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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 6/11/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/14/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,493. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example:
Claim 1 of the present application recites:
A method for beverage ordering dispatching, the method comprising:
receiving, from a user device associated with a user and at a retailer computing device, an order input indicating a selection;
generating, at the retailer computing device, a randomized order image, wherein the randomized order image is used to identify a transaction corresponding to the selection, wherein generating the randomized order image includes performing a randomized image generation procedure that selects a color and an object image to form the randomized order image;
causing the randomized order image to be displayed at the retailer computing device;
causing the randomized order image to be displayed at the user device responsive to an input received at the retailer computing device; and
receiving, at the retailer computing device, a transaction confirmation associated with the transaction.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,493 recites:
A method for beverage ordering dispatching, the method comprising: storing, at a first database, a standardized product schema representing a plurality of beverage products, the standardized product schema is based on converting data from a plurality of retailer computing devices into standardized product identifiers;
receiving, at a user interface of a retailer computing device, an onboarding input indicating inventory data associated with the retailer computing device; receiving, from the first database and at the retailer computing device, a plurality of product identifiers from the standardized product schema; mapping, at the retailer computing device, the inventory data to the plurality of product identifiers;
storing, at a second database associated with the retailer computing device, the inventory data mapped to the plurality of product identifiers;
determining, at the retailer computing device, that a user device associated with a user profile is at a location associated with the retailer computing device;
determining, at the retailer computing device, a preference associated with the user profile, the preference corresponding to a product identifier of the plurality of product identifiers from the standardized product schema;
causing, based on the preference corresponding to the product identifier, an indicator associated with the preference to be presented at the user device;
receiving, from the user device and at the retailer computing device, an order input indicating a selection of the preference;
generating, at the retailer computing device, a randomized order image, wherein the randomized order image is used to identify a transaction corresponding to the selection, wherein generating the randomized order image includes performing a randomized image generation procedure that selects a color and an object image to form the randomized order image;
causing the randomized order image to be displayed at the retailer computing device; causing the randomized order image to be displayed at the user device responsive to an input received at the retailer computing device; and
receiving, at the retailer computing device, a transaction confirmation associated with the transaction.
Claim 1 of the US12,333,493 includes every limitation of the presently claimed beverage-order transaction and randomized order image process. The additional limitations concerning standardized product schema, onboarding, inventory mapping, user location and preference determination narrow the patented claim but do not render the broader presently claimed combination patently distinct. Claims 1, 8 and 15 therefore constitute an obvious variation of claim 1 of the ‘493 patent.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1, 8, 15 recite:
receiving, from a user device associated with a user and at a retailer computing device, an order input indicating a selection;
generating, at the retailer computing device, a randomized order image, wherein the randomized order image is used to identify a transaction corresponding to the selection, wherein generating the randomized order image includes performing a randomized image generation procedure that selects a color and an object image to form the randomized order image;
causing the randomized order image to be displayed at the retailer computing device;
causing the randomized order image to be displayed at the user device responsive to an input received at the retailer computing device; and
receiving, at the retailer computing device, a transaction confirmation associated with the transaction.
causing, based on a preference corresponding to a product identifier, one or more indicators corresponding to one or more beverage items to be presented at a user device associated with a user, the one or more beverage items being associated with a subset of a plurality of product identifiers; receiving, from the user device and at a retailer computing device, an item selection input indicating a selected beverage item from the one or more beverage items;
receiving, via a wireless network connection between a user device and a retailer computing device, an order input indicating a selection of a beverage preference;
The claims recite commercial order identification and confirmation. Under step 2A (prong 1) claims recite an abstract idea because claims recite limitations that fall within the
Certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas such as commercial interaction, sales activities, order processing, customer preferences, inventory management and transaction confirmation. For example, a restaurant cold perform the procedure manually by assigning an arbitrary colored symbol to an order, displaying or handing the symbol to the customer and conforming the transaction when the customer present the matching symbol. “A color and an object image” describe information selected to represent the transaction.
Mental processes such as selecting products, associating an order with an image, determining preferences, mapping product information and confirming order.
Mathematical concepts such as rationalized pareto analyzes in claims 5, 12, 17 and 18.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The recited steps control the flow of information. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claims recite additional elements such as user device, retailer computing device, databases, user interfaces, wireless network, displaying images or indicators.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 8 and 15 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
The claimed image is merely displayed and used to identify transaction, and the claims do not appear to specify how the image identifies the transaction or how the retailer computing device validates a correspondence between the customer, image, order and transaction.
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different teach or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The randomized selection of a color and object image amounts to generating a visual identifier from the two categories of information without a particular generating encoding, validation.
Returning to representative claims 1, 8 and 15, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 8 and 15 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20, recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claims 1, 8 and 15. As such, claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. This is because claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 rely on at least similar additional elements as recited in claims 1, 8 and 15. That is, the limitations are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Lastly, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20, also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1-20 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
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, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US 2020/0184437 A1) in view of Yang (US 2017/0301308 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kelly teaches receiving, from a user device associated with a user and at a retailer computing device, an order input indicating a selection, (The mobile device may include a wireless mechanism 108 for wirelessly communicating with another mechanism with wireless capability, such as, for example a base unit in a restaurant or other establishment engaged in commerce..the mobile device 100 may also include a list 102 of choices of items that may be purchased [108].. The order is placed by the user on the app, [193], designated places for drinks and other food items, [98]). Kelly also teaches transmitting the resulting order to restaurant and kitchen systems. Thus, Kelly teaches receiving, at a retailer computing device, an order input originating from the user device and indicating the user’s selection.
generating, at the retailer computing device, a randomized order image, The identifier of an item 101 may include an image, an alphanumeric string, a barcode, a hash code, or other unique identifier, [108]…An order receipt containing a unique, algorithmically generated barcode or identifier, corresponding to the user’s order, may be printed for user identification purposes, [102]. Kelly additionally teaches that, after the customer submits the order, “the system may process the order and generate a barcode”, [196].
wherein the randomized order image is used to identify a transaction corresponding to the selection,
Kelly teaches that an image, barcode, hash code, or other identifier identifies the item to be purchased, [108]. Kelly further teaches that a unique identifier may identify: “the order, the user, items ordered, time of order, date of order and other details of the order.” The kitchen receives the same identifier corresponding to the customer’s order and that the identifier is used to match the customer to that order: after the order is initially placed by the customer, the kitchen staff will receive a printout of the same barcode or unique identifier that is specific to and matches the customer’s identifier, [98].
Kelly does not explicitly teach that the generated order image is randomized or generating the randomized order image includes performing a randomized image generation procedure that selects a color and an object image to form the randomized order image. Kelly teaches an algorithmically generated graphical identifier and teaches that barcodes may include color-encoded information.
However, Yang teaches the program is capable of generating up to 4 billion distinct images using a random combination of different colors, patterns, common symbols, letters and characters, and/or frame placement options, [5]..In block 120, a color 215 for the primary frame 210 may be generated, [15]…“In block 130, an object (for example, a shape or character) and/or pattern 220 may be generated for the primary frame 210..In block 135, a color 225 for the pattern and/or object 220 may be generated, [15].
causing the randomized order image to be displayed at the retailer computing device. Kelly teaches the kitchen staff will receive a printout of the same barcode or unique identifier that is specific to and matches the customer’s identifier, [98]. Kelly does not explicitly teach electronically displaying the same randomized image at the retailer computing device.
However, Yang teaches the same generated image will be displayed on the electronic devices of participating parties for a given transaction so the parties can identify each other quickly, [5].. the generated display output may be transmitted to the two parties’ respective devices, [14].
causing the randomized order image to be displayed at the user device responsive to an input received at the retailer computing device. Kelly teaches the system may optionally send an order identifier to the user, such as a dispenser code. In some examples, the order identifier may include a barcode image to a mobile device, [237]. Kelly does not explicitly teach that the same randomized color-and-object image is electronically displayed at both devices.
However, Yang teaches display output may be generated at a central server and simultaneously transmitted to both devices 200, [14]..display output may be generated on one device 200 and then may be transmitted to a targeted device 200, [14].
receiving, at the retailer computing device, a transaction confirmation associated with the transaction, (the system may receive confirmation of an existing order or accept edits to the order at a drive-thru kiosk or at a dispenser, [237]. Kelly also teaches confirming payment and matching the customer’s identifier to the corresponding order before permitting pickup, [233, 236].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kelly’s algorithmically generated order identifier to include the method, as taught by Yang, to improve the process of effectively and quickly identifying parties, [4]. The modification constitutes the predictable use of Yang’s known randomized transaction-identification technique in Kelly’s analogous electronic food-and-beverage transaction system.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Kelly teaches determining, at the retailer computing device, that the user device associated with a user profile is at a location associated with the retailer computing device; determining, at the retailer computing device, a preference associated with the user profile; and causing, based on the preference, an indicator associated with the preference to be presented at the user device, wherein the user profile includes user profile data and an order history, (The mobile device may include a mechanism for determining a geographic location 103, [108]). Kelly further teaches comparing that location with “stored data descriptive of locations of vendors, [108]…determining customer preferences based on the user’s purchasing history, prior orders, favorites, and profile information and presenting corresponding suggested items, [113, 193].
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Kelly teaches the order history is received from one or more retailers, (one or more retailers, [11, 13]).
Regarding claim 8, Kelly teaches causing, based on a preference corresponding to a product identifier, one or more indicators corresponding to one or more beverage items to be presented at a user device associated with a user, the one or more beverage items being associated with a subset of a plurality of product identifiers, (Such embodiments may take advantage of the identification of the user and a purchasing history associated with the user to suggest ‘favored’ items to order, [113], The recognition of the user may allow the system to draw upon configuration aspects of the user 1224 which may include the ability to suggest orders based on previous orders, preferences, favorites, and the like, [193], system may optionally suggest orders to the user such as favorites, prior orders and the like, [237],
receiving, from the user device and at a retailer computing device, an item selection input indicating a selected beverage item from the one or more beverage items; (an item identifier that may be an image, alphanumeric string, barcode, hash code, or other unique identifier and a list of purchasable items. The user selects an item from this displayed list and submits the order through the application, [108].
Regarding claim 11, Kelly teaches the item selection input corresponds to a user profile, the user profile including user profile data and an order history, [113, 237].
Regarding claim 15, Kelly teaches receiving, via a wireless network connection between a user device and a retailer computing device, an order input indicating a selection of a beverage preference, (The mobile device may include a wireless mechanism 108 for wirelessly communicating with another mechanism with wireless capability, such as, for example a base unit in a restaurant or other establishment engaged in commerce. The interface may include an identifier of an item 101 to be purchased, [108],
generating an order image corresponding to the selection, (the order identifier may include a barcode image to a mobile device, [237], supplying the same corresponding identifier to restaurant personnel, [98]).
Kelly does not explicitly teach causing the order image to be displayed at the retailer computing device; and causing the order image to be displayed at the user device.
Yang teaches displaying the same transaction-associated image at both participating devices and simultaneously transmitting the image to both devices, [5], [14].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to display Yang’s matching transaction image at both the customer and retailer devices in Kelly’s ordering system to enable rapid visual matching of the customer with the order.
Regarding claim 20, Kelly teaches an algorithmically generated order-specific image or identifier that identifies the order and transaction, however, Kelly does not teach generating the order image includes performing a randomized image generation procedure that selects a color and an object image to form the order image. Yang a random combination of different colors, patterns, common symbols, letters and characters, [5, 15]. It would have been obvious to use Yang’s randomized color-and-object image as Kelly’s order identifier for the same reasons discussed for claim 1.
Claims 2, 5, 9, 10, and 12, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly and Yang, and further in view of Boal (WO2014100588).
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, the combination, specifically Kelly teaches a first database containing a standardized product schema representing beverages; receiving retailer inventory data during onboarding; receiving standardized product identifiers; Kelly teaches the underlying method of claim 1, including a user placing an order with a restaurant through a wireless mobile device and the restaurant receiving and processing that order. Kelly also teaches maintaining product or menu-item information used to present selectable items to the user.
Kelly does not explicitly teach mapping the retailer inventory data to the standardized product identifiers; and storing the mapped inventory in a second retailer database.
However, Boal teaches a product mapping table connects the product identifiers (e.g. SKUs) of every retailer to those of distributor and to the corresponding UPC, [691]..some or all of the item identifiers already conform to a common identification scheme. For example, the majority of item identifiers may all be Uniform Product Codes (UPCs), [208]…Only the items having inconsistent identifiers need be normalized in block 1220, [208]..receiving updates to the multiple source collections from retailers over time, [823].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kelly’s multi-restaurant ordering system to use Boal’s standardized product-mapping arrangement so that product information originating from retailers using different internal product identifiers could be consistently identified, searched, recommended, and processed, [30-37]. The modification would have been a predictable use of Boal’s known product-normalization technique in Kelly’s retailer-ordering environment.
Regarding claims 5, 12, 17-18, the combination does not teach the selection is determined from a rationalized pareto analysis of the user profile data and the order history, the rationalized pareto analysis generates simulated competitions between beverage recipe types, recipe modifiers, and sales tax designations indicating a beverage origin to determine the beverage preference. Kelly teaches determining menu-item selections based on profile data, preferences, favorites, purchasing history, and prior orders. However, Boal teaches the determination of the set of association scores includes the computation of at least one metric, [56], at least one association score is weighted, [57]..contextual transaction data or a historical transaction record…identifying a set of related items based on association scores..ranking the related items based on association scores, [57].
Regarding claim 10, the combination does not teach determining that the product identifier is absent from the plurality of product identifiers corresponding to the inventory data; and generating, in response to the product identifier being absent from the plurality of product identifiers corresponding to the inventory data, a prompt at the retailer computing device to add the product identifier to the plurality of product identifiers corresponding to the inventory data. However, Boal teaches only the items having inconsistent identifiers need be normalized in block 1220, [208].
Claims 7, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly and Yang, and further in view of Walling (US 2021/0073825).
Regarding claims 7, 14, the combination does not disclose causing a first photo associated with a server to be displayed at the user device; and causing a second photo associated with the user to be displayed at the retailer computing device. However, Walling teaches the rider may select a color, symbol, or image to be displayed by the vehicle device, [83], to provide visual confirmation and identification of the rideshare vehicle for the rider, [83], The vehicle device may scan or record the rider’s face and transmit an image of the rider’s face for facial recognition, [103], the make and model of the rideshare vehicle, the license plate number of the rideshare vehicle, the driver’s name, the color of the rideshare vehicle, [105-106].
Regarding claim 19, the combination does not teach determining an amount of visits or an amount of verifications associated with a user profile. Kelly teaches user profiles, order histories, and confirmation of user orders.
However, Walling teaches the rideshare server may compare the number of verification attempts for the rideshare the threshold number, [104], the rideshare may be cancelled if the number of allowed verification attempts is exceeded, [104].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kelly’s order identifier with Walling’s participant-image verification because displaying images associated with the customer and service provider would allow the parties to visually confirm that the correct user is receiving the correct order, [12].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm 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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights