DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed March 25, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 9, and 10; and canceled claim 6. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are pending in the current application.
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim 10 was objected to for informalities. Examiner thanks the Applicant for revising the claim language. However, examiner notes that the amendments necessitate a claim objection in the current Office action similar to the claim objection made in the previous Office action. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-5 and 7-11 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by adjusting the acceptance period. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps describe or set-forth finding second users to bundle order requests from one entity and indicating to the users an arrival of the order, which amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim limitation, as discussed by the Applicant, “associate, as the sharing request…, request information relating to the first request and request information relating to the one or more second requests in a request information bundle, without separately transmitting the first request and the one or more second requests to the terminal of the entity” (claims 1, 9, and 10), under broadest reasonable interpretation, describes further the concept of bundling order requests from one entity, which amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim limitations, as discussed by the Applicant, “the first request and the one or more second requests are transmitted to a terminal of an entity only as a combined sharing request;” “store information relating to the one or more second requests in the database without transmitting the one or more second requests to the terminal of the entity until the first request and the one or more second requests are combined as the sharing request;” “transmit the sharing request relating to the request information bundle generated within the information displaying and processing device based on the first request and the one or more second requests to the terminal of the entity,” (claims 1, 9, and 10), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional elements are deemed “extra-solution” because they are merely transmitting data/information to a user and associating/storing data in a database. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The claim limitation, as discussed by the Applicant, “thereby reducing a number of communication operations between the information displaying and processing device and the terminal of the entity as compared to transmitting the first request and the one or more second requests separately to the terminal of the entity;” (claims 1, 9, and 10), is equivalent to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer as recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem by reducing a communication load between devices. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, the main concept of claimed invention is explicitly directed to the bundling of orders from multiple customers and the placement of orders to a store that would reduce a workload required for the delivery of said orders (See Current Application, Par. [0005]-[0009]). The claims are not directed to the focus of reducing communication loads over a network between the devices of a server, the user, and a store. The discussion of a communication load is made in paragraphs [0053] and [0054] where it merely mentions a possibility of an outcome. To further the Applicant’s arguments, the communication load between the server, the terminal and store would be increased if the store was inundated with multitudes of orders regardless of the bundling of orders from different places. The specification nor the claims fail to describe or recite any technical features or mechanisms regarding how the data is transmitted through communications channels, how such traffic is reduced with regard to network management, routing, or transmission, or where any or all transmissions between the server, user terminal, or entity terminal are reduced. The claims simply combine orders stemming from one location together.
Regardless, a reduction of a communication load or a more efficient communication workload between a terminal and server does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC V. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC V. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed.Cir.2012). Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 2, “the information displaying and processing device” should read --an information displaying and processing 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.
Claim 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 11, are drawn to a machine, claim 9 is drawn to a process, and claim 10 is drawn to an article of manufacture, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of claims 9 and 10) recites/describes the following steps:
“…based on… a first user performing a search request for one or more entities …, receive information of a current location of the first user…”
“…accept,…, a first request received …,”
“…assign a request identifier (ID) to the first request,…, wherein, when one or more second requests are received within an acceptance period, …;”
“…acquire an address… associated with one or more second users …, wherein the acceptance period is determined, in real time, …for the current location of the first user…;”
“…based on the push notification received …, display, …, information included in the push notification together with an indication that the sharing request is available within the acceptance period;”
“…accept one or more second requests from the one or more second user…, in association with the request ID of the first request, within the acceptance period after the first request is accepted,”
“…associate, as the sharing request …, request information relating to the first request and request information relating to the one or more second requests in a request information bundle, …;”
“…based on a notification indicating that a processing of the sharing request has been completed… or a pre-designated time related to the sharing request having elapsed, display…, a button to be operated at a time corresponding to the first user being at a pre-designated location;” and
“… display…, an indication corresponding to the first user pressing the button.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth finding second users to bundle order requests from one entity and indicating to the users an arrival of the order, which amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Dependent claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “acquire location information of the entity;” “acquire a movement time required for the first user…to arrive at the entity, the movement time being based on current location information of the first user…and the location information of the entity;” “identify the one or more second users associated with the first user relating to the first request in advance;” and “determine, in real time, the acceptance period during which the one or more second requests can be accepted to form the sharing request together with the first request, after the first request is accepted, the acceptance period being based on at least the movement time,” that further defines the processes of the abstract idea. Claim 2 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 3 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “determine the acceptance period further based on at least a processing time until processing of an item included in the first request is completed,” that further defines the processes of the abstract idea. Claim 3 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 4 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “determine the acceptance period further based on a plan designated by the first user or the entity,” that further defines the processes of the abstract idea. Claim 4 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 5 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “identify, as the one or more second users, one or more additional users designated by the first user in advance,” that further defines the processes of the abstract idea. Claim 5 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 7 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “display,…, an indication of acceptance of the one or more second requests after the first request is accepted,” that further defines the processes of the abstract idea. Claim 7 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 8 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “display, …, an indication of request information relating to the one or more second requests accepted,” that further defines the processes of the abstract idea. Claim 8 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 11 recites additional limitation “based on the information of the current location of the first user terminal, transmit information of one or more entities within a predetermined range from the current location of the first user terminal,” which is addressed in step 2A (prong two) and step 2B below.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “an information displaying and processing device,” “at least one processor,” “multiple user terminals,” “a server,” “a terminal of an entity,” “a first user terminal associated with a first user,” “an application running on the first user terminal,” “a global positioning system (GPS) built in the first user terminal,” “a database,” “one or more second user terminals associated with one or more second users,” “a GPS signal,” “a display of the one or more second user terminals,” “a display of the first user terminal,” (claims 1, 9, and 10); “at least one memory” (claim 1); “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program,” “a computer that implements the information displaying and processing device,” (claim 10).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an information displaying and processing device,” “at least one processor,” “multiple user terminals,” “a server,” “a terminal of an entity,” “a first user terminal associated with a first user,” “an application running on the first user terminal,” “a global positioning system (GPS) built in the first user terminal,” “a database,” “one or more second user terminals associated with one or more second users,” “a GPS signal,” “a display of the one or more second user terminals,” “a display of the first user terminal,” (claims 1, 9, and 10); “at least one memory” (claim 1); “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program,” “a computer that implements the information displaying and processing device,” (claim 10), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer as they invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “thereby reducing a number of communication operations between the information displaying and processing device and the terminal of the entity as compared to transmitting the first request and the one or more second requests separately to the terminal of the entity,” (claims 1, 9, and 10).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “thereby reducing a number of communication operations between the information displaying and processing device and the terminal of the entity as compared to transmitting the first request and the one or more second requests separately to the terminal of the entity,” (claims 1, 9, and 10), is equivalent to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer as recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “store the request ID and associated information of the first request in a database;” “the first request and the one or more second requests are transmitted to a terminal of an entity only as a combined sharing request;” “transmit a push notification to the one or more second user terminals via the application running on the one or more second user terminals based on the acquired address, wherein the push notification includes the request ID of the first request, a user ID of the first user, an entity to process a sharing request, an acceptance period of the sharing request” “store information relating to the one or more second requests in the database without transmitting the one or more second requests to the terminal of the entity until the first request and the one or more second requests are combined as the sharing request;” “transmit the sharing request relating to the request information bundle generated within the information displaying and processing device based on the first request and the one or more second requests to the terminal of the entity,” (claims 1, 9, and 10); and “based on the information of the current location of the first user terminal, transmit information of one or more entities within a predetermined range from the current location of the first user terminal,” (claim 11).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “store the request ID and associated information of the first request in a database;” “the first request and the one or more second requests are transmitted to a terminal of an entity only as a combined sharing request;” “transmit a push notification to the one or more second user terminals via the application running on the one or more second user terminals based on the acquired address, wherein the push notification includes the request ID of the first request, a user ID of the first user, an entity to process a sharing request, an acceptance period of the sharing request” “store information relating to the one or more second requests in the database without transmitting the one or more second requests to the terminal of the entity until the first request and the one or more second requests are combined as the sharing request;” “transmit the sharing request relating to the request information bundle generated within the information displaying and processing device based on the first request and the one or more second requests to the terminal of the entity,” (claims 1, 9, and 10); and “based on the information of the current location of the first user terminal, transmit information of one or more entities within a predetermined range from the current location of the first user terminal,” (claim 11), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional elements are deemed “extra-solution” because they are merely transmitting data/information to a user and associating/storing data in a database. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Remaining dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 8 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an information displaying and processing device,” “at least one processor,” “multiple user terminals,” “a server,” “a terminal of an entity,” “a first user terminal associated with a first user,” “an application running on the first user terminal,” “a global positioning system (GPS) built in the first user terminal,” “a database,” “one or more second user terminals associated with one or more second users,” “a GPS signal,” “a display of the one or more second user terminals,” “a display of the first user terminal,” (claims 1, 9, and 10); “at least one memory” (claim 1); “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program,” “a computer that implements the information displaying and processing device,” (claim 10), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “thereby reducing a number of communication operations between the information displaying and processing device and the terminal of the entity as compared to transmitting the first request and the one or more second requests separately to the terminal of the entity,” (claims 1, 9, and 10), is equivalent to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer as recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional elements of “store the request ID and associated information of the first request in a database;” “the first request and the one or more second requests are transmitted to a terminal of an entity only as a combined sharing request;” “transmit a push notification to the one or more second user terminals via the application running on the one or more second user terminals based on the acquired address, wherein the push notification includes the request ID of the first request, a user ID of the first user, an entity to process a sharing request, an acceptance period of the sharing request” “store information relating to the one or more second requests in the database without transmitting the one or more second requests to the terminal of the entity until the first request and the one or more second requests are combined as the sharing request;” “transmit the sharing request relating to the request information bundle generated within the information displaying and processing device based on the first request and the one or more second requests to the terminal of the entity,” (claims 1, 9, and 10); and “based on the information of the current location of the first user terminal, transmit information of one or more entities within a predetermined range from the current location of the first user terminal,” (claim 11), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of data/information transmission and storage of data in a database. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(d). This conclusion is based on a factual determination.
The determination that associating/storing data in a database is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of associating/storing data in a database. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Remaining dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 8 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Indication of Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 recite novel and non-obvious subject matter. Each of the dependent claims recite novel and non-obvious subject matter by virtue of their dependency on independent claim 1.
The closest prior art of record has been identified in the Office action mailed July 16, 2025.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Xu et al. (US 2022/0044307 A1) discloses a system for optimizing a food service configured to receive food orders from multiple customers, and consolidate orders based on respective days, times, and locations associated therewith. The food orders may include deliveries, customer pick-ups, and dine-in options for eating at a restaurant. The optimized food service may be configured to assign a restaurant to the consolidated orders and send a preparation instruction to the restaurant to prepare the consolidated orders for a designated pick-up or dining time. The optimized food service may additionally instruct an order supervisor to travel to the restaurant to assist in preparation of the consolidated orders. The order supervisor may additionally serve a food order, such as for a dine-in option or full service, catered delivery. For delivery orders, the optimized food service may assign a courier and, in some examples, a delivery assistant, to deliver the orders to respective customers.
As per claim 9 (representative of claims 1 and 10), the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “accepting, via the application, a first request received from the first user terminal, assigning a request identifier (ID) to the first request, and storing the request ID and associated information of the first request in a database, wherein, when one or more second requests are received within an acceptance period, the first request and the one or more second requests are transmitted to a terminal of an entity only as a combined sharing request; acquiring an address of one or more second user terminals associated with one or more second users from the database, and transmitting a push notification to the one or more second user terminals via the application running on the one or more second user terminals based on the acquired address, wherein the push notification includes the request ID of the first request, a user ID of the first user, an entity to process a sharing request, and an acceptance period of the sharing request, wherein the acceptance period is determined, in real time, using a GPS signal for the current location of the first user terminal; based on the push notification received via the application running on the one or more second user terminals, displaying, on a display of the one or more second user terminals, information included in the push notification together with an indication that the sharing request is available within the acceptance period; accepting one or more second requests from the one or more second user terminals, in association with the request ID of the first request, within the acceptance period after the first request is accepted, and storing information relating to the one or more second requests in the database without transmitting the one or more second requests to the terminal of the entity until the first request and the one or more second requests are combined as the sharing request; associating, as the sharing request generated within the server, request information relating to the first request and request information relating to the one or more second requests in a request information bundle, without separately transmitting the first request and the one or more second requests to the terminal of the entity; transmitting the sharing request relating to the request information bundle generated within the information displaying and processing device based on the first request and the one or more second requests to the terminal of the entity, thereby reducing a number of communication operations between the information displaying and processing device and the terminal of the entity as compared to transmitting the first request and the one or more second requests separately to the terminal of the entity; based on a notification indicating that a processing of the sharing request has been completed being received from the terminal of the entity or a pre-designated time related to the sharing request having elapsed, displaying on a display of the first user terminal, and not the one or more second user terminals related to the sharing request, a button to be operated at a time corresponding to the first user being at a pre-designated location, and displaying on the display of the one or more second user terminals, an indication corresponding to the first user pressing the button.” This combination of functions/features would not have been obvious to a PHOSITA in view of the prior art.
Conclusion
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 Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights