine that allow to select various food items and paragraph 0033: disclose kitchen appliances and food processing machines), wherein the system includes an appliance interface (Sundaram: paragraph 0086: disclose interface to the machine allows user to select the recipes), implemented by hardware in combination with software, the appliance interface responsive to a user progressing through a tangible recipe (Sundaram: paragraph 0086: disclose selecting recipes that are prepared), and wherein the tangible recipe includes a plurality of recipe steps (Sundaram: paragraph 0042: disclose provide the recipe of the food to be prepared, which is equated to plurality of recipe steps), at least some of the recipe steps to be carried out with at least some connected kitchen appliances (Sundaram: paragraph 0033: disclose kitchen appliances and food processing machines are end point devices that perform recipe), and
wherein a first at least one step of the tangible recipe is to be carried out with a first connected kitchen appliance (Sundaram: paragraph 0033: disclose kitchen appliances are considered as first appliance), and a second at least one step of the tangible recipe is to be carried out with a second connected kitchen appliance, distinct from the first connected kitchen appliance (Sundaram: paragraph 0033: disclose food processing machine, which examiner considers as second connected kitchen appliance and also disclose the module connects a plurality of remotely located end-point devices and also food processing machine and kitchen appliance are distinct. Examiner understands that the two appliances are geographically different locations and examiner would discuss this further in secondary art below), wherein the first connected kitchen appliance has an associated first electronic display (Sundaram: paragraph 0093: disclose cooking machine interface via the mobile app ‘electronic display’ or on the machine), and wherein the second connected kitchen appliance has an associated second electronic display (Sundaram: paragraph 0095: disclose user ordering manually, which examiner equates to an interface and paragraph 0093: disclose interface via the mobile app ‘electronic display’),
the method comprising:
(A) based, at least in part, on progress of the user through the recipe steps of the tangible recipe (), the appliance interface activating and/or controlling at least one of the kitchen appliances associated with steps in the tangible recipe as the user progresses through the steps (Sundaram: paragraph 0106: disclose specific type of preparations such as heating, boiling, cooling, spraying, microwave etc. and paragraph 0032: disclose automatic end-to-end preparation and management of food is considered as following recipe steps as progresses in food preparation); and
(B) said appliance interface presenting information about the tangible recipe on one or more electronic displays associated with the at least some of the connected kitchen appliances as the user progresses through the tangible recipe (Sundaram: paragraph 0093: disclose cooking machine interface via the mobile app or on the machine with the interface to choose the recipes to be prepared on his appliance based on several categories); and
(C) said appliance interface presenting information regarding said activating and/or controlling (Sundaram: paragraph 0081: disclose mobile phone application ‘interface’ controls the cooking machine) the at least one of the kitchen appliances in (A) (Sundaram: paragraph 0081: disclose cooking machine ‘kitchen appliances’).
42It is noted, however, Sundaram did not specifically detail the aspects of
a second connected kitchen appliance, distinct from the first connected kitchen appliance;
the second connected kitchen appliance has an associated second visual display;
on one or more electronic displays associated with the at least some of the connected kitchen appliances as recited in claim 1.
On the other hand, Buchler achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
a second connected kitchen appliance, distinct from the first connected kitchen appliance (Buchler: paragraph 0154: disclose various modules ‘appliance’ such as oven module, dishware storage module among others that are part of cooking and preparation system);
the second connected kitchen appliance has an associated second visual display (Buchler: Fig. 18A & 18B and paragraph 0215 & paragraph 0219: disclose a two visual displays of oven and grill modules);
on one or more electronic displays (Buchler: paragraph 0476: disclose user is notified ‘display’ by a cell phone ‘electronic display’) associated with the at least some of the connected kitchen appliances (Buchler: Fig. 18A & 18B and paragraph 0215 & paragraph 0219: disclose a two visual displays of oven and grill modules).
Sundaram and Buchler are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and both from the same “problem-solving area”. Namely, they are both from the field of “Recipe Cooking Systems”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Sundaram and Buchler because they are both directed to recipe cooking systems and both are from the same field of endeavor. The skilled person would therefore regard it as a normal option to include the restriction features of Buchler with the method described by Sundaram in order to solve the problem posed.
The motivation for doing so would have been to device that can be used at home or in a restaurant, that operates almost completely autonomously, that can prepare a wide variety of dishes, and that can also clean itself (Buchler: paragraph 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Buchler with Sundaram to obtain the invention as specified in instant claim 1.
As per claim 2, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Sundaram disclose, wherein the presenting in (B) comprises: (B)(i) said appliance interface presenting first information about the tangible recipe on the first visual display associated with the first connected kitchen appliance during the first at least one step of the tangible recipe (Sundaram: paragraph 0093: disclose cooking machine interface via the mobile app or on the machine with the interface to choose the recipes to be prepared on his appliance based on several categories), wherein the first information comprises first recipe steps associated with the first at least one step of the tangible recipe (Sundaram: paragraph 0042: disclose provide the recipe of the food to be prepared, which is equated to plurality of recipe steps).
As per claim 3, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above.
42It is noted, however, Sundaram did not specifically detail the aspects of
(B)(ii) said appliance interface presenting second information about the tangible recipe on the second visual display associated with the second connected kitchen appliance during the second at least one step of the tangible recipe as recited in claim 3.
On the other hand, Buchler achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
(B)(ii) said appliance interface presenting second information about the tangible recipe on the second visual display (Buchler: Fig. 18A & 18B and paragraph 0215 & paragraph 0219: disclose a two visual displays of oven and grill modules) associated with the second connected kitchen appliance during the second at least one step of the tangible recipe (Buchler: paragraph 0154: disclose various modules ‘appliance’ such as oven module, dishware storage module among others that are part of cooking and preparation system).
As per claim 4, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Sundaram disclose, wherein the appliance interface tracking progress of the user through the recipe steps of the tangible recipe (Sundaram: paragraph 0106: disclose specific type of preparations such as heating, boiling, cooling, spraying, microwave etc. and paragraph 0032: disclose automatic end-to-end preparation and management of food is considered as following recipe steps as progresses in food preparation).
As per claim 5, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Sundaram disclose, wherein at least some of the connected kitchen appliances communicate with the appliance interface via web communication and/or local communication (Sundaram: paragraph 0093: disclose cooking machine interface via the mobile app or on the machine with the interface to choose the recipes to be prepared on his appliance based on several categories, where examiner considers mobile App as web communication).
As per claim 6, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above.
42It is noted, however, Sundaram did not specifically detail the aspects of
where the appliance interface communicates with the connected appliances in real-time, and wherein a connected appliance obtains commands from the appliance interface, and wherein the appliance interface obtains at least status updates from at least some of the connected appliances as recited in claim 6.
On the other hand, Buchler achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
where the appliance interface communicates with the connected appliances in real-time, and wherein a connected appliance obtains commands from the appliance interface, and wherein the appliance interface obtains at least status updates from at least some of the connected appliances (Buchler: paragraph 0477: disclose chef operating the machine in real-time and paragraph 0431: disclose interfaces with other parts of the device to the cooking machine).
As per claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Sundaram disclose, wherein the tangible recipe was determined based on a user-comprehensible recipe (Sundaram: paragraph 0042: disclose recipe of the food to be prepared and the instructions of preparing the food).
As per claim 8, Sundaram disclose, A method, in a system for use with connected kitchen appliances, wherein the system includes an appliance interface, implemented by hardware in combination with software (Sundaram: paragraph 0015: disclose method and system for creating a machine that allow to select various food items and paragraph 0033: disclose kitchen appliances and food processing machines), remaining limitations of this claim 8 are similar to limitations in claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects these limitation under the same rationale as claim 1.
As per claim 9, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 9 limitations under the same rationale as claim 1.
As per claim 10, Sundaram disclose, A method, in a system for use with connected kitchen appliances, wherein the system includes an appliance interface implemented by hardware in combination with software (Sundaram: paragraph 0015: disclose method and system for creating a machine that allow to select various food items and paragraph 0033: disclose kitchen appliances and food processing machines), remaining limitations of this claim 8 are similar to limitations in claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects these limitation under the same rationale as claim 1.
42It is noted, however, Sundaram did not specifically detail the aspects of
the appliance interface configured to control and coordinate multiple connected kitchen appliances in real-time electronically as recited in claim 10.
On the other hand, Buchler achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
the appliance interface configured to control and coordinate multiple connected kitchen appliances in real-time electronically (Buchler: paragraph 0477: disclose chef operating the machine in real-time and paragraph 0431: disclose interfaces with other parts of the device to the cooking machine).
As per claim 11, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 11 limitations under the same rationale as claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 25, 2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of system for use with connected kitchen appliances, wherein the system includes an appliance interface, implemented by hardware in combination with software, the appliance interface responsive to a user progressing through a tangible recipe, and wherein the tangible recipe includes a plurality of recipe steps, at least some of the recipe steps to be carried out with at least some connected kitchen appliances, and
wherein a first at least one step of the tangible recipe is to be carried out with a first connected kitchen appliance, and a second at least one step of the tangible recipe is to be carried out with a second connected kitchen appliance, distinct from the first connected kitchen appliance, wherein the first connected kitchen appliance has an associated first electronic display, and wherein the second connected kitchen appliance has an associated second electronic display,
the method comprising:
(A) based, at least in part, on progress of the user through the recipe steps of the tangible recipe, the appliance interface activating and/or controlling at least one of the kitchen appliances associated with steps in the tangible recipe as the user progresses through the steps;
(B) said appliance interface presenting information about the tangible recipe on one or more electronic displays associated with the at least some of the connected kitchen appliances as the user progresses through the tangible recipe; and
(C) said appliance interface presenting information regarding said activating and/or controlling the at least one of the kitchen appliances in (A) on one or more electronic displays associated with the at least some of the connected kitchen appliances. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements such as electronic display, activating and/or controlling the steps of recipe on the kitchen appliances, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract recited in the form of a generalized invention which can be performed in a human mind with a pencil and paper, where the recipe can be on a paper and/or in human mind. The particular claimed elements which constitute the abstract idea include
system for use with connected kitchen appliances, wherein the system includes an appliance interface, implemented by hardware in combination with software, the appliance interface responsive to a user progressing through a tangible recipe, and wherein the tangible recipe includes a plurality of recipe steps, at least some of the recipe steps to be carried out with at least some connected kitchen appliances, and
wherein a first at least one step of the tangible recipe is to be carried out with a first connected kitchen appliance, and a second at least one step of the tangible recipe is to be carried out with a second connected kitchen appliance, distinct from the first connected kitchen appliance, wherein the first connected kitchen appliance has an associated first electronic display, and wherein the second connected kitchen appliance has an associated second electronic display,
the method comprising:
(A) based, at least in part, on progress of the user through the recipe steps of the tangible recipe, the appliance interface activating and/or controlling at least one of the kitchen appliances associated with steps in the tangible recipe as the user progresses through the steps;
(B) said appliance interface presenting information about the tangible recipe on one or more electronic displays associated with the at least some of the connected kitchen appliances as the user progresses through the tangible recipe; and
(C) said appliance interface presenting information regarding said activating and/or controlling the at least one of the kitchen appliances in (A) on one or more electronic displays associated with the at least some of the connected kitchen appliances.
As steps of recipe are presented and activated by monitoring the process of cooking on kitchen appliances in real-time, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
Mathematical relationships and algorithms have been found by the courts (e.g. Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams) to be abstract ideas. For example, in Benson, a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another was found to be an exception, as was an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition in Grams. The concept described in claim 1 does not meaningfully differ from those found by the courts to constitute mathematical algorithms.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Additional elements recited in the claim include the limitations: an application interface instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform the method; activating and/or following the progress of the recipe. These limitations are directed to realizing the mathematical algorithm in a computer system. Executing the using a model to prepare food is little more than a broad recitation of generic use of a computer (i.e., executing). Providing the validate function is at most insignificant post solution activity of following recipe steps. The preamble's recitation of a "computer-readable medium" and a "computer" are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Further, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because merely providing a result and executing the algorithm by a computer is akin to adding the words “apply it” with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea. Such limitations are not enough to add significantly more to the method of business rules of validation, which represent mathematical relationships and algorithms.
Considering all the limitations in combination, the claimed additional computer elements do not show any inventive concept in applying the mathematical operations, such as improving the performance of a computer or any other technology. The steps describe nothing more than a computer’s basic function of identifying data inconsistencies, and do not meaningfully limit the performance of the calculation. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. US 2002/0046060 A1 disclose “System and method for generating a meal plan”
US Pub. US 2009/0327998 A1 disclose “CONSTRAINED APPLIANCE DEVELOPMENT TOOLKIT”
US Pub. US 20090259689 A1 disclose “Interactive recipe preparation using instructive device with integrated actuators to provide tactile feedback”
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 PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3836. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. 8am - 4pm, 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, Ann J Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159