DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the application filed on 3/13/25.
Examiner notes that this application claims foreign priority to 2024-039981.
Examiner further notes Applicant’s priority date of 3/14/24, which stems from the aforementioned parent application.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claims Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to for the following reasons:
The claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, claim 1, describes “executes managing” and “executes acquiring”; claims 5 and 6 state "when transmitting/receiving... did not success"; and claim 10 disclose inexplicable duplications, such as "when receiving receive.” Though, there are lot of typographical/grammatical issues, the scope in light of specification is clear, as addressed below. Extensive corrections are 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 1-11 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.
Independent claims 1, 4, and 8, in part, describe an invention comprising: (1) managing a database that associates device identification information with start propriety information, (2) receiving an inquiry request from a projector that includes the device identification information, (3) extracting the start propriety information corresponding to that device by referring to the database, and (4) outputting the start propriety information to authorize or deny the projector's startup. As such, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of controlling access to a product or service based on subscription or payment status, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04(a), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (commercial transactions, contractual relationships, and subscription-based access control), as well as a mental process (comparing device identification information to stored records, retrieving corresponding authorization data, and determining whether to grant or deny access based on that data). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: transmitting inquiry requests and responses over a network (claim 4), notifying the user of an expiration date (claim 10), and displaying that expiration date using a display device (claim 11). Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extra-solution activity. (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.").
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including: (1) a management server performing the managing, acquiring, extracting, and outputting operations (Examiner is interpreting this to be a hardware server), (2) a projector device that generates and transmits inquiry requests and receives responses (claims 4, 8), and (3) an information management device configured to manage user payment information (claim 8). These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and appear to be nothing more than field-of-use limitations (applying the abstract idea to projector hardware in a subscription-based device-control context), with generic computer components (servers, databases, network communication) to automate the mental processes of looking up subscription records and authorizing device usage, and insignificant extra-solution activity (transmitting requests/responses, processing startup procedures). Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use database lookup and comparison processes to perform subscription-based authorization, merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., transmitting inquiry requests and responses, conditionally processing startup procedures), and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., a generic server-client system in a projector-subscription context).
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Managing and storing data in a database; performing database lookups and extracting records. 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.
Outputting/Presenting data to a user. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-11 are dependent on the aforementioned independent claims, and further limit the abstract idea with details as follows:
managing start propriety information based on payment history (claim 2);
managing start propriety information based on time limits for device usage (claim 3);
starting the projector into an unusable state when transmission of the inquiry request fails (claim 5) or when receipt of the inquiry response fails (claim 6);
setting first and second expiration dates, determining whether the present time has passed the first expiration date, and managing start propriety information based on the second expiration date according to payment history (claim 7);
determining whether the present time is within a maintenance period and associating the device ID with start propriety information indicating appropriate startup during maintenance (claim 9);
processing the startup procedure and notifying the user of a third expiration date when receiving the inquiry response fails (claim 10);
displaying the third expiration date using a display device and display controller (claim 11).
These claims merely specify particular implementation details, additional conditional logic (if payment detected → allow start; if time expired → deny start; if maintenance period → override and allow start), particular data management activities (tracking expiration dates, payment histories, time limits), or additional user-notification and display activities (displaying expiration dates). They do not affect an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, in projector technology, or in any other technical field.
The recitation of "managing the start propriety information based on payment history information" (claim 2) and "based on time information" (claim 3) merely adds layers to the abstract idea of subscription-based access control by specifying the types of data consulted to determine authorization status. These are variations on the fundamental economic practice of granting or denying access based on whether a user has paid or whether their subscription time has expired, which are mental processes and methods of organizing human activity that do not provide significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
The recitation of starting the projector into an "unusable state" when communication fails (claims 5, 6, 10) merely involves applying conventional fail-safe logic—a routine programming technique—and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of setting and managing expiration dates based on payment history (claim 7) and determining whether the present time is within a maintenance period (claim 9) merely involves date-time comparisons and conditional branching based on payment records.
Therefore, claims 1-11 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiler (US 2019/0391817 A1) in view of Ozawa (US 8,992,027 B2).
Claim 1: Seiler discloses "a management server" (Abstract, Paragraphs 16, 31, and 39; Fig. 1 and 4-5. Authentication server 199, 499, 599 manages device authentication across network) that executes "managing a first management information for each of one or more" devices (Paragraphs 31 and 43-44. Authentication server manages authentication information for devices including encrypted keys stored on each device and authentication states);
"acquiring a first inquiry request inquiring propriety of a start of the first" device "from the first" device (Paragraphs 16, 24, and 31; claims 1 and 8. Devices send authentication requests by establishing connection with authentication server and transmitting encrypted key; authentication server receives authentication requests from devices during boot/startup to determine whether device is permitted to start);
"extracting, referring to the first management information," information "corresponding to a device identification information included in the first inquiry request" (Paragraphs 16, 24, 31; claim 1. Authentication server validates encrypted key from device and determines whether to permit boot); and
"outputting the" information "indicating the propriety of the start of the first" device (Paragraph 24 and 31; claims 1 and 8-9. Authentication server responds to device indicating whether boot is permitted to proceed or denied; upon authenticating device to authentication server boot of system is permitted to proceed; authentication server response allows device startup or initiates security procedure preventing device startup).
Seiler does not appear to explicitly describe "one or more projectors," "the first projector," "start propriety information," or "the first management information associates the device identification information to identify the projector with the start propriety information."
Ozawa, however, discloses "one or more projectors" and "the first projector" (col. 2, lines 1-8; col. 3, lines 21-40; Claim 1. Projector modulates and projects light emitted from a light source according to image information; multiple projectors PJ1, PJ2, PJ3 can be connected in cascade);
"start propriety information" (col. 2, lines 1-8; col. 5, lines 45-52; col. 6, lines 37-45; Fig. 3, Steps S113-S117. Permission information P1 indicates whether a projector is available for use; when use permission information is received and validated the projector proceeds to start projection at Step S107; when use permission information is not received or does not match the projector powers off to standby at Step S117); and
"the first management information associates the device identification information to identify the projector with the start propriety information" (col. 3, lines 45-62; col. 4, lines 1-30. Storage unit 21 stores first identification information 21a which identifies the projector and second identification information 21b which identifies a transmission destination projector; use permission information P1 is transmitted together with second identification information 21b; receiving projector checks whether received second identification information 21b coincides with its first identification information 21a to determine whether to become available for use).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine these features of Ozawa with those of Seiler. One would have been motivated to do this in order to provide centralized authentication management for multiple projectors and allow authorized projectors to start based on validation from a central authentication server, thereby improving security and deployment flexibility for projector authentication systems.
Claim 4: Seiler discloses "a management system comprising: the management server" (Abstract, Paragraphs 16, 31, and 39; Figs. 1 and 4-5. The system includes authentication server 199, 499, 599 that manages device authentication across network);
"and the first" device wherein the system includes devices that communicate with the authentication server” (Paragraph 11-12, Figs. 1 and 4-5, device 100, 400, 500 includes network port, startup module, and authentication components to communicate with authentication server);
"transmitting the first inquiry request to the management server" and "receiving a first inquiry response" from the management server (Paragraph 16, 24, and 31; claim 1. The device establishes connection with authentication server, transmits encrypted key, and receives authentication response indicating whether boot is permitted); and
"processing a start procedure of the" device "based on the first inquiry response" (Paragraphs 24 and 31; claims 1 and 8. Upon receiving authentication response device proceeds with boot if authentication succeeds or initiates security procedure if authentication fails).
Seiler does not appear to explicitly describe "the first projector," the device "generating the first inquiry request based on operation of a user of the first projector," or "receiving a first inquiry response including the start propriety information from the management server."
Ozawa, however, discloses "the first projector" (col. 2, lines 1-8; col. 3, lines 21-40; Claim 1. The projector modulates and projects light emitted from a light source according to image information);
"generating the first inquiry request based on operation of a user of the first projector" (col. 4, lines 33-48; Fig. 3, Step S101-S103 The user operates power key on input operation unit 23 to power on projector and trigger authentication process); and
"receiving a first inquiry response including the start propriety information from the management server" (col. 5, lines 45-52; Fig. 3, Step S113, receiving unit 41 receives use permission information P1 and second identification information).
The rationale for combining Ozawa with Seiler is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 5: The Seiler/Ozawa combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Seiler, however, further discloses the device starting into a limited state when communication with the server fails (Paragraphs 17 and 31. If validation process fails startup module takes security actions to protect device including preventing continued boot of device; security actions may be tiered so that initial failure to contact authentication server may result in limited operation).
However, Seiler does not appear to explicitly describe wherein "the first projector starts into an unusable state that is state limited a content projection function, when transmitting the first inquiry request to the management server did not success."
Ozawa discloses "the first projector starts into an unusable state that is state limited a content projection function, when transmitting the first inquiry request to the management server did not success" (Fig. 3, Steps S110-S112, S116-S117; col. 6, lines 20-36. When projector in second mode does not receive use permission information within predetermined time T1, warning message M2 is displayed and projector shifts to authentication mode; if authentication fails warning message M1 is displayed and projector powers off to standby state without being available for projection).
The rationale for combining Ozawa with Seiler is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 6: Seiler discloses the device starting into a limited state when authentication response is not received from the server (Paragraph 17 and 31. If validation process fails startup module takes security actions to protect device including preventing continued boot of device; if authentication server cannot be reached device may prevent startup).
Seiler does not appear to explicitly describe "the first projector starts into an unusable state that is state limited a content projection function, when receiving the first inquiry response from the management server did not success."
Ozawa, however, discloses "the first projector starts into an unusable state that is state limited a content projection function, when receiving the first inquiry response from the management server did not success" (Fig. 3, Steps S113-S117; col. 6, lines 37-55. When the projector does not receive use permission information and second identification information, or when received second identification information does not coincide with first identification information, warning messages M2 or M3 are displayed and projector powers off to standby state at Step S117 without being available for projection).
The rationale for combining Ozawa with Seiler is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 2-3 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiler (US 2019/0391817 A1) in view of Ozawa (US 8,992,027 B2) and further in view of Phatak (US 2018/0063564 A1).
Claim 2: The Seiler/Ozawa combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe the management server "managing the start propriety information based on payment history information that is a history of fees that one or more users who use the one or more projectors paid in order to use the one or more projectors."
Phatak, however, discloses "managing the start propriety information based on payment history information that is a history of fees that one or more users who use the one or more projectors paid in order to use the one or more projectors" (Paragraphs 22, 42, and 61-64; Table 2. The subscription service manages authorization and entitlements based on payment history; payment service provider processes subscription payments based on fees users pay to access content; subscription service communicates with payment service provider to confirm authenticated subscribers are authorized to receive content based on payment status; system stores and manages payment processing information and subscription fees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine these features of Phatak with those of Seiler and Ozawa. One would have been motivated to do this in order to manage projector start authorization based on user payment history and subscription status, thereby ensuring only paying users can operate projectors and providing a revenue-based access control system.
Claim 3: The Seiler/Ozawa/Phatak combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Seiler, however, further discloses "a management system comprising: the management server" (Abstract, Paragraphs 16, 31, and 39, Figs. 1, 4, and 5. The system includes authentication server 199, 499, 599 that manages device authentication across network).
Ozawa further discloses "one or more projectors" and managing information for projectors that "one or more users who use" (col. 2, lines 1-8; col. 3, lines 21-40; col. 4, lines 33-48; Claim 1.The projectors are used by users who operate input operation unit to authenticate and start projectors).
Phatak further discloses "managing the start propriety information based on time information indicating a start possible time that is a time length in which" users can access devices (Paragraphs 31 and 70, Tables 2 and 3, subscription service manages time-based subscriptions that define time periods during which users are authorized to access content; subscriptions have terms including monthly, quarterly, and yearly durations that specify the time length users are authorized; system manages authorization based on subscription term information).
The rationale for combining Phatak with Seiler/Ozawa is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 7: The Seiler/Ozawa/Phatak combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Seiler, however, further discloses "a management system comprising: the management server" (Abstract, Paragraphs 16, 31, and 39, Figs. 1, 4, and 5, system includes authentication server 199, 499, 599 that manages device authentication across network).
Ozawa further discloses "one or more projectors" and "the first projector" (col. 2, lines 1-8; col. 3, lines 21-40; col. 4, lines 33-48; Claim 1, projector modulates and projects light emitted from a light source; users operate projectors via input operation unit 23).
Phatak further discloses "setting a first expiration date of use" (Paragraph 70, Table 3, subscription service sets activation dates and end dates for subscription plans that define when subscriptions become available and when they expire);
"determining whether a present point in time passed the first expiration date of use" (Paragraphs 22 and 42, subscription service checks whether subscriber is authorized to access content by determining current subscription status and whether subscription has expired);
"setting a second expiration date of use later than the first expiration date of use according to the payment history information" (Paragraphs 22 and 42, Table 2, subscription service manages auto-renewal of subscriptions; payment service provider processes subscription payments and subscription service extends access based on payment status and payment history); and
"managing the start propriety information corresponding to" a device "based on the second expiration date of use" of the device, "when the present point in time passed the first expiration date of use" of the device (Paragraphs 22, 26, and 42, subscription service manages entitlements and authorization based on subscription status and expiration dates; when subscription expires system checks for renewal and updates authorization based on new subscription period).
The rationale for combining Phatak with Seiler/Ozawa is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 8: The Seiler/Ozawa/Phatak combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Seiler, however, further discloses "a management system comprising: the management server" (Abstract, Paragraph 16, Paragraph 31, Paragraph 39, Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, system includes authentication server 199, 499, 599 that manages device authentication across network).
Ozawa further discloses "one or more projectors," "the first projector," and "a user of the first projector" (col. 2, lines 1-8; col. 3, lines 21-40; col. 4, lines 33-48; Claim 1. The projector modulates and projects light emitted from a light source according to image information; users operate projectors via input operation unit 23).
Phatak further discloses "an information management device configured to manage information concerning the one or more users" (Paragraph 39, Paragraph 40, Paragraph 41, Paragraph 60, Paragraph 61, Fig. 1, payment service provider 110 manages user subscription information and payment information);
"the payment history information includes user identification information for identifying the one or more users" (Paragraph 58-59, Tables 1-2. The payment history and subscription information include user identification information such as username, email address, subscriber name, and phone number);
"the information management device executes managing the payment history information for each of one or more" devices (Paragraph 42 and 61-62. The payment service provider manages payment processing and subscription information for devices seeking to access content);
"acquiring, from the management server, a second inquiry request including the user identification information for identifying a user of the first" device, "the second inquiry request inquiring the payment history information corresponding to the user of the first" device (Paragraph 8, Paragraph 9, Paragraph 22, Paragraph 42, subscription service transmits entitlement check request including subscriber information to payment service provider to determine whether subscriber is authorized to access content);
"extracting the payment history information corresponding to the user of the first" device "by referring to the payment history information managed by the management unit using the user identification information for identifying the user of the first" device (Paragraph 22, Paragraph 42, Paragraph 66, Paragraph 67, payment service provider retrieves entitlement information and subscription status from distributed cache or database using subscriber identification information); and
"transmitting, to the management server, a second inquiry response including the payment history information corresponding to the user of the first" device "extracted by the extraction unit" (Paragraphs 8-9, 22, and 42. The payment service provider responds to subscription service with entitlement check response indicating whether subscriber is authorized to access content based on payment history and subscription status).
The rationale for combining Phatak with Seiler/Ozawa is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 9: The Seiler/Ozawa/Phatak combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Seiler, however, further discloses "a management system comprising: the management server" (Abstract, Paragraph 16, Paragraph 31, Paragraph 39, Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Fig. 5. The system includes authentication server 199, 499, 599 that manages device authentication across network).
Ozawa further discloses "one or more projectors," "the first projector," and "device identification information of the first projector" (col. 2, lines 1-8; col. 3, lines 21-40; col. 4, lines 8-15; Claim 1, projector modulates and projects light emitted from a light source; storage unit 21 stores first identification information 21a which identifies the projector 1).
Phatak further discloses "determining whether a present point in time is within a maintenance period of the management server" (Paragraph 22, Paragraph 26, Paragraph 70, Table 3, subscription service determines whether current time is within active subscription periods defined by activation dates and end dates; system checks whether present time falls within authorized access periods); and
"the management server associates the device identification information" and "start propriety information indicating that propriety of a start" is appropriate, "when the present point in time is within the maintenance period" (Paragraph 22, Paragraph 26, Paragraph 42, when current time is within active subscription period subscription service associates subscriber identification with authorization to access content; system grants access when present time is within authorized period).
The rationale for combining Phatak with Seiler/Ozawa is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 10: The Seiler/Ozawa/Phatak combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Seiler, however, further discloses "a management system comprising: the management server" (Abstract, Paragraph 16, Paragraph 31, Paragraph 39, Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, system includes authentication server 199, 499, 599 that manages device authentication across network).
Ozawa further discloses "one or more projectors," "the first projector," and "the user of the first projector" (col. 2, lines 1-8; col. 3, lines 21-40; col. 4, lines 33-48, projector modulates and projects light emitted from a light source; users operate projectors via input operation unit 23); and
Wherein "the first projector processes the start procedure of the first projector" and "notifies" information "to the user of the first projector, when receiving receive the first inquiry response from the management server did not success" (Fig. 3, Steps S110-S112, S116; col. 6, lines 20-36, when projector does not receive use permission information within predetermined time T1, projector displays warning message M2 to user and shifts to authentication mode; projector can display warning messages to notify user of authentication or reception failures).
Phatak further discloses "a third expiration date of use" (Paragraph 70; Table 3. The system manages expiration dates for subscription periods including end dates that define when user access expires).
The rationale for combining Phatak with Seiler/Ozawa is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 11: The Seiler/Ozawa/Phatak combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Ozawa, however, further discloses "the first projector further includes: a display device; and a display controller configured to cause the display device to display" information (col. 3, lines 8-20; col. 6, lines 46-55; Figs. 1 and 4A-4C, projector includes OSD processing unit 16 and image projection unit 10 with liquid crystal light valves and projection lens 13; OSD processing unit functions as display controller to display warning messages M1, M2, M3 on screen SC via the projection system).
Phatak further discloses displaying "the third expiration date of use" (Paragraph 70, Table 3, system manages and can display expiration dates for subscription periods including end dates that define when user access expires).
The rationale for combining Phatak with Seiler/Ozawa is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Though not cited in the above rejections, the following references are nevertheless deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Zhang et al. (12113804), directed to a method for authorized use of a projector.
Miller et al. (20140150080), directed to a method for authorizing access to digital content.
Suzuki et al. (12412207), directed to a registration apparatus and control method.
Li et al. (20190147441), directed to a method and device for providing and obtaining graphic code information.
Prasad et al. (11763305), directed to a distribution ledger for device management.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621