DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
The amendment received on 13 July 2026 has been acknowledged and entered.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, and 14-19 have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 12-13, and 20 have been canceled.
New claims 21-25 have been added.
Claims 1, 4-11, 14-19, and 21-25 are currently pending.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 July 2026 with respect to rejection of claims 1, 4-11, 14-19, and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 13-14) that regarding I. Prong One of Step 2A, the Office Action alleges that the claimed limitations are directed to a "Mental Process" and/or "Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people." However, as stated in USPTO's August 4, 2025 Memorandum, "Examiners should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)" (emphasis added). Therefore, even assuming the independent claims involve managing delivery logistics, which Applicant does not concede, that is not sufficient to allege that the claims recite an exception under Prong One of Step 2A…The claimed system for generating lists of candidate trucks, generating routing plans based on priority measurements, and causing trucks to navigate to a ship point does not fall within one of these enumerated abstract groupings. As further stated in MPEP 2106.04(a), "[i]f the identified limitation(s) do not fall within any of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to find that the claim does not recite an abstract idea" (emphasis added). Therefore, since the amended claims do not recite any abstract idea (including the alleged methods of organizing human activity or mental processes), the claims are patent eligible under Prong One of Step 2A and no further eligibility analysis is required.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that generating a list of trucks and route plans and causing a truck to navigate to a ship point recites the abstract idea of Certain Methods or organizing human activity. Further, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, page 14) that regarding II. Prong Two of Step 2A, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) states that "[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application" and that "[o]ne way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field" under Prong Two of Step 2A (emphasis added). Even assuming the amended independent claims recite a judicial exception, which Applicant does not concede, amended representative claim 1 as a whole integrates into a practical application because it recites additional elements including: (1) "receiving, using a communication system and from a database system, input information"; (2) "generating, for lanes connected to the ship point...lists of candidate trucks"; (3) "generating...respective routing plans"; and (4) "causing, based on the respective route plans, the one or more trucks to navigate to the ship point."
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that first, the claims appear to provide a business solution to a business problem by use of the communication system and database system as tools to implement the abstract idea of generating a list of trucks and route plans and causing a truck to navigate to a ship point. Secondly, there does not appear to be a technical improvement to a technical problem involving (1) "receiving, input information"; (2) "generating, for lanes connected to the ship point...lists of candidate trucks"; (3) "generating...respective routing plans"; and (4) "causing, based on the respective route plans, the one or more trucks to navigate to the ship point." Further, Applicant has not shown a teaching in the specification on how the invention improves a technology nor established a clear nexus between the claim language and the improvement to technology where both the claims and the specification should support the asserted technical improvement. Thirdly, Applicant’s claims do not provide a “technology-based solution”, however, Applicant has presented an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components in a way to "generating...respective routing plans" and "causing, based on the respective route plans, the one or more trucks to navigate to the ship point." Further, the courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application as: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); and Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). 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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Lastly, the use of the truck to navigate to the ship point to deliver containers (to perform a post-solution activity) does not provide significantly more. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 14-15) that these additional elements provide a concrete improvement to the technical field of computerized route planning. Specifically, the claimed system improves route planning technology by: (1) using a communication system and database system to receive structured input information including minimum and maximum constraints on the number of trucks for ship points and distribution centers; (2) generating lists of candidate trucks for lanes connected to the ship point based on this input information; (3) generating routing plans based on priority measurements of the trucks; and (4) causing the trucks to navigate based on the generated route plans. This integrated approach to route planning provides a technical solution that reduces the number of additional trucks required for delivery operations. See, for example, paragraph 63 of the specification. The specification discloses that the claimed system provides a technical improvement by reducing the number of additional trucks needed for delivery operations. This is a concrete technological improvement to computerized route planning systems. The claimed elements work together as an integrated technical solution that optimizes truck allocation and routing in a way that reduces resource utilization-a technological benefit that results directly from the claimed technical implementation. The above-discussed improvements to computerized route planning technology demonstrate that the claims as a whole integrate any alleged exception into a practical application and are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes again that, first, Applicant appears to be referencing a business solution to a business problem reducing the number of additional trucks needed for delivery operations by use of the generic communication system and database system as tools to implement the abstract idea of generating a list of trucks and route plans and causing a truck to navigate to a ship point. Secondly, there does not appear to be a technical improvement to a technical problem involving (1) "receiving, input information"; (2) "generating, for lanes connected to the ship point...lists of candidate trucks"; (3) "generating...respective routing plans"; and (4) "causing, based on the respective route plans, the one or more trucks to navigate to the ship point." Further, Applicant has not shown a teaching in the specification on how the invention improves a technology nor established a clear nexus between the claim language and the improvement to technology where both the claims and the specification should support the asserted technical improvement. Thirdly, Applicant’s claims do not provide a “technology-based solution”, however, Applicant has presented an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components in a way to "generating...respective routing plans" and "causing, based on the respective route plans, the one or more trucks to navigate to the ship point." Further, the courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application as: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); and Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, the Examiner that the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, page 16, filed 13 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, 14, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, 14, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-11, 14-19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "respective priority measurements" in lines 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " respective priority measurements" in lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation " respective priority measurements" in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 4-10, depends from indefinite claim 1 and incorporates claim 1's indefiniteness issue via that dependency; and claims 14-19 and 21-25 incorporates claim 11's indefiniteness issue via that dependency. Claims 2, 4-10, 14-19, and 21-25 do not remedy the indefiniteness issue. Therefore, claims 2, 4-10, 14-19, and 21-25 are indefinite for that reason.
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, 4-11, 14-19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 and 4-10 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); and Claims 11, 14-18, 21-25 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); and Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, Claims 1, 4-11, 14-19, and 21-25 all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent claims 1, 11, and 19 substantially recites:
receiving input information corresponding to allocating one or more containers in one or more trucks for delivery from a ship point to one or more distribution centers, the one or more containers including one or more items, wherein the input information includes ship point information, lane information, order information, and set information, wherein the ship point information includes minimum constraints on a number of trucks for the ship point, maximum constraints on the number of trucks for the ship point, minimum constraints on the number of trucks for the ship point and a corresponding distribution center of the one or more distribution centers, and maximum constraints on the number of trucks for the ship point and the corresponding distribution center;
generating, for lanes connected to the ship point and the one or more distribution centers based on the input information, lists of candidate trucks;
generating, based on generating the lists of candidate trucks and based on respective priority measurements of the one or more trucks, respective route plans, the respective route plans include a respective route plan for each of the one or more trucks and an associated lane to navigate to one of the one or more distribution centers;
causing, based on the respective route plans, the one or more trucks to navigate to the ship point to enable the one or more trucks to deliver the one or more containers from the ship point to the one or more distribution centers. The aforementioned limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receiving, generating, generating, causing).
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements: “a system,” “a processor,” “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “communications system” and “database system”; claim 11 recites the additional elements: ““the communications system” and “database system”; and claim 19 recites the additional elements: “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “instructions,” “a processor,” “communications system” and “database system” to perform the “receiving”, “generating,” “generating,” and “causing” steps. The claimed computer components in the steps of claims 1, 11, and 19 are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., “a system,” “a processor,” “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “the communications system” and “database system” in claim 1; “the communications system” and “database system” in claim 11; and “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “instructions,” “a processor” “communications system” and “database system” in claim 19 performing the “receiving”, “generating,” “generating,” and “causing”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (i.e., “a system,” “a processor,” and “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “the communications system” and “database system” in claim 1; “the communications system” and “database system” in claim 11; and “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “instructions,” “a processor,” “the communications system” and “database system” in claim 19). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., “a system,” “a processor,” and “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “the communications system” and “database system” in claim 1; ““the communications system” and “database system” in claim 11; and “non-transitory computer readable medium,” “instructions,” “processor,” “communications system” and “database system” in claim 19”). Accordingly, even 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. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Further, in regards to the “processor” and/or “the communications system” and “database system” the “receiving” limitation in claims 1, 11, and 19 are just mere data gathering, and also are characterized as transmitting or receiving data over a network and insignificant post-solution activity and are also recited at a high level or generality, and merely automates the receiving and transmitting steps.
Step 2B
The independent claims do 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 element of using the (“system,” “processor,” “non-transitory computer readable medium,” “communication system,” and “database system” in claim 1; the “communication system,” and “database system” in claim 11; and “non-transitory computer readable medium,” “instructions,” “processor,” “communication system,” and “database system” in claim 19 performing the “receiving”, “generating,” “generating,” and “causing” steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, the independent claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claims 4-5, 7, 14-15, 17, and 24 the limitations merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Dependent claims 4 and 14 recite the lane information includes pairing information for the ship point and each of the one or more distribution centers, and configuration information for a truck. Dependent claims 5 and 15 recite the order information includes numerical attributes for items in at least one order, categorical attributes for the items in the at least one order, quantity information for the items in the at least one order, and inventory information for the items in the at least one order. Dependent claims 7 and 17 recites the available quantity is determined based on a summation of Projected OnHand, and truck planning optimization Order Quantity. wherein the first data plan is a metered plan, and the second data plan is a hybrid metered and pooled plan based on a tiered usage system. Dependent claim 24 recites the binary variables are subject to constraints corresponding to minimum and maximum numbers of trucks that the ship point and the one or more distribution centers can handle. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 4-5, 7, 14-15, 17, and 24, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 6 and 16, the recitation, “generating the respective priority measurement using an equation… is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 1 and 11, respectively. The “using” is further directed to a Mental Process. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 8 and 18, the recitation, “generating the respective priority measurement comprises determining a respective truck importance for each of the one or more trucks using an equation…is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a Mental Process as described in claims 1 and 11, respectively. The “determining” is further directed to a Mental Process. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 9 and 19, the recitation, “receiving set information, the set information including: first set information corresponding to the one or more trucks for the one or more lanes associated with the ship point; second set information corresponding to the one or more trucks for the one or more lanes associated with each of the one or more distribution centers; and third set information corresponding to the one or more distribution centers” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 1 and 11 respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 10, the recitation, “generating the respective route plan for each of the one or more trucks includes using an equation…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity” as described in claims 1 and 11, respectively. The “using” is further directed to a Mental Process. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 21, the recitation, “iterating over order units organized according to a priority ratio” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity” as described in claim 11. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 22, the recitation, “causing opening of a new truck based on allocating an order unit, of the order units, to an already opened truck not being feasible” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity” as described in claim 11. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 23, the recitation, “selecting trucks by minimizing truck importance values of selected trucks using binary variables defined for the one or more trucks” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 11. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 25, the recitation, “generating a set of all candidate trucks across all lanes associated with the ship point” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 11. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 4-5, 7, 14-15, 17, and 21-25have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 2-5, 7, 12-15, 17, and 21-25, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Prior Art Discussion
As per claims 1, 11, and 19, the best prior art:
1) Khasis (US PG Pub. 2018/0158020 A1) discloses an autonomous supply and distribution chain which allows for dynamic modification of transit operations to alter one or more destinations of the inventory while it is in transit to a new location at any time;
2) Hance et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0066035 A1) discloses a warehouse and supply-chain coordinator by determining a first estimated arrival time for a first vehicle at a loading dock of a warehouse, and determining a second estimated arrival time for a second vehicle at the loading dock of the warehouse, where the first estimated arrival time is before the second estimated arrival time; then determining a pallet arrangement at the loading dock of the warehouse, where the pallet arrangement includes a first pallet associated with the first vehicle and the second pallet associated with the second vehicle, and where the first pallet is closer to the loading dock than the second pallet.
3) Gravelle et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0398059 A1) discloses a multi-entity inventory management using storage bin and inventory reassignment by using one or more management subsystems distributed across the facilities and a fleet of transport vehicles travelling between the facilities, and operably coupled to a central computing system via the communication network;
4) Brazeau (US Patent No. 10,315,231 B1) discloses attribute-based container selection for inventory by accessing a data store to retrieve item attribute data of an inventory item to be placed, comparing the item attribute data of the inventory item to attribute data corresponding to each respective inventory item in a collection of potential destination containers, and selecting a particular destination container for storage based on that comparison in order to maximize the relative distinctiveness of items stored together.
5) Lafrance (US Patent No. 10,832,206 B2) discloses a system and method for managing and optimizing delivery networks by communicating with the plurality of carriers to determine at least one available delivery time window according to carrier availability and a transit time for the requested delivery, the transit time being affected by inventory data and the delivery location.
However, Khasis, Hance et al., Gravelle et al., Brazeau et al., and Lafrance alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below
noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable
use of elements in the prior art.
The allowable features include:
wherein the input information includes ship point information, lane information, order information, and set information, wherein the ship point information includes minimum constraints on a number of trucks for the ship point, maximum constraints on the number of trucks for the ship point, minimum constraints on the number of trucks for the ship point and a corresponding distribution center of the one or more distribution centers, and maximum constraints on the number of trucks for the ship point and the corresponding distribution center;
As per claims 1, 11, and 19, the best Foreign art:
1) Huang et al. (CN 113496297 A) discloses distribution route planning method and device capable of constructing distribution route planning model according to the storage network data and distribution line data, realizing the reasonable planning of the distribution route, improving the planning effect of the distribution route, reducing the distribution cost.
However, Huang et al., alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The allowable features include:
wherein the input information includes ship point information, lane information, order information, and set information, wherein the ship point information includes minimum constraints on a number of trucks for the ship point, maximum constraints on the number of trucks for the ship point, minimum constraints on the number of trucks for the ship point and a corresponding distribution center of the one or more distribution centers, and maximum constraints on the number of trucks for the ship point and the corresponding distribution center
As per claims 1, 11, and 19, the best NPL Prior art:
1) “How to measure and optimize delivery performance”, July 2, 2021, elogii.com, 13 pages discloses delivery performance is how successfully you deliver goods and services to your customers, and the only way to see that is to analyze your delivery performance. Further, to improve the processes, you’ll first need to evaluate the current performance. This means calculating key metrics in delivery logistics; and measuring key performance indicators in delivery gives you insight into the state of your operations based on data; and evaluating and regularly tracking KPIs also paints an accurate picture of the strengths and weaknesses of your delivery.
However, the NPL prior art, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The allowable features include:
wherein the input information includes ship point information, lane information, order information, and set information, wherein the ship point information includes minimum constraints on a number of trucks for the ship point, maximum constraints on the number of trucks for the ship point, minimum constraints on the number of trucks for the ship point and a corresponding distribution center of the one or more distribution centers, and maximum constraints on the number of trucks for the ship point and the corresponding distribution center;
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Ma et al. (US PG Pub. 20220245585 A1) discloses a system and method for generating last-mile delivery routes includes sorting multiple package delivery requests in a descending order based on a respective degree of limitation for a first respective constraint for each of the multiple package delivery requests.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights