DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
This action is in reply to the application filed on July 11, 2024.
Claims 1–18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed July 11, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. A copy of the Form 1449 has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. As noted by Applicant, copies of the cited references were filed in the Parent Application Number 16/908,569, but the specific document that was not included, neither here nor filed in the parent application, is the Non-Patent Literature document titled “Search Report for European Application No. 21829535.0, Dated Jun 10, 2024”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
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 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1–6 and 13–18 are directed to a machine (“A system” and “A non-transitory computer-readable media”), and claims 7–12 are directed to a process (“A method”). Thus, claims 1–18 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 1–20, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
generating a threshold coverage value based, at least in part, on an insurable obligation associated with a good or service that a vendor will supply to a client and an annual value associated with the good or service, the threshold coverage value indicating a coverage value that is beneficial for satisfying a contractual obligation associated with the client;
determining a level of compliance of a user account associated with the insurable obligation based, at least in part, on the threshold coverage value;
determining that the level of compliance is insufficient to meet the insurable obligation;
. . . a notification that the level of compliance is insufficient, or both; and
. . . an insurance application configured to receive, . . . an input indicating information required to obtain an insurance coverage that is sufficient to meet the insurable obligation.
The claims, therefore, recite determining a coverage amount and contract compliance and then updating insurance, which is the abstract idea of methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of insurance.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies and computer components to implement this abstract idea (“processors”, “computer-readable media”, “graphical user interface (GUI)”, “computing device”, “remote computing resource”, “network”, and “non-transitory computer-readable media”). The claims also recite “causing the GUI to display, on the user computing device”. The additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the computer to receive data, determine a value, and display information. Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements are at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 7 and 13 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent system claim 1. There are no additional elements recited in these claims other than the generic technology and computer parts discussed above (“graphical user interface (GUI)”, “computing device”, “non-transitory computer-readable media”, and “processors”). The only differences are that the features of claim 1 are implemented by a method in claim 7 and by computer program instructions in claim 13. Thus, because the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, claims 7 and 13 are also not patent eligible. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Dependent claims 2–6, 8–12, and 14–18 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the insurance determination recited in claims 1, 7, and 13 by further specifying the user account—“associated with the vendor or the client” and “sub-vendor account”.
For claims 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the insurance determination recited in claims 1, 7, and 13 by further specifying where the notification is sent—“alternative user account being associated with the vendor or the client” and “from a remote computing resource to the user computing device”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“computing device” and “GUI”). These claims do recite a remote computing resource and network, but again, these are also merely being used as tools to send and receive information. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 4, 10, and 16, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the insurance determination recited in claims 1, 7, and 13 by further specifying the insurable obligation—“supply contract, errors and omissions coverage, standalone cyber coverage, intellectual property infringement coverage, general liability coverage, or combinations thereof”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
(1) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
(2) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
(3) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
(4) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazek et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2021/0158451 (“Blazek”) in view of Wilson, U.S. Patent App. No. 2005/0049891 (“Wilson”).
For claim 1, Blazek teaches:
A system comprising (¶ 90: example system):
one or more processors (¶ 90: processors); and
one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (¶ 91: instructions stored on storage media, executed by processor):
generating a threshold coverage value based, at least in part, on an insurable obligation associated with a good or service that a vendor will supply to a client and an annual value associated with the good or service, the threshold coverage value indicating a coverage value that is beneficial for satisfying a contractual obligation associated with the client (¶ 87–89: coverage limits based on business and historic information) . . .; and
causing the GUI to display, on the user computing device, an insurance application configured to receive, from the user computing device, an input indicating information required to obtain an insurance coverage that is sufficient to meet the insurable obligation (¶ 33–34: insurance coverage application obtains user information for receiving recommended coverage; ¶ 37: interface).
Blazek does not teach: determining a level of compliance of a user account associated with the insurable obligation based, at least in part, on the threshold coverage value; determining that the level of compliance is insufficient to meet the insurable obligation; and generating a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to display on a user computing device associated with the user account, the GUI being configured to receive user input and causing display of the level of compliance, a notification that the level of compliance is insufficient, or both.
Wilson, however, teaches:
determining a level of compliance of a user account associated with the insurable obligation based, at least in part, on the threshold coverage value (¶ 31: compliance information used to verify compliance);
determining that the level of compliance is insufficient to meet the insurable obligation (¶ 34, 37: determination whether or not compliance, including determination of non-compliance); and
generating a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to display on a user computing device associated with the user account, the GUI being configured to receive user input and causing display of the level of compliance, a notification that the level of compliance is insufficient, or both (¶ 34, 37: graphical user interface displaying compliance result to customer or supplier).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
For claim 2, Blazek and Wilson teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Wilson further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the user account is associated with the vendor or the client (¶ 27: compliance of supplier with customer’s terms).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
For claim 3, Blazek and Wilson teach all the limitations of claim 2 above, and Wilson further teaches:
The system of claim 2, the operations further comprising sending the notification that the level of compliance is insufficient to a computing device associated with an alternative user account, the alternative user account being associated with the vendor or the client such that the user account and the alternative user account are not associated with a same entity (¶ 41–43: supplier and customers notified of compliance reports).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
For claim 4, Blazek and Wilson teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Wilson further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the insurable obligation is associated with a supply contract, errors and omissions coverage, standalone cyber coverage, intellectual property infringement coverage, general liability coverage, or combinations thereof (¶ 28: insurance verification for supply contract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
For claim 5, Blazek and Wilson teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Blazek further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the user account is a sub-vendor account (¶ 7, 9, 48: compliance of independent contractor working for supplier).
For claim 6, Blazek and Wilson teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Blazek further teaches:
The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising sending, from a remote computing resource to the user computing device via a network, at least one of the level of compliance, a notification that the level of compliance is insufficient, and the insurance application on the GUI (¶ 30, 33, 51: remote data stored at database and communicated over network).
For claim 7, Blazek teaches:
A method comprising (¶ 25: example method):
generating a threshold coverage value based, at least in part, on an insurable obligation associated with a good or service that a vendor will supply to a client and an annual value associated with the good or service, the threshold coverage value indicating a coverage value that is beneficial for satisfying a contractual obligation associated with the client (¶ 87–89: coverage limits based on business and historic information) . . .; and
causing the GUI to display, on the user computing device, an insurance application configured to receive, from the user computing device, an input indicating information required to obtain an insurance coverage that is sufficient to meet the insurable obligation (¶ 33–34: insurance coverage application obtains user information for receiving recommended coverage; ¶ 37: interface).
Blazek does not teach: determining a level of compliance of a user account associated with the insurable obligation based, at least in part, on the threshold coverage value; determining that the level of compliance is insufficient to meet the insurable obligation; and generating a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to display on a user computing device associated with the user account, the GUI being configured to receive user input and causing display of the level of compliance, a notification that the level of compliance is insufficient, or both.
Wilson, however, teaches:
determining a level of compliance of a user account associated with the insurable obligation based, at least in part, on the threshold coverage value (¶ 31: compliance information used to verify compliance);
determining that the level of compliance is insufficient to meet the insurable obligation (¶ 34, 37: determination whether or not compliance, including determination of non-compliance); and
generating a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to display on a user computing device associated with the user account, the GUI being configured to receive user input and causing display of the level of compliance, a notification that the level of compliance is insufficient, or both (¶ 34, 37: graphical user interface displaying compliance result to customer or supplier).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
For claim 8, Blazek and Wilson teach all the limitations of claim 7 above, and Wilson further teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the user account is associated with the vendor or the client (¶ 27: compliance of supplier with customer’s terms).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
For claim 9, Blazek and Wilson teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, and Wilson further teaches:
The method of claim 8, further comprising sending the notification that the level of compliance is insufficient to a computing device associated with an alternative user account, the alternative user account being associated with the vendor or the client such that the user account and the alternative user account are not associated with a same entity (¶ 41–43: supplier and customers notified of compliance reports).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
For claim 10, Blazek and Wilson teach all the limitations of claim 7 above, and Wilson further teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the insurable obligation is associated with a supply contract, errors and omissions coverage, standalone cyber coverage, intellectual property infringement coverage, general liability coverage, or combinations thereof (¶ 28: insurance verification for supply contract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
For claim 11, Blazek and Wilson teach all the limitations of claim 7 above, and Wilson further teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the user account is a sub-vendor account (¶ 7, 9, 48: compliance of independent contractor working for supplier).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
For claim 12, Blazek and Wilson teach all the limitations of claim 7 above, and Wilson further teaches:
The method of claim 7, further comprising sending, from a remote computing resource to the user computing device via a network, at least one of the level of compliance, a notification that the level of compliance is insufficient, and the insurance application on the GUI (¶ 30, 33, 51: remote data stored at database and communicated over network).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
For claim 13, Blazek teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (¶ 91: instructions stored on storage media, executed by processor):
generating a threshold coverage value based, at least in part, on an insurable obligation associated with a good or service that a vendor will supply to a client and an annual value associated with the good or service, the threshold coverage value indicating a coverage value that is beneficial for satisfying a contractual obligation associated with the client (¶ 87–89: coverage limits based on business and historic information) . . .; and
causing the GUI to display, on the user computing device, an insurance application configured to receive, from the user computing device, an input indicating information required to obtain an insurance coverage that is sufficient to meet the insurable obligation (¶ 33–34: insurance coverage application obtains user information for receiving recommended coverage; ¶ 37: interface).
Blazek does not teach: determining a level of compliance of a user account associated with the insurable obligation based, at least in part, on the threshold coverage value; determining that the level of compliance is insufficient to meet the insurable obligation; and generating a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to display on a user computing device associated with the user account, the GUI being configured to receive user input and causing display of the level of compliance, a notification that the level of compliance is insufficient, or both.
Wilson, however, teaches:
determining a level of compliance of a user account associated with the insurable obligation based, at least in part, on the threshold coverage value (¶ 31: compliance information used to verify compliance);
determining that the level of compliance is insufficient to meet the insurable obligation (¶ 34, 37: determination whether or not compliance, including determination of non-compliance); and
generating a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to display on a user computing device associated with the user account, the GUI being configured to receive user input and causing display of the level of compliance, a notification that the level of compliance is insufficient, or both (¶ 34, 37: graphical user interface displaying compliance result to customer or supplier).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
For claim 14, Blazek and Wilson teach all the limitations of claim 13 above, and Wilson further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the user account is associated with the vendor or the client (¶ 27: compliance of supplier with customer’s terms).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
For claim 15, Blazek and Wilson teach all the limitations of claim 14 above, and Wilson further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 14, the operations further comprising sending the notification that the level of compliance is insufficient to a computing device associated with an alternative user account, the alternative user account being associated with the vendor or the client such that the user account and the alternative user account are not associated with a same entity (¶ 41–43: supplier and customers notified of compliance reports).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
For claim 16, Blazek and Wilson teach all the limitations of claim 13 above, and Wilson further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the insurable obligation is associated with a supply contract, errors and omissions coverage, standalone cyber coverage, intellectual property infringement coverage, general liability coverage, or combinations thereof (¶ 28: insurance verification for supply contract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
For claim 17, Blazek and Wilson teach all the limitations of claim 13 above, and Blazek further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the user account is a sub-vendor account (¶ 7, 9, 48: compliance of independent contractor working for supplier).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
For claim 18, Blazek and Wilson teach all the limitations of claim 13 above, and Blazek further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, the operations further comprising sending, from a remote computing resource to the user computing device via a network, at least one of the level of compliance, a notification that the level of compliance is insufficient, and the insurance application on the GUI (¶ 30, 33, 51: remote data stored at database and communicated over network).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coverage determination in Blazek by adding the compliance check from Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating compliance checks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Wilson (¶ 14–17: need for more accurate and comprehensive compliance checks; ¶ 18: invention provides compliance check for suppliers).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Those prior art references are as follows:
Hendershot, U.S. Patent App. No. 2003/0050804, discloses contract compliance monitoring for insurance claims.
Ramesh Babu, U.S. Patent App. No. 2015/0106118, discloses a contract compliance module for multiple vendors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIVESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272–3430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM–8:00 PM 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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272–3955. 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.
/DIVESH PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3696