DETAILED ACTION
In response to communications filed 12 May 2026, claims 1 and 10-20 are amended per applicant’s request. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter is provided in paragraph [04] of the Office action mailed 12 February 2016.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section “Double Patenting Rejection,” filed 12 May 2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments that the “present provisional rejection is no longer applicable in view of the amendments entered in the present application” are not persuasive, because they amount to a general allegation that the claims are patentably distinct without pointing out how the language of the claims is patentably distinguished from copending Application No. 18/889,973.
Applicant’s arguments, see section “Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 101,” page 14, lines 3-10, filed 12 May 2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section “Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103,” filed 12 May 2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 16-17, applicant argues that Sahu does not teach “a graph lookup of the identity graphs using a selected graph lookup identity namespace that is most abundantly available,” as recited. However, these arguments are not persuasive, because Sahu teaches in paragraph [0102] to perform the graph lookup using “identifiers that are more common and/or have a greater number of unique values across the identity spaces,” i.e., using a selected graph lookup identity namespace that is most abundantly available. For example, Sahu teaches that a “postal addresses” identity namespace may be used for “postal address type source ids.” Paulsen in view of Sahu therefore teach the limitations at issue.
On pages 17-18, applicant argues
Sahu generally describes dynamically constructing a graph representation of multiple identity spaces and Paulsen generally describes stitching event data using identity mappings. However, the combination of Paulsen and Sahu does not teach or suggest “appending the event records of the event record datasets to include the selected common identity namespace comprising the detected identity values such that the event records previously fragmented across the different communication channels are stitched using the selected common identity namespace.” [Emphasis in original]
However, these arguments are not persuasive. First, the limitations “such that the event records previously fragmented across the different communication channels are stitched using the selected common identity namespace” amount to an intended result, and do not provide any additional functional limitation beyond “appending the event records of the event record datasets to include the selected common identity namespace”; accordingly, these limitations do not patentably distinguish the invention. In addition, Paulsen in view of Sahu teach the limitations of “appending the event records of the event record datasets to include the selected common identity namespace,” as shown in paragraph [23] of the instant rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/889,973 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
18/889,973
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
accessing identity graphs corresponding to data structures that map relationships between identities based on at least one of event record datasets from different communication channels or profile record datasets;
accessing event records of the event record datasets from the different communication channels, wherein a corresponding event record dataset of the event record datasets from one communication channel comprises a different combination of device identity namespaces and user identity namespaces than a different corresponding event record dataset of the event record datasets from another communication channel;
determining detected identity values for a selected common identity namespace based on a graph lookup of the identity graphs using a selected graph lookup identity namespace that is most abundantly available in each event record dataset of the event record datasets and the selected common identity namespace;
appending the event records of the event record datasets to include the selected common identity namespace comprising the detected identity values such that the event records previously fragmented across different communication channels are stitched using the selected common identity namespace; and
causing generation of performance metrics across the different communication channels based on event data and the detected identity values of the selected common identity namespace of the event records.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
accessing identity graphs corresponding to data structures that map relationships between identities based on at least one of event record datasets from different communication channels and profile record datasets;
accessing event records of the event record datasets, wherein a corresponding event record dataset comprises a different combination of device identity namespaces and user identity namespaces than a different corresponding event record dataset of the event record datasets;
determining detected identity values for a selected priority of common identity namespaces based on a graph lookup of the identity graphs using a selected priority of graph lookup identity namespaces and the selected priority of common identity namespaces;
appending the event records of the event record datasets to include the detected identity values; and
causing generation of performance metrics across the different communication channels based on event data and the detected identity values of the event records.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulsen et al. (US 2021/0248129 A1) in view of Sahu et al. (US 2025/0291848 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Paulsen teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
accessing identity mappings corresponding to data structures that map relationships between identities based on at least one of event record datasets from different communication channels or profile record datasets (see Paulsen [0049], “identity mappings 222 based on event data,” where [0019] teaches different “web browsing” and “call center” communication channels);
accessing event records of the event record datasets from the different communication channels (see Paulsen [0065] and [0051], “gather event data from various sources,” where “browsers or applications” and/or “sources such as point of sale (POS), call center, customer relationship management” are different communication channels);
determining detected identity values (see Paulsen [0068], “generates an identity mapping that maps the device identifier to the user identifier”);
appending the event records of the event record datasets to include the detected identity values (see Paulsen [0072], “update the event dataset by adding the user identifier to the event dataset”); and
causing generation of performance metrics across the different communication channels based on event data and the detected identity values of the event records (see Paulsen [0074], “generates a report of the event dataset,” where “user 1 purchased a car” is a performance metric).
Paulsen does not explicitly teach
wherein the identity mappings are identity graphs; and
wherein determining detected identity values is for a selected common identity namespace based on a graph lookup of the identity graphs using a selected graph lookup identity namespace that is most abundantly available in each event record dataset of the event record datasets and the selected common identity namespace.
However, Sahu teaches
wherein the identity mappings are identity graphs (see Sahu [0034], “construct identity graphs”); and
wherein determining detected identity values is for a selected common identity namespace based on a graph lookup of the identity graphs using a selected graph lookup identity namespace that is most abundantly available in each event record dataset of the event record datasets and the selected common identity namespace (see Sahu [0036] and [0120], “data request . . . respond . . . by locating and extracting identity records from multiple identity spaces that include identity data that may be used to resolve one or more target identifiers,” where the “target identity type” is a selected common identity namespace and [0131]-[0132] and [0102] teach an “initial identity space . . . having a first search priority,” i.e., a selected graph lookup identity namespace, that has a “greater number of unique values across the identity spaces,” i.e., is most abundantly available).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the identity graphs and graph lookup, as taught by Sahu, with the techniques taught by Paulsen, because the “query framework may search over different identity spaces using a network of configurable paths that may be determined at runtime. The query framework may rapidly adapt to new data sources and changes to existing identity spaces (e.g., adding or removing nodes) to make graph analysis systems more dynamic, faster, and more efficient” (see Sahu [0004]).
Paulsen as modified teaches
wherein a corresponding event record dataset of the event record datasets from one communication channel comprises a different combination of device identity namespaces and user identity namespaces than a different corresponding event record dataset of the event record datasets from another communication channel (see Paulsen [0045] and Sahu [0036], where the “event data” from different communication channels, as taught by Paulsen, comprises different combinations of device and user “identity spaces” for different “source ids,” as taught by Sahu);
wherein the event records are appended to include the selected common identity namespace comprising the detected identity values such that the event records previously fragmented across the different communication channels are stitched using the selected common identity namespace (see Paulsen [0067]-[0068] and Sahu [0036], where the events records are appended, as taught by Paulsen, to include the “lookup identifiers . . . stored in one or more identity spaces . . . device_ID . . . user_ID,” as taught by Sahu);
wherein the generation of performance metrics is based on the detected identity values of the selected common identity namespace of the event records (see Paulsen [0074] and Sahu [0036] and [0120], where the performance metrics based on the detected identity values, taught by Paulsen, are based on identity values of the selected common identity namespace of the event records, as taught by Sahu).
Regarding claim 10, Paulsen teaches one or more computer-readable media having a plurality of executable instructions embodied thereon, which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a method (see Paulsen [0127]-[0128]) comprising:
accessing identity mappings corresponding to data structures that map relationships between identities based on event record datasets from different communication channels (see Paulsen [0049], “identity mappings 222 based on event data,” where [0019] teaches different “web browsing” and “call center” communication channels);
accessing event records of the event record datasets from the different communication channels (see Paulsen [0065] and [0051], “gather event data from various sources,” where “browsers or applications” and/or “sources such as point of sale (POS), call center, customer relationship management” are different communication channels);
determining detected identity values (see Paulsen [0068], “generates an identity mapping that maps the device identifier to the user identifier”);
appending the event records of the event record datasets to include the detected identity values (see Paulsen [0067], “update the event dataset by adding the user identifier to the event dataset”); and
causing updating of user profiles across the different communication channels based on event data and the detected identity values of the event records (see Paulsen [0074], “generates a report of the event dataset associated with the user,” where the “report . . . associated with the user” is a user profile).
Paulsen does not explicitly teach
wherein the identity mappings are identity graphs; and
wherein determining detected identity values is for a selected common identity namespace based on a graph lookup of the identity graphs using a selected graph lookup identity namespace that is most abundantly available in each event record dataset of the event record datasets and the selected common identity namespace.
However, Sahu teaches
wherein the identity mappings are identity graphs (see Sahu [0034], “construct identity graphs”); and
wherein determining detected identity values is for a selected common identity namespace based on a graph lookup of the identity graphs using a selected graph lookup identity namespace that is most abundantly available in each event record dataset of the event record datasets and the selected common identity namespace (see Sahu [0036] and [0120], “data request . . . respond . . . by locating and extracting identity records from multiple identity spaces that include identity data that may be used to resolve one or more target identifiers,” where the “target identity type” is a selected common identity namespace and [0131]-[0132] and [0102] teach an “initial identity space . . . having a first search priority,” i.e., a selected graph lookup identity namespace, that has a “greater number of unique values across the identity spaces,” i.e., is most abundantly available).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the identity graphs and graph lookup, as taught by Sahu, with the techniques taught by Paulsen, because the “query framework may search over different identity spaces using a network of configurable paths that may be determined at runtime. The query framework may rapidly adapt to new data sources and changes to existing identity spaces (e.g., adding or removing nodes) to make graph analysis systems more dynamic, faster, and more efficient” (see Sahu [0004]).
Paulsen as modified teaches
wherein a corresponding event record dataset of the event record datasets from one communication channel comprises a different combination of device identity namespaces and user identity namespaces than a different corresponding event record dataset of the event record datasets from another communication channel (see Paulsen [0045] and Sahu [0036], where the “event data” from different communication channels, as taught by Paulsen, comprises different combinations of device and user “identity spaces” for different “source ids,” as taught by Sahu);
wherein the event records are appended to include the selected common identity namespace comprising the detected identity values such that the event records previously fragmented across the different communication channels are stitched using the selected common identity namespace (see Paulsen [0067]-[0068] and Sahu [0036], where the events records are appended, as taught by Paulsen, to include the “lookup identifiers . . . stored in one or more identity spaces . . . device_ID . . . user_ID,” as taught by Sahu);
wherein causing updating of user profiles is based on the detected identity values of the selected common identity namespace of the event records (see Paulsen [0074] and Sahu [0036] and [0120], where the user profiles based on the detected identity values, taught by Paulsen, are based on identity values of the selected common identity namespace of the event records, as taught by Sahu).
Regarding claim 18, Paulsen teaches a computing system comprising:
a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the processor (see Paulsen [0127]-[0128]),
cause the processor to perform operations including:
accessing identity mappings corresponding to data structures that map relationships between identities based on event record datasets from different communication channels (see Paulsen [0049], “identity mappings 222 based on event data,” where [0019] teaches different “web browsing” and “call center” communication channels);
accessing event records of the event record datasets from the different communication channels (see Paulsen [0065] and [0051], “gather event data from various sources,” where “browsers or applications” and/or “sources such as point of sale (POS), call center, customer relationship management” are different communication channels);
determining detected identity values (see Paulsen [0068], “generates an identity mapping that maps the device identifier to the user identifier”);
appending the event records of the event record datasets to include the detected identity values (see Paulsen [0067], “update the event dataset by adding the user identifier to the event dataset”); and
causing updating of user journeys across the different communication channels based on event data and the detected identity values (see Paulsen [0074], “generates a report of the event dataset associated with the user,” where “user 1 purchased a car after speaking to a customer service representative and visiting three dealerships” is a user journey).
Paulsen does not explicitly teach
wherein the identity mappings are identity graphs; and
wherein determining detected identity values is for a selected common identity namespace based on a graph lookup of the identity graphs using a selected graph lookup identity namespace that is most abundantly available in each event record dataset of the event record datasets and the selected common identity namespace.
However, Sahu teaches
wherein the identity mappings are identity graphs (see Sahu [0034], “construct identity graphs”); and
wherein determining detected identity values is for a selected common identity namespace based on a graph lookup of the identity graphs using a selected graph lookup identity namespace that is most abundantly available in each event record dataset of the event record datasets and the selected common identity namespace (see Sahu [0036] and [0120], “data request . . . respond . . . by locating and extracting identity records from multiple identity spaces that include identity data that may be used to resolve one or more target identifiers,” where the “target identity type” is a selected common identity namespace and [0131]-[0132] and [0102] teach an “initial identity space . . . having a first search priority,” i.e., a selected graph lookup identity namespace, that has a “greater number of unique values across the identity spaces,” i.e., is most abundantly available).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the identity graphs and graph lookup, as taught by Sahu, with the techniques taught by Paulsen, because the “query framework may search over different identity spaces using a network of configurable paths that may be determined at runtime. The query framework may rapidly adapt to new data sources and changes to existing identity spaces (e.g., adding or removing nodes) to make graph analysis systems more dynamic, faster, and more efficient” (see Sahu [0004]).
Paulsen as modified teaches
wherein a corresponding event record dataset of the event record datasets from one communication channel comprises a different combination of device identity namespaces and user identity namespaces than a different corresponding event record dataset of the event record datasets from another communication channel (see Paulsen [0045] and Sahu [0036], where the “event data” from different communication channels, as taught by Paulsen, comprises different combinations of device and user “identity spaces” for different “source ids,” as taught by Sahu);
wherein the event records are appended to include the selected common identity namespace comprising the detected identity values such that the event records previously fragmented across the different communication channels are stitched using the selected common identity namespace (see Paulsen [0067]-[0068] and Sahu [0036], where the events records are appended, as taught by Paulsen, to include the “lookup identifiers . . . stored in one or more identity spaces . . . device_ID . . . user_ID,” as taught by Sahu);
wherein causing updating of user journeys is based on the detected identity values of the selected common identity namespace of the event records (see Paulsen [0074] and Sahu [0036] and [0120], where the user journeys based on the detected identity values, taught by Paulsen, are based on identity values of the selected common identity namespace of the event records, as taught by Sahu).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 19, Paulsen as modified teaches wherein the selected graph lookup identity namespace is selected only from corresponding device identity namespaces and the selected common identity namespace is only selected from corresponding user identity namespaces (see Sahu [0036], [0120] and [0132], where the selected “target identifier type” graph lookup identity namespace is only selected from a “device_id,” and the selected common identity namespace is only selected from a “first identity space”).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 20, Paulsen as modified teaches wherein the selected graph lookup identity namespace for each event record dataset comprises a corresponding selected device identity namespace for the corresponding event record dataset that is different than another corresponding selected device identity namespace for the different corresponding event record dataset (see Sahu [0036] and [0120], the “target identifier type” selected graph lookup identity namespace is different than another “lookup identifiers” corresponding to different “source ids”).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Paulsen as modified teaches wherein the selected common identity namespace comprises a single corresponding selected user identity namespace for all of the event record datasets (see Sahu [0120], “resolve one or more target identifiers of the target id type”).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Paulsen as modified teaches wherein appending the event records of the event record datasets to include the selected common identity namespace comprising the detected identity values further comprises: appending a corresponding event record of the corresponding event record dataset to include a corresponding detected identity value of the selected common identity namespace, wherein the different combination of device identity namespaces and user identity namespaces of the corresponding event record dataset does not include the selected common identity namespace (see Paulsen [0067]-[0068] and Sahu [0120], appending a corresponding event record, as taught by Paulsen, to include an identity value of the “target id type” taught by Sahu, implicitly teaches that different combinations of device identity namespaces and user identity namespaces do not include the “target id type”).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Paulsen as modified teaches further comprising: determining corresponding event records of a particular user by:
filtering the event records of the event record datasets into a filtered set of event records based on a corresponding identity value of the particular user in the selected common identity namespace of the event records (see Sahu [0133], “filtering out the source ids that do not match at least one of the lookup ids in the first set of identity records”); and
sorting the filtered set of event records based on timestamp data in the event data of each event record of the filtered set of event records (see Paulsen [0065] and Sahu [0133], where the filtered set of event records, taught by Sahu, is connected “in chronological order based on the timestamps,” as taught by Paulsen); and
causing updating of a corresponding user profile of the particular user based on the corresponding event records of the particular user (see Sahu [0133] and Paulsen [0065] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 8, Paulsen as modified teaches further comprising: causing at least one of: updating of user profiles across the different communication channels based on the event data and the detected identity values of the selected common identity namespace of the event records; and updating of user journeys across the different communication channels based on the event data and the detected identity values of the selected common identity namespace of the event records (see Paulsen [0074], “user 1 purchased a car after speaking to a customer service representative and visiting three dealerships” is an updated user journey).
Regarding claim 17, Paulsen as modified teaches further comprising: causing at least one of: generating of performance metrics across the different communication channels based on the user profiles after updating the user profiles; and updating of user journeys across the different communication channels based on the user profiles after updating the user profiles (see Paulsen [0074], “user 1 purchased a car after speaking to a customer service representative and visiting three dealerships” is an updated user journey).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulsen et al. (US 2021/0248129 A1) in view of Sahu et al. (US 2025/0291848 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dwivedi et al. (US 11,151,125 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Paulsen as modified does not explicitly teach further comprising: causing generation of a metric corresponding to a percentage of the event records of the event record datasets that are appended to include a corresponding detected identity value.
However, Dwivedi teaches further comprising: causing generation of a metric corresponding to a percentage of the event records of the event record datasets that are appended to include a corresponding detected identity value (see Dwivedi 45:9-48, a “coverage” metric is generated that is the “percentage of events . . . that a given field appears in”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate of a coverage metric, as taught by Dwivedi, in combination with the techniques taught by Paulsen as modified, “for use in driving the report generation process” (see Dwivedi 45:4-8).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kristopher Andersen whose telephone number is (571)270-5743. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM ET, Monday-Friday.
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 Lo can be reached at (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 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.
/Kristopher Andersen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights