DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination of Application 18/944,164 filed on 03/05/2026.
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 were previously canceled, and Claims 1, 10, and 19-24 were pending and were rejected in the previous final rejection on 12/05/2025.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 19-24 have been canceled.
Claims 1 and 10 are currently pending and have been examined.
The action is made NON-FINAL.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 11-15, filed 03/05/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-10 and 19-24 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong One on Pages 11-12 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea (“Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as sales activities and business relations). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong Two (A. Improvement in Distributed Data Synchronization) on Pages 12-13. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that “specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In this case, the specification does not provide any discussion on what the technical problem is. Instead, the specification just simply describes that this an improved task assignment that increases employee efficiency and reduces guest wait time (See Paragraph [0006] of the specification). Further, when discussing how the invention is implemented when update is only performed when deviation above the threshold, the specification merely provides this feature as an alternate embodiment without discussing any reason to doing so. Both discussions merely describe the improvement in a conclusory manner. In other words, the specification merely states such implementation is an improvement over existing technology without any further discussion. That is not enough to make it apparent for one of ordinary skilled in the art to understand the technical improvement. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong Two (B. Improvement in Device-Level Task-State Control) on Page 13 because assigning only one task to the employees to prevent them from selecting other lower priority tasks provides improvement to the abstract idea by implementing different set of rules and does not improve to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.05(a)II - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”. In this case, the GUI and its corresponding devices are merely used to implement the rules of limiting the number of options available for each worker. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong Two (C. Integration of Guest Routing Application) on Pages 13-14 because the recited additional elements such as “a dedicated application”, “a routing application or routing server”, and “user interface control” are the computers that are used merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Similarly to above, specification did not make it apparent how any of these improvement would be apparent to one ordinary skilled in the art beyond conclusory stating that these make things more efficient or better. Therefore, Examiner would not determine that the claim improves technology. Instead, these are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) – “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2B and “IV. Claims Must Be Evaluated as a Whole” on Pages 14-15 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not improve computer or technology as described above. For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: there are typos – “a retail server system receiving and …” which should recite as “the retail server system receiving and …”, “the retail server system providing to a smart staging and delivery (SSD) engine” which should recite as “the retail server system providing to the smart staging and delivery (SSD) engine”, “lower priority taks” which should recite as “lower priority task”, “receiving, …, the updated location data from the user device” which should recite as “receiving, …, the updated location data from a user device”, and “a dedicated application, running on a user device” which should recite as “a dedicated application, running on the user device”.
Claim 10: there are typos – “receive, …, the updated location data from the user device” which should recite as “receive, …, the updated location data from a user device”, and “a dedicated application, running on a user device” which should recite as “a dedicated application, running on the user device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 10 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (a method for managing a virtual task environment for curbside or in-store pickup orders) and “a machine” (a system for managing a virtual task environment for curbside or in-store pickup orders) categories.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
A computer-implemented method for managing a virtual task environment implemented using … associated with a first SSD employee, the computer-implemented method comprising:
… receiving and processing a plurality of on-line orders for curbside delivery or in-store pickup at the retail store;
… providing to … task data that includes the plurality of on-line orders for curbside delivery or in-store pickup at the retail store;
… receiving, from …, the task data corresponding to the plurality of tasks that includes the plurality of on-line orders for curbside delivery or in-store pickup at the retail store;
… obtaining guest input data, from …, for each of a plurality guests associated with each of the plurality of on-line orders, wherein the guest input data includes at least one of: a number of guests that are on their way to the retail store or have arrived at the retail store; a distance or estimated time of arrival to the retail store for each guest; a priority level of each guest based on an On My Way (OMW) notification; and a multiple order delivery likelihood;
… obtaining order input data, from …, for each of the plurality of guests, wherein the order input data includes at least one of: unit/order types; quantity of each unit/order; cubic volume of each unit/order; and hold/current location;
… obtaining team member input data, from …, regarding each of one or more SSD employees assigned to staging and delivering curbside and in-store pickup on-line orders at the retail store, wherein the team member input data includes at least one of: a number of one or more SSD employees assigned to staging and delivering curbside and in-store pickup orders at the retail store; task type performance measurements for of the one or more SSD employees; a recent task type performed by each of the one or more SSD employees; a task preference for each of the one or more SSD employees; physical restrictions for each of the one or more SSD employees; and a time of year;
… determining a priority for each of the plurality off tasks based on the guest input data, the order input data and the team member input data, wherein the priority for each of the plurality of tasks includes a prioritized sequence of staging tasks;
… generating a prioritized sequence of delivery tasks based on the guest input data, the order input data and the team member input data, wherein the prioritized sequence of delivery tasks includes a plurality of delivery tasks, and wherein the prioritized sequence of delivery tasks is first prioritized based on a guest arrival timestamp for each of the plurality of orders;
… assigning only one task to the … from the combination of the plurality of delivery tasks and the plurality of staging tasks to a first SSD employee of the one or more SSD employees, wherein the one task is assigned by the SSD engine based on the determined priorities determined using the guest input data, the order input data and the team member input data and is specific to the first SSD employee, and wherein assigning the only one task prevents the first SSD employee from choosing a second task, that has a lower priority level than the only one task, from the combination of the plurality of delivery tasks and the plurality of staging tasks;
… instructing, via …, a … of the first SSD employee to display the only one task;
… displaying on … of the first SSD employee the only one task to be completed via only two selectable options corresponding to accepting or rejecting the assigned only one task and preventing selection of any lower priority task, the only two selectable options including:
… that includes a summary of the only one task to be completed and a time estimate required to complete the only one task, wherein the summary includes one of: a number of units to be retrieved by the first SSD employee to complete the only one task, and a number of guests to deliver one or more on-line orders of the plurality of on-line orders, and
… that indicates that the first SSD employee will be removed from the one or more SSD employees if selected, wherein … is displayed below …;
… receiving from … one of: an accept selection, via …, indicating that the first SSD employee has accepted the only one task, or a reject selection, via …, indicating that the first SSD employee has rejected the only one task;
when receiving the accept selection;
… monitoring progress and completion of the only one task;
… of the first SSD employee transmitting a notification, via …, to … that the only one task is completed;
… receiving the notification, via …, from … of the first SSD employee that the only one task is completed; and
upon completion of the only one task, … updating employee performance measurements, store leadership performance measurements, and SSD engine performance measurements based on the SSD monitoring the progress and completion of the only one task;
when receiving the reject selection:
… updating employee performance measurements, store leadership performance measurements, and SSD engine performance measurements based on the first SSD employee rejecting the only one task, and
… removing the first SSD employee from the one or more SSD employees assigned to staging and delivering curbside and in-store pickup orders at the retail store,
wherein … updating the employee performance measurements includes updating at least one of: a percentage of tasks completed by the first SSD employee within a provided time estimate; a percentage of tasks accepted or rejected by the first SSD employee; and a percentage of task start delays within a delay time period,
wherein … updating the store leadership performance measurements includes updating at least one of: a percentage of orders delivered within a maximum time threshold; a percentage of orders delivered within a derived time goal; a percentage of SSD employees completing tasks within the provided time estimate; and a ratio of actual SSD employee hours available to the needed SSD employee hours,
wherein … updating the SSD engine performance measurements includes updating at least one of: a percentage of guests waiting beyond an acceptable or a desired time goal; and an accuracy of provided time estimates for task completion,
wherein the assigning the only one task includes restricting the SSD GUI to a single task such that additional tasks are not displayed while the assigned only one task remains pending,
the method further comprising …:
periodically querying … for updated location data;
receiving, via …, the updated location data from …; and
recalculating an estimated arrival time based on the updated location data, and providing the updated time of arrival to … only when the updated time until arrival differs from a previously determined time of arrival;
the method also comprising:
… of a guest submitting an order for curbside or in-store pickup at the retail store, communicating with one of … to identify a route to the retail store;
… displaying on … a map display showing a route to the retail store;
… of the guest submitting the order for curbside or in-store pickup at the retail store, providing … below a displayed map on …;
upon selection of …, … communicating, via …, to … that the guest is in route to the retail store,
wherein … is displayed when at least one of:
… is not permitted to access location information of the user device, and
… is unable to accurately determine the location of ...
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as sales activities and business relations. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements – “a distributed computing system that includes a retail server system, a smart staging and delivery (SSD) engine in communication with the sever system, and a computing device”, “the retail server system”, “a smart staging and delivery (SSD) engine”, “a database in or accessible by the retail server system”, “a network”, “SSD graphical user interface (GUI) provided on a computing device”, “the SSD GUI”, “the computing device”, “an accept button”, “a reject button”, “a guest device”, “a dedicated application, running on a user device”, “a native routing application installed on the user device or a remote routing server”, “the dedicated application”, “the user device”, and “a user interface control”. The additional elements “an accept button” and “a reject button” in the claim limitation represent mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for managing a virtual task environment for curbside and in-store pickup orders (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for managing a virtual task environment for curbside and in-store pickup orders amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites the following limitations:
A system configured to manage a virtual task environment, the system comprising:
…, wherein … is configured to:
receive and process a plurality of on-line orders for curbside delivery or in-store pickup at the retail store, and
provide to … task data corresponding to a plurality of tasks that includes the plurality of on-line orders for curbside delivery or in-store pickup at the retail store;
…;
… of a first SSD employee, wherein the first SSD employee is one of one or more SSD employees, wherein … is configured to be displayed on …, and wherein … is configured to display on … of the first SSD employee the only one task to be completed via only two selectable options corresponding to accepting or rejecting the assigned only one task and preventing selection of any lower priority task, the only two selectable options including:
… that includes a summary of the only one task to be completed and a time estimate required to complete the only one task, wherein the summary includes one of: a number of units to be retrieved by the first SSD employee to complete the only one task, and a number of guests to deliver one or more on-line orders of the plurality of on-line orders, and
… that indicates that the first SSD employee will be removed from the one or more SSD employees if selected wherein … is displayed below …; and
… connecting …, …, and … of the first SSD employee,
wherein …is configured to:
receive, from …, the plurality of on-line orders for curbside delivery or in-store pickup at the retail store;
obtain guest input data, from …, for each of a plurality guests associated with each of the plurality of orders, wherein the guest input data includes at least one of: a number of guests that are on their way to the retail store or have arrived at the retail store; a distance or estimated time of arrival to the retail store for each guest; a priority level of each guest based on an On My Way (OMW) notification; and a multiple order delivery likelihood;
obtain order input data, from …, for each of the plurality of guests, wherein the order input data includes at least one of: unit/order types; quantity of each unit/order; cubic volume of each unit/order; and hold/current location;
obtain team member input data, from …, regarding each of one or more SSD employees assigned to staging and delivering curbside and in-store pickup orders at the retail store, wherein the team member input data includes at least one of: a number of one or more SSD employees assigned to staging and delivering curbside and in-store pickup orders at the retail store; task type performance measurements for of the one or more SSD employees; a recent task type performed by each of the one or more SSD employees; a task preference for each of the one or more SSD employees; physical restrictions for each of the one or more SSD employees; and a time of year;
generate a prioritized sequence of staging tasks based on the guest input data, the order input data and the team member input data, wherein the prioritized sequence of staging tasks includes a plurality of staging tasks;
determine a priority for each of the plurality of tasks based on the guest input data, the order input data and the team member input data, wherein the priority for each of the plurality of task includes the prioritized sequence of delivery tasks includes a plurality of delivery tasks, and wherein the prioritized sequence of delivery tasks is first prioritized based on a guest arrival timestamp for each of the plurality of orders;
assign only one task to … from the combination of the plurality of delivery tasks and the plurality of staging tasks to the first SSD employee of the one or more SSD employees, wherein the one task is assigned by the SSD engine based on the determined priorities determined using the guest input data, the order input data and the team member input data and is specific to the first SSD employee, and wherein assigning the only one task prevents the first SSD employee from choosing a second task, that has a lower priority level than the only one task, from the combination of the plurality of delivery tasks and the plurality of staging tasks;
instruct, via …, … to display the only one task;
receive, via …, one of: an accept selection, indicating that the first SSD employee has accepted the only one task, or a reject selection indicating that the first SSD employee has rejected the only one task;
when receiving the accept selection:
monitor progress and completion of the only one task upon receiving the accept selection;
receive a notification from … of the first SSD employee that the only one task is completed; and
update employee performance measurements, store leadership performance measurements, and SSD engine performance measurements based on the SSD monitoring the progress and completion of the only one task upon completion of the only one task;
when receiving the reject selection:
update employee performance measurements, store leadership performance measurements, and SSD engine performance measurements based on the first SSD employee rejecting the only one task; and
remove the first SSD employee from the one or more SSD employees assigned to staging and delivering curbside and in-store pickup orders at the retail store,
wherein, when … receives the accept selection, … of the first SSD employee is configured to transmit the notification, via …, to … that the only one task is completed,
wherein … is configured to update the employee performance measurements by updating at least one of: a percentage of tasks completed by the first SSD employee within a provided time estimate; a percentage of tasks accepted or rejected by the first SSD employee; and a percentage of task start delays within a delay time period,
wherein … is configured to update the store leadership performance measurements by updating at least one of: a percentage of orders delivered within a maximum time threshold; a percentage of orders delivered within a derived time goal; a percentage of SSD employees completing tasks within the provided time estimate; and a ratio of actual SSD employee hours available to the needed SSD employee hours,
wherein … is configured to update the SSD engine performance measurements by updating at least one of: a percentage of guests waiting beyond an acceptable or a desired time goal; and an accuracy of provided time estimates for task completion,
wherein …, when the assigning the only one task, is configured to restrict … to a single task such that additional tasks are not displayed while the assigned only one task remains pending,
wherein … is further configured to:
periodically query … for updated location data;
receive, via …, the updated location data from …,
recalculate an estimated arrival time based on the updated location data, and
provide the updated time of arrival to … only when the updated time until arrival differs from a previously determined time of arrival;
the system further comprising:
… of a guest submitting an order for curbside or in-store pickup at the retail store, configured to:
communicate with one of … to identify a route to the retail store,
display on … a map display showing a route to the retail store,
provide … below a displayed map on …,
wherein, upon selection of …, … is configured to communicate, via …, to … that the guest is in route to the retail store, and
wherein … is displayed when at least one of:
… is not permitted to access location information of …, and
… is unable to accurately determine the location of ....
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 10 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as sales activities and business relations. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 10 recites additional elements – “a retail server system including a smart staging and delivery (SSD) engine”, “the retail server system”, “the SSD engine”, “a database in or accessible by the retail server system”, “a computing device”, “a SSD graphical user interface (GUI)”, “an accept button”, “a reject button”, “a network”, “the database”, “a guest device”, “a dedicated application, running on a user device”, “a native routing application installed on the user device or a remote routing server”, “the dedicated application”, “the user device”, and “a user interface control”. The additional elements “an accept button” and “a reject button” in the claim limitation represent mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for managing a virtual task environment for curbside and in-store pickup orders (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for managing a virtual task environment for curbside and in-store pickup orders amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1 and 10 would be allowable over prior art of record; however, they remain rejected under other statues. After having performed an updated search of prior art, including all feature limitations of amended independent claims 1 and 10, the references fail to teach or suggest alone, or in combination with other art, independent claims 1 and 10 in their entirety; and in particular, “the SSD GUI displaying on the computing device of the first SSD employee the only one task to be completed via only two buttons, the only two selectable options corresponding to accepting or rejecting the assigned only one task and preventing selection of any lower priority task, the only two selectable options including: an accept button that includes a summary of the only one task to be completed and a time estimate required to complete the only one task, wherein the summary includes one of: a number of units to be retrieved by the first SSD employee to complete the only one task, and a number of guests to deliver one or more on-line orders of the plurality of on-line orders, and a reject button that indicates that the first SSD employee will be removed from the one or more SSD employees if selected, wherein the reject button is displayed below the accept button” in combination with other claim limitations, as recited in Claim 1 and similarly in Claim 10.
Regarding the novelty/non-obviousness of the invention, the closet prior art was found to be Patel in view of Rademaker and Liguori. Patel teaches systems and methods for coordinating automated components and employee activities to facilitate fulfillment of orders for items and/or services sold by retailers and made available for delivery or pick-up at a retail location. Rademaker teaches a system and method for servicing curb-side deliveries. Liguori teaches a system and method for supporting smart drive through and curbside delivery management by using machine learning and artificial intelligence. However, Patel in view of Rademaker and Liguori fails to disclose “the SSD GUI displaying on the computing device of the first SSD employee the only one task to be completed via only two buttons, the only two selectable options corresponding to accepting or rejecting the assigned only one task and preventing selection of any lower priority task, the only two selectable options including: an accept button that includes a summary of the only one task to be completed and a time estimate required to complete the only one task, wherein the summary includes one of: a number of units to be retrieved by the first SSD employee to complete the only one task, and a number of guests to deliver one or more on-line orders of the plurality of on-line orders, and a reject button that indicates that the first SSD employee will be removed from the one or more SSD employees if selected, wherein the reject button is displayed below the accept button” as recited in Claims 1 and 10. As a result, neither alone nor in combination, do the references teach the amended limitations described above.
Examiner concludes that the references mentioned above, alone or in combination, fail to teach independent claims 1 and 10, in their entirety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights