DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the application filed on 3/21/25.
Examiner notes that this application claim priority from provisional application 63568874.
Examiner further notes Applicant’s priority date of 3/22/24, which stems from the aforementioned provisional application.
Claims 1-14 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 describes "a beverage container having attached thereto an identifier" (emphasis added). Later in the claim, however, it appears to be labeled as "the specific identifier” (emphasis added). Based on the wording, it is unclear as to whether or not the “specific identifier” is the same as the original identifier. Examiner is proceeding under the assumption that the “specific identifier” should simply be designated as “the identifier.” Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 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 and 7, in part, describe an invention comprising: (1) tracking physical items by assigning identifiers to distinguish them, (2) collecting data about the items and their contents, (3) analyzing that collected data, and (4) facilitating social networking and user interaction based on shared interests in the tracked items. As such, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of item tracking, data collection and analysis, and organizing social interaction around shared interests, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04(a), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity. 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: scanning an identifier with a mobile application, capturing container-related information, and transmitting information to a backend service. (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 in to a patentable process.”).
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including: "a beverage container" with attached identifier (QR code, RFID tag, or IoT device), "a mobile application operable on a user device," "integrated sensors," and "a backend service communicatively coupled to the mobile application and the beverage container" for performing functions such as registering containers, capturing container-related information including beverage type and fill date and sensor data, updating information, storing and analyzing container-related information, and facilitating user connection and social interaction. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components (mobile application, backend service/server) and conventional physical components (container with identifier, sensors). 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 a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. generic mobile applications and backend servers connected via networks).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions are merely facilitated by generic computer implementation.
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).
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Scanning QR codes and collecting data. See, for example, https://www.qrcode.com/en/history/ (This technology was originally developed in 1994 and used to track auto parts).
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 2-6 and 8-14 are dependent on the aforementioned independent claims, and further limit the abstract idea with details as follows:
embedding the identifier within the container material (claim 2);
using a combination of QR code and RFID chip (claims 3, 8);
supporting multiple user devices including smartphones, tablets, and smartwatches (claims 4, 10);
featuring an interface with customizable dashboards for displaying container data (claim 5);
integrating additional sensors to measure temperature, pH level, or carbonation (claims 6, 12);
generating the identifier based on at least one parameter selected from user ID, container location, and container model ID (claim 9);
incorporating augmented reality (AR) or virtual reality (VR) capabilities to enhance the scanning process (claim 11);
featuring a customizable user interface for displaying container data (claim 13); and
using blockchain technology for secure and immutable storage (claim 14).
These claims merely specify particular implementation details, additional conventional sensors (pH sensors, carbonation sensors), particular well-known technologies (AR/VR, blockchain), or particular types of user interface features. These limitations simply add further details about what sensors are used, what technologies process the data, how identifiers are generated, and what interface customization features are provided. They do not affect an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, in any sensor technology, in networking technology, or in the operation of AR/VR or blockchain systems.
The recitation of "augmented reality (AR) or virtual reality (VR) capabilities" to enhance scanning (claim 11) is recited at a high level of generality, without any specific details of AR rendering techniques, image processing improvements, or enhanced detection algorithms. It is invoked as a generic tool to implement the underlying scanning concept, and such generic invocation of AR/VR to perform conventional code scanning does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide a technological improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recitation of "blockchain technology" for secure and immutable storage (claim 14) is likewise recited at a high level of generality, without any specific details of blockchain architecture, consensus mechanism, cryptographic improvements, or enhanced security features beyond what is inherent in blockchain technology generally. It is invoked as a generic tool to implement secure storage, and such generic invocation of blockchain to perform conventional secure data storage does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide a technological improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, claims 1-14 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 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0100428 A1 ("Parkinson") in view of US 10,558,330 B2 ("Suh"), and in further in view of US 2012/0293332 A1 ("Rosenfeld") and US 11,012,402 B1 ("McNulty").
Claim 1: Parkinson discloses a beverage container management system, comprising:
"a beverage container having attached thereto an identifier that is distinct, wherein the identifier is selected from the group consisting of a QR code, an RFID tag, and an IoT device" (Abstract; Paragraph 0015; Figs. 1, 3. Parkinson discloses beverage crates with unique identifiers. The crate includes an RFID chip and/or QR code that uniquely identifies each crate like a serial number.);
"a mobile application operable on a user device configured to register the beverage container using the specific identifier" (Abstract; Paragraphs 0016 and 0032; Figs. 1-2. Parkinson discloses a smartphone with hardware for reading the RFID chip or QR code on the crate. When a user activates the link, the smartphone automatically connects to the server which identifies the particular link, thereby registering the beverage container. Also, see para 0027 user mobile device linking the crate.); and
"a backend service communicatively coupled to the mobile application and the beverage container, wherein the backend service stores and analyzes the container-related information" (Abstract; Paragraphs 0023 and 0027; Fig. 2. Parkinson discloses a server that is accessed by the user's mobile device upon activation of the user link. The server obtains the unique identification of the crate and the location. The server stores this information in asset profiles containing a record of every location and time/date. The server provides asset management and tracking, and can determine if crates are in locations they were not expected to be, showing storage and analysis of the container-related information.).
Parkinson further discloses the mobile application is "configured to... capture container-related information" (Paragraphs 0021-0023; Table 1 at Paragraph 0022. The server obtains user session data from the smartphone including the container identification, geolocation data, and user details. The server obtains the unique identification of the crate and the location), but does not explicitly describe the mobile application capturing container-related information "including beverage type, fill date, and sensor data from integrated sensors.”
Suh, however, discloses capturing beverage-specific information "including beverage type" and "fill date" (Abstract; Claim 1 at Col. 1, lines 46-56; FIG. 9B at element 2310. The mobile terminal receives recipe information for beverages through a displayed interface. The recipe includes "Recipe Name: Amber Ale" showing beverage type, and "Start date May 30" and "End date Jun 15" showing fill date information. The recipe also includes specific ingredients such as "Wort Amber Ale, Yeast English Ale, Hop American 3, Flavor Mango.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Suh with those of Parkinson. One would have been motivated to do this in order to allow users to track not only the location of beverage containers as in Parkinson, but also the specific beverage contents and recipes within those containers, thereby providing a more comprehensive beverage container management system.
Next, Parkinson and Suh do not appear to explicitly describe capturing "sensor data from integrated sensors."
Rosenfeld, however, discloses capturing "sensor data from integrated sensors" (Abstract; Claim 1; Paragraphs 24, 27, and 29; Figs. 1A-1B, 2A-2B. The beverage container includes an integrated temperature sensor that extends downward into the cavity of the beverage container. The controller receives analog or digital signals from the temperature sensor that correspond to temperature measurements of the beverage stored in the container, thereby capturing sensor data from integrated sensors.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Rosenfeld with those of Parkinson and Suh. One would have been motivated to do this in order to provide both manual input of beverage type and fill date information along with automatic sensor-based capture of beverage parameters such as temperature, thereby creating a comprehensive system that captures complete container-related information through both user input and integrated sensors.
Finally, none of the aforementioned references describe a backend service that "facilitates user connection and social interaction based on shared beverage content information".
McNulty, however, discloses a backend service that "facilitates user connection and social interaction based on shared beverage content information" (Abstract; Claim 1; Col. 1, lines 62-65 to Col. 2, lines 1-3; Col. 2, lines 11-33; Fig. 3. McNulty discloses a social networking platform with a logic subsystem that transmits digital recipe data to all other users in the group. Users of the platform are communicatively coupled in various groups and subgroups. An initiating user can form a virtual circle, name the circle, and add other users who can then be communicatively coupled to other users of the group. Content can be shared at varying levels of groups and subgroups. The system provides a community for sharing and enables interaction between users about food and recipes.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of McNulty with those of Parkinson/Suh/Rosenfeld. One would have been motivated to do this in order to enhance the container management system by allowing users to not only track containers and their contents, but also to connect with other users who have similar beverage interests and share recipes and experiences related to beverages.
Claim 2: Parkinson further discloses "wherein the identifier is embedded within the container material for durability and tamper resistance, ensuring the integrity of the identification process" (Paragraph 0030. Parkinson discloses the chip is embedded (e.g., insert-molded) or attached to the lid. This teaches embedding an RFID chip within the container material through insert-molding.).
Claims 3 and 8: Parkinson further discloses "wherein the identifier comprises a combination of a QR code and an embedded RFID chip" (Paragraphs 0015 and 0030; Figs. 1, 3. Parkinson discloses the crate includes at least one smartphone-readable user link, such as an NFC or RFID chip and/or a QR code. The cart includes at least one smartphone-readable link, such as an NFC RFID chip and/or a QR code.).
Claims 4 and 10: The Parkinson/Suh/Rosenfeld/McNulty combination discloses those limitations cited above. McNulty, however, further discloses mobile applications operating on "multiple user devices, including smartphones, tablets, and smartwatches" (Abstract; Col. 1, lines 37-42; Figs. 5-11 showing mobile device interfaces. McNulty discloses "experience clients can include mobile native apps, such as iOS and Android, a desktop website accessible by a desktop web browser, and a mobile website accessible by a mobile web browser," teaching that the application is designed to operate across multiple device types and platforms.).
The rationale for combining McNulty with Parkinson/Suh/Rosenfeld is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 6 and 12: The Parkinson/Suh/Rosenfeld/McNulty combination discloses those limitations cited above. Rosenfeld, however, further discloses a method “wherein additional sensors are integrated into the beverage container to measure parameters such as temperature, pH level, or carbonation, providing comprehensive data on beverage quality” (Abstract; Claim 1; ¶0024; ¶0027; ¶0029; Figs. 1A-1B, 2A-2B showing temperature sensor 54. Rosenfeld describes sensors that are integrated into the beverage container to measure parameters such as temperature.).
The rationale for combining McNulty with Parkinson/Suh/Rosenfeld is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 7: The Parkinson/Suh/Rosenfeld/McNulty combination discloses those limitations cited above. Parkinson, however, further discloses a method comprising:
"assigning a distinct identifier to a beverage container, the identifier being selected from the group consisting of a QR code, an RFID tag, and an IoT device" (Abstract; Claim 18; Paragraph 0015; Figs. 1, 3. Parkinson discloses associating each of a plurality of containers with a container identification and user link, each being unique. The user link is an RFID or NFC chip or optical code such as a QR code. The crate includes an NFC or RFID chip and/or a QR code. The containers include beverage crates.);
"scanning the distinct identifier with a mobile application operable on a user device to register the beverage container" (Claim 18; Paragraphs 0016, 0021, and 0032. Parkinson discloses a smartphone with hardware for reading one or more of the links on the crate, including an NFC reader and/or a camera for reading the QR code. The user places the smartphone near the chip or uses the camera to read the QR code, which directs the smartphone to connect to the server. The method includes receiving one of the container identifications from a user's mobile device. When a user activates the link, the smartphone automatically connects to the server and the server identifies the particular link, thereby registering the container.);
"capturing container-related information" (Paragraphs 0021-0023; Table 1 at Paragraph 0022. Parkinson discloses the server obtains user session data from the smartphone including QR Station ID Code, geolocation fields such as GPS geolocation, latitude, longitude, country, state, county, city, zip code, and user details fields.); and
"transmitting the container-related information to a backend service for storage, analysis" (Abstract; Paragraphs 0021, 0023, and 0027. Parkinson discloses the smartphone connects via wireless communication to the server. The server obtains user session data from the smartphone. The server obtains the unique identification of the crate and the location. The server stores this information in asset profiles. The server provides asset management and tracking, and can determine if crates are in locations they were not expected to be, showing storage and analysis.).
Suh further discloses capturing "beverage type" and "fill date" (Abstract; FIG. 9B at element 2310. Suh discloses receiving recipe information for the beverage through a displayed recipe input interface. The recipe information includes "Recipe Name: Amber Ale" showing beverage type, and "Start date May 30, End date Jun 15" showing date information analogous to fill date. The ingredients include "Wort Amber Ale" showing specific beverage type and content information.); and
"updating the container-related information via the mobile application" (FIG. 10A; FIG. 11A; FIG. 11C; FIG. 13B; FIG. 14C. Suh discloses "Edit My Recipe" screens with editable fields for Recipe Name and ingredients, showing that the mobile application allows modification and updating of beverage information.).
Rosenfeld further discloses capturing "sensor data from integrated sensors of the beverage container" (Abstract; Claim 1; Paragraphs 0024, 0027, and 0029; Figs. 1A-1B, 2A-2B showing sensor 54. The temperature probe extends downward from the bottom of the lid into the beverage container when the lid is coupled to the beverage container. The controller receives analog or digital signals from the temperature probe or temperature sensor disposed within the probe that correspond to temperature measurements of the beverage stored in the beverage container, thereby capturing sensor data from integrated sensors.).
Finally, McNulty further discloses a backend service "for... facilitation of user connection and social interaction based on shared beverage content information" (Abstract; Claim 1; Col. 1, lines 62-65 to Col. 2, lines 1-3; Col. 2, lines 11-22; Col. 2, lines 29-33. McNulty discloses a social networking platform for recipe sharing and interaction between users about food and recipes. The logic subsystem transmits digital recipe data to all other users in the group. Users of the platform are communicatively coupled in various groups and subgroups. An initiating user can form a virtual circle, name the circle, and add other users who can then be communicatively coupled to the other users of the group. Content can be shared at varying levels of groups and subgroups. The backend service facilitates user connection and content sharing, providing interaction between users based on shared recipe content.).
The rationale for combining Parkinson, Suh, Rosenfeld, and McNulty is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkinson/Suh/McNulty/Rosenfeld in view of Damani (US 2014/0089836 A1).
The Parkinson/Suh/Rosenfeld/McNulty combination discloses those limitations cited above. Parkinson, however, further discloses a system “wherein the mobile application features an interface” (Paragraphs 24 and 26; Fig. 2. Parkinson discloses a mobile application with a user interface for displaying container information.), but does not explicitly describe a system “wherein the mobile application features an interface with customizable dashboards for displaying container data, improving user accessibility and engagement.”
Damani, however, discloses a mobile application with "customizable dashboards for displaying" data and a "customizable user interface" that allows users to personalize their experience, "improving user accessibility and engagement" (Abstract; Claim 11; Paragraphs 0038 and 0045; FIG. 3. Damani discloses an interactive graphical user interface with a dashboard that displays personalized data for a user. The GUI is customizable and displays user-specific data to improve user accessibility and engagement with the application.).
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 Damani with those of Parkinson in view of Suh, McNulty, and Rosenfeld. One would have been motivated to do this in order to improve user accessibility and engagement by allowing users to personalize their viewing experience and configure the display of container data according to their preferences, thereby enhancing user experience and increasing user engagement with the container tracking system.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkinson/Suh/Rosenfeld/McNulty in view of Tsau (US 2009/0224970 A1).
As noted above, Parkinson discloses that each container has a unique identifier (Paragraphs 0021 and 0023), but does not explicitly describe a method "wherein the identifier is generated based on at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of user ID, container location, and container model ID."
Tsau, however, discloses a method "wherein the identifier is generated based on at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of user ID, container location, and container model ID" (Abstract; Claim 1; Paragraphs 0027 and 0031; FIG. 2. Tsau discloses a tracking module programmable by an end-user to include a private ID. The tracking module sends tracking data including a representation of the private ID defined by the user. The identifier is generated based on user-defined parameters.).
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 Tsau with those of Parkinson/Suh/Rosenfeld/McNulty. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure identifier uniqueness and enable efficient database organization by incorporating user-specific, location-specific, or model-specific information into the identifier generation process, thereby creating more meaningful and organized identifiers that facilitate tracking and database queries.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Parkinson/Suh/Rosenfeld/McNulty in view of Weller (US 2012/0327117 A1).
As noted above, Parkinson discloses scanning QR codes with a mobile application (Abstract; Paragraphs 0024 and 0026; FIG. 2), but does not explicitly describe a method "wherein the mobile application incorporates augmented reality (AR) or virtual reality (VR) capabilities to enhance the scanning process."
Weller, however, discloses a method "wherein the mobile application incorporates augmented reality (AR) or virtual reality (VR) capabilities to enhance the scanning process." (Abstract; Claim 1; Paragraphs 0022 and 0030; FIG. 1 Weller discloses a method for providing an augmented reality experience by operating a camera to acquire an input image and decoding data from a digitally encoded marker by processing the input image. The AR system enhances the marker detection and decoding process by displaying an augmented reality image on the display screen.).
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 Weller with those of Parkinson/Suh/Rosenfeld/McNulty. One would have been motivated to do this in order to improve scan accuracy and user experience by providing visual feedback and enhanced marker detection capabilities through AR technology.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Parkinson/Suh/Rosenfeld/McNulty in view of Yan (US 11,681,992 B2).
As noted above, Parkinson discloses "container-related information is transmitted to a backend service" for storage (Abstract; Paragraphs 0021 and 0027. The smartphone transmits data to the server which stores information in asset profiles.), but does not appear to explicitly describe a method "wherein the container-related information is transmitted to a backend service using blockchain technology for secure and immutable storage".
Yan, however, discloses a method "wherein the container-related information is transmitted to a backend service using blockchain technology for secure and immutable storage" (Abstract; Col. 1, lines 20-30; Col. 6, lines 40-58. Yan discloses a blockchain is a distributed database used to record transactions between network participants in a verifiable manner. Nodes in a blockchain network record information in blocks that are successively linked together using cryptography to form a blockchain. Each block includes a cryptographic hash of a preceding block. The blockchain improves transparency while ensuring data immutability subject to consensus protocols, thereby providing secure and immutable storage.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine the backend service of Parkinson with the blockchain technology of Yan. One would have been motivated to do this in order to provide enhanced security and data integrity for the container information storage system, ensuring that container data cannot be tampered with or altered after recording through the immutability and cryptographic security features of blockchain technology.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Though not cited in the above rejections, the following references are nevertheless deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Goldburt et al. (7954970), directed to beverage bottles.
Wang et al. (8839343), directed to a life event augmentation using an intelligent beverage container.
Lachwani et al. (20220082542), directed to a system for beverage analysis.
Bach et al. (20220355971), directed to a RFID-equipped pressure chamber for kegs.
Yamaoka et al. (JP2018188199), directed to a storage container with IC tags.
McGuire et al. (11321909), directed to tracking and rendering physical volumetric substances in virtual reality.
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