Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on May 19, 2025.
The Applicant’s benefit claim that the instant application is a Continuation-in-Part of PCT/US2025/026617, filed April 28, 2025, which is a Continuation of application 18835830, filed August 5, 2024, which claims priority to provisional application 63639478, April 26, 2024, has been received and acknowledged.
The Applicant’s benefit claim that the instant application is a Continuation-in-Part of PCT/US2024/020811, filed March 20, 2024, which claims priority to provisional applications 63564984, filed March 13, 2024, and 63523906, filed June 28, 2023, and 63521089, filed June 14, 2023, and 63453460, filed March 20, 2023, has been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: audience interface logic, communication logic, request management logic, DJ interface logic, and transaction logic in claim 1 and social network logic in claim 10.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification indicates that the following appears to be the corresponding structure for the audience interface logic, communication logic, request management logic, DJ interface logic, and transaction logic in claim 1 and the social network logic in claim 10: the server described in paragraphs [0030], [0058], [0079], [0085], [0100], and [0134] of the published application.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “if the song included in the second request has not been played crediting an account of the second audience member”. It is unclear what is being credited to the account of the second audience member, as no money has been previously transferred from the account of the second audience member. Previously, in claim 14, only an offer of a tip was received from the second audience member—not the tip itself. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 15 as reciting “if the song included in the second request has not been played, not accepting the second tip.”
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite a system and a method for requesting a song from an entertainer. With respect to claim 1, claim elements entering song requests, initiating financial transactions, viewing a list of song requests, communicating the song requests to the entertainer, ordering the list, presenting the list to the entertainer, accepting or rejecting the song requests, and facilitating financial transactions, as drafted, illustrate a series of steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a method of organizing a human activity, such as a commercial or legal interaction, i.e., sales activities.
With respect to claim 14, claim element generating a ranked list, as drafted, illustrate a step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing a human activity, such as a commercial or legal interaction, i.e., sales activities.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 14 recites receiving and sending data. These limitations are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, claim 1 recites various “logics”. These elements are recited at a high level of generality i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 14 recites receiving and sending data. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), elements such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory are considered to be computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPG2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); 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)).
Further, as discussed above, claim 1 recites various “logics”. These elements are recited at a high level of generality i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, claims 1 and 14 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-13 and 15-26 depend from claims 1 and 14. Claims 2-3 are directed to ranking the list and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 2-3 are further directed to receiving data which, as discussed above, is considered to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. Claims 4 and 20 are directed to further ordering the list and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 5 is directed to providing funds to an account and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 6 is directed to facilitating a bidding process and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 7 is directed to suggesting songs and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 8 is directed to providing an interface comprising specific components and is further directed to the abstract idea. Clam 9 is directed to ordering a song request and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 10 is directed to managing social network connections and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 11 is directed to suggesting connections and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 12 is directed to encouraging members to support each other’s requests and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 13 is directed to encouraging collaborative bids and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 15 is directed to determining if a song has been played and either crediting an account or executing a payment and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 16 is directed to determining if the song has been played. Claim 17 is directed to notifying a user of their request and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 18 is directed to the type of entertainer and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 19 is directed to a bidding process and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 21-22 are directed to verifying the presence of an audience member and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 23 is directed to generating a dynamic code and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 24 is directed to enabling an audience member to share a song request and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 25 is directed to providing a list of suggested songs and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 26 is directed to executing a payment and is further directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 14-15, 17-18, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0252363 A1 to Roth (hereinafter “Roth”), in view of US 2006/0018208 A1 to Nathan et al. (hereinafter “Nathan”).
Claim 1: Roth discloses one or more patron devices in communication with a band device (See Roth, at least para. [0059]). Roth further discloses that the “patron device 430 is in communication with a band device 440 that is typically a tablet computer, but could be a smartphone, a portable computer, or a desktop computer. The patron device 430 typically communicates with the band device 440 over Wifi, Bluetooth, 4G mobile, or 5G mobile. The patron device 430 and band device 440 is a computer system 300.” (See Roth, at least para. [0059]). Roth further discloses:
audience interface logic configured to present an audience user interface to audience members (See Roth, at least FIG. 5-13 and associated text; para. [0063], patron user interface of the patron device; FIGs. 14-10 and associated text; para. [0077], band user interface of the band device), the audience user interface being
configured for the audience members to enter song requests and tip amounts associated with the song requests (See Roth, at least FIG. 6 and associated text; para. [0068], patron request screen provides an entry field for a song title entry field and a tip amount entry field; patron may enter either a song title in the song title entry field or an artist name in the artist title entry field and a tip amount in the tip amount entry field),
configured to initiate financial transactions including payments from the tip amounts to an entertainer, wherein the entertainer includes a DJ or a live artist (See Roth, at least para. [0077], band user interface presents a request queue and an accepted queue; accept button accepts one or more songs from the request queue and moves the selected song to the accepted queue; para. [0079], tips are received and money is transferred from the patron’s registered account to the band’s account when the song is accepted from the request queue; alternatively, the money is transferred when the song is played; para. [0059], band plays for a group of patrons in a club or bar), and
configured for the audience members to view a ranked list of pending song requests (See Roth, at least FIG. 12 and associated text; para. [0073], selecting the Q button will bring up the queue of accepted songs; the Examiner notes that the songs are “in order”);
communication logic configured to communicate the song request to the entertainer (See Roth, at least para. [0059], patron device 430 typically communicates with the band device 440 over Wifi, Bluetooth, 4G mobile, or 5G mobile; para. [0071], processor of patron deice sends song request along with any tip amount to band device);
DJ interface logic configured to present the ranked list of pending song requests to the entertainer and for the entertainer to accept or reject members of the pending song requests (See Roth, at least FIGs. 14-10 and associated text; para. [0077], band user interface of the band device para. [0077], band user interface presents a request queue and an accepted queue; accept button accepts one or more songs from the request queue and moves the selected song to the accepted queue; para. [0079], tips are received and money is transferred from the patron’s registered account to the band’s account when the song is accepted from the request queue; alternatively, the money is transferred when the song is played); and
transaction logic configured to facilitate the financial transactions, the facilitation including execution of the payments based on the tip amounts associated with the accepted members of the song requests (See Roth, at least FIGs. 14-10 and associated text; para. [0077], band user interface of the band device para. [0077], band user interface presents a request queue and an accepted queue; accept button accepts one or more songs from the request queue and moves the selected song to the accepted queue; para. [0079], tips are received and money is transferred from the patron’s registered account to the band’s account when the song is accepted from the request queue; alternatively, the money is transferred when the song is played).
Roth does not expressly disclose request management logic configured to order the ranked list of pending song requests based on at least the tip amounts associated with the pending song requests.
However, Nathan discloses a “digital downloading jukebox system including a central server and a plurality of remote jukebox devices.” (See Nathan, at least Abstract). Nathan further discloses request management logic configured to order the ranked list of pending song requests based on at least the tip amounts associated with the pending song requests (See Nathan, at least FIGs. 13 and 19 and associated text; para. [0095], jukebox displays current status of the play queue; jukebox then allows user to select how much additional money the user would like to pay to place his song in a particular spot on the list and accepts payment; jukebox then places that song in a position on the priority list corresponding to the additional amount received from the user; para. [0096], alternatively, user can see the top price paid for a priority play and can pay more than that price to obtain the highest priority available);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth the ability of request management logic configured to order the ranked list of pending song requests based on at least the tip amounts associated with the pending song requests as disclosed by Nathan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “result in increased revenue for the operator.” (See Nathan, at least para. [0030]).
Claim 2: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Roth further discloses wherein the audience user interface is further configured to receive more than one tip amount for a requested song, the more than one tip amount being received from different audience members (See Roth, at least [0055], patron can view songs in the accepted queue and can select a song that was requested by another patron and provide an additional tip).
Roth does not expressly disclose the ranked list being ordered based on the more than one tip amount.
However, Nathan discloses the ranked list being ordered based on the more than one tip amount (See Nathan, at least FIGs. 13 and 19 and associated text; para. [0095], jukebox displays current status of the play queue; jukebox then allows user to select how much additional money the user would like to pay to place his song in a particular spot on the list and accepts payment; jukebox then places that song in a position on the priority list corresponding to the additional amount received from the user; para. [0096], alternatively, user can see the top price paid for a priority play and can pay more than that price to obtain the highest priority available).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth the ability of the ranked list being ordered based on the more than one tip amount as disclosed by Nathan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “result in increased revenue for the operator.” (See Nathan, at least para. [0030]).
Claim 3: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Roth further discloses wherein the audience user interface is further configured to receive more than one tip amount for a requested song, the more than one tip amount being received from a same audience member (See Roth, at least para. [0073], further tip entry field permits entry of an additional tip for a song that is displayed; para. [0074], patron has selected “Dancing Queen” for a further tip of $5).
Roth does not expressly disclose the ranked list being ordered based on at least one of the more than one tip amount.
However, Nathan discloses the ranked list being ordered based on at least one of the more than one tip amount (See Nathan, at least FIGs. 13 and 19 and associated text; para. [0028] a user can pay however much the user desires to spend to obtain a priority ranking, and then be shown the priority spot which has been obtained based on the paid amount; if this spot is not satisfactory to the user, the user can pay additional money to move the song up in priority ranking; para. [0095], jukebox displays current status of the play queue; jukebox then allows user to select how much additional money the user would like to pay to place his song in a particular spot on the list and accepts payment; jukebox then places that song in a position on the priority list corresponding to the additional amount received from the user; para. [0096], alternatively, user can see the top price paid for a priority play and can pay more than that price to obtain the highest priority available).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth the ability of the ranked list being ordered based on at least one of the more than one tip amount as disclosed by Nathan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “result in increased revenue for the operator.” (See Nathan, at least para. [0030]).
Claim 5: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Roth further discloses wherein the transaction logic is further configured to provide funds to an account of the entertainer after a requested song is played or after a request is accepted (See Roth, at least FIGs. 14-10 and associated text; para. [0077], band user interface of the band device para. [0077], band user interface presents a request queue and an accepted queue; accept button accepts one or more songs from the request queue and moves the selected song to the accepted queue; para. [0079], tips are received and money is transferred from the patron’s registered account to the band’s account when the song is accepted from the request queue; alternatively, the money is transferred when the song is played).
Claim 7: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Roth does not expressly disclose wherein the audience interface logic is further configured to suggest songs to be requested to the audience members, the suggested songs including sponsored songs.
However, Nathan discloses wherein the audience interface logic is further configured to suggest songs to be requested to the audience members, the suggested songs including sponsored songs (See Nathan, at least FIGs. 3 and 5A and associated text; para. [0065], system can identify “hot hits”, i.e., most popular songs; jukebox allows users to search through list of “hot hits”; para. [0059], user can select Top Ten button to see and select 10 most popular songs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth the ability wherein the audience interface logic is further configured to suggest songs to be requested to the audience members, the suggested songs including sponsored songs as disclosed by Nathan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “result in increased revenue for the operator.” (See Nathan, at least para. [0030]).
Claim 8: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Roth further discloses wherein the DJ interface logic is further configured to provide a DJ interface to the entertainer, the DJ interface being configured for the entertainer to view the ranked list of pending song requests and to view values of song requests in the ranked list, the values being based at least in part on the tip amounts associated with each of the songs requests (See Roth, at least FIG. 14 and associated text; para. [0077], band user interface presents the request queue and the accepted queue; request queue is a list of request received by band device along with any associated tips).
Claim 14: Roth discloses:
receiving a first song request from a first audience member, the request including an offer of a first tip (See Roth, at least FIG. 6 and associated text; para. [0068], patron request screen provides an entry field for a song title entry field and a tip amount entry field; patron may enter either a song title in the song title entry field or an artist name in the artist title entry field and a tip amount in the tip amount entry field; FIG. 14 and associated text, request queue includes 3 songs, each with an associated tip; para. [0077], band user interface presents a request queue which displays a list of requests received from one or more patron devices along with any associated tips);
receiving a second song request from a second audience member, the request including an offer of a second tip (See Roth, at least FIG. 6 and associated text; para. [0068], patron request screen provides an entry field for a song title entry field and a tip amount entry field; patron may enter either a song title in the song title entry field or an artist name in the artist title entry field and a tip amount in the tip amount entry field; FIG. 14 and associated text, request queue includes 3 songs, each with an associated tip; para. [0077], band user interface presents a request queue which displays a list of requests received from one or more patron devices along with any associated tips);
generating a ranked list of pending song requests including the first song request and the second song request (See Roth, at least FIGs. 14-10 and associated text; para. [0077], band user interface presents a request queue and an accepted queue; accept button accepts one or more songs from the request queue and moves the selected song to the accepted queue; para. [0079], tips are received and money is transferred from the patron’s registered account to the band’s account when the song is accepted from the request queue; alternatively, the money is transferred when the song is played);
sending the ranked list to an entertainer (See Roth, at least para. [0071], processor of patron deice sends song request along with any tip amount to band device; para. [0077], band user interface presents a request queue and an accepted queue on band device); and
receiving an acceptance of the first song request or the second song request from the entertainer (See Roth, at least FIGs. 14-10 and associated text; para. [0077], band user interface of the band device para. [0077], band user interface presents a request queue and an accepted queue; accept button accepts one or more songs from the request queue and moves the selected song to the accepted queue).
Roth does not expressly disclose the ranked list being ordered based on at least the first tip and the second tip.
However, Nathan discloses the ranked list being ordered based on at least the first tip and the second tip (See Nathan, at least FIGs. 13 and 19 and associated text; para. [0028] a user can pay however much the user desires to spend to obtain a priority ranking, and then be shown the priority spot which has been obtained based on the paid amount; if this spot is not satisfactory to the user, the user can pay additional money to move the song up in priority ranking; para. [0095], jukebox displays current status of the play queue; jukebox then allows user to select how much additional money the user would like to pay to place his song in a particular spot on the list and accepts payment; jukebox then places that song in a position on the priority list corresponding to the additional amount received from the user; para. [0096], alternatively, user can see the top price paid for a priority play and can pay more than that price to obtain the highest priority available).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth the ability that the ranked list being ordered based on at least the first tip and the second tip as disclosed by Nathan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “result in increased revenue for the operator.” (See Nathan, at least para. [0030]).
Claim 15: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 14 discussed above.
Roth further discloses:
determining if a song included in the second request has been played (See Roth, at least para. [0079], band may make a special motion, such as a swipe or a double tap, to indicate that a song is being played);
if the song included in the second request has not been played crediting an account of the second audience member (See Roth, at least para. [0077], if band rejects a song in the request queue, it is removed from the request queue, and a notification is sent to the patron that requested the song that the band is unable to perform the song; para. [0078], tips accepted field displays a running total of tips for songs accepted, i.e., not rejected; para. [0079], tips are only transferred from the patron’s registered account to the band’s account when the song is played);
if the song included in the second request has been played executing a payment to the entertainer based on the second tip (See Roth, at least para. [0079], tip is received and transferred from the patron’s registered account to the band’s account when the song is played).
Claim 17: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 14 discussed above.
Roth does not expressly disclose notifying second audience member of a position of their request in the ranked list.
However, Nathan discloses notifying second audience member of a position of their request in the ranked list (See Nathan, at least FIGs. 13 and 19 and associated text; para. [0028] a user can pay however much the user desires to spend to obtain a priority ranking, and then be shown the priority spot which has been obtained based on the paid amount; if this spot is not satisfactory to the user, the user can pay additional money to move the song up in priority ranking; para. [0095], jukebox displays current status of the play queue; jukebox then allows user to select how much additional money the user would like to pay to place his song in a particular spot on the list and accepts payment; jukebox then places that song in a position on the priority list corresponding to the additional amount received from the user; para. [0096], alternatively, user can see the top price paid for a priority play and can pay more than that price to obtain the highest priority available).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth the ability of notifying second audience member of a position of their request in the ranked list as disclosed by Nathan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “result in increased revenue for the operator.” (See Nathan, at least para. [0030]).
Claim 18: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 14 discussed above.
Roth further discloses wherein the entertainer is a DJ or a live artist (See Roth, at least para. [0059], band plays for a group of patrons in a club or bar).
Claim 24: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 14 discussed above.
Roth further discloses using social network logic to enable the first audience member to share the first song request and associated tip on a social network (See Roth, at least FIG. 6 and associated text; para. [0068], patron request screen provides an entry field for a song title entry field and a tip amount entry field; patron may enter either a song title in the song title entry field or an artist name in the artist title entry field and a tip amount in the tip amount entry field; FIG. 7 and associated text; para, [0071], patron enters Dancing Queen and tip amount and hits the request button; para. [0077], band user interface presents the request queue and the accepted queue; request queue is a list of request received by band device along with any associated tips).
Claim 25: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 14 discussed above.
Roth further discloses wherein a list of suggested songs to request provided to the second audience member includes one or more songs that have pending requests (See Roth, at least para, [0073], hitting the Q button will bring up the queue of accepted songs).
Claim 26: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 14 discussed above.
Roth further discloses executing a payment to the DJ for playing a sponsored song, wherein the payment is based on a promotional value of the sponsored song and a tip received from an audience member (See Roth, at least FIGs. 14-10 and associated text; para. [0077], band user interface of the band device para. [0077], band user interface presents a request queue and an accepted queue; accept button accepts one or more songs from the request queue and moves the selected song to the accepted queue; para. [0079], tips are received and money is transferred from the patron’s registered account to the band’s account when the song is accepted from the request queue; alternatively, the money is transferred when the song is played).
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth in view of Nathan as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US 2007/0065794 A1 to Mangum (hereinafter “Mangum”).
The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 14 discussed above.
Neither Roth nor Nathan expressly discloses wherein the ranked list is further ordered based on: an account status of a requester, a score for a requested song relative to playlist, a social network connection, sponsorship of a requested song, or presence of an audience member at an event.
However, Mangum discloses a karaoke service that receives “a plurality of performance requests associated with a plurality of mobile terminals” in which the “plurality of performance requests are queued in a selected order to provide a karaoke performance schedule, and a next performance request is identified based on the karaoke performance schedule.” (See Mangum, at least Abstract). Mangum further discloses wherein the ranked list is further ordered based on: an account status of a requester, a score for a requested song relative to playlist, a social network connection, sponsorship of a requested song, or presence of an audience member at an event (See Mangum, at least para. [0089], performance requests may be queued based on associated priority data to provide the karaoke performance schedule; priority data includes that a particular user is a "preferred" user, such as a user who has contributed additional fees for the karaoke service; upon receiving a performance request associated with the user and/or the user's mobile terminal, the performance request may be given priority in the queue over earlier and/or concurrently received performance requests).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth and the jukebox request system and method of Nathan the ability wherein the ranked list is further ordered based on: an account status of a requester, a score for a requested song relative to playlist, a social network connection, sponsorship of a requested song, or presence of an audience member at an event as disclosed by Mangum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to help a DJ manage a list of requests particularly when there is a large audience. (See Mangum, at least paras. [0003]-[0004]).
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth in view of Nathan as applied to claims 1 and 14-15 above, and further in view of US 2021/0406850 A1 to Herring et al. (hereinafter “Herring”).
Claim 6: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Roth does not expressly disclose wherein the request management logic is configured to facilitate a bidding process in order for audience members to improve rankings of their requests in the ranked list of pending song requests.
However, Nathan discloses wherein the request management logic is configured to facilitate a…process in order for audience members to improve rankings of their requests in the ranked list of pending song requests (See Nathan, at least FIGs. 13 and 19 and associated text; para. [0028] a user can pay however much the user desires to spend to obtain a priority ranking, and then be shown the priority spot which has been obtained based on the paid amount; if this spot is not satisfactory to the user, the user can pay additional money to move the song up in priority ranking).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth the ability wherein the request management logic is configured to facilitate a…process in order for audience members to improve rankings of their requests in the ranked list of pending song requests as disclosed by Nathan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “result in increased revenue for the operator.” (See Nathan, at least para. [0030]).
Neither Roth nor Nathan expressly discloses that the process is a bidding process.
However, Herring discloses a method of “remotely influencing a performer at a live event via a customer mobile device.” (See Herring, at least Abstract). Herring further discloses that the process is a bidding process (See Herring, at least para. [0023], performer might use the system to auction off the song they will play as an encore at a concert so that the highest bidder’s song will be played as the encore).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth and the jukebox request system and method of Nathan the ability that the process is a bidding process as disclosed by Herring since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide an “on-demand” component of live entertainment consumption. (See Herring, at least para. [0002]).
Claim 16: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 15 discussed above.
Neither Roth nor Nathan expressly discloses wherein the determination that a song has been played is performed using performance logic or a microphone.
However, Herring discloses wherein the determination that a song has been played is performed using performance logic or a microphone (See Herring, at least para. [0022], customer mobile device includes a microphone to detect sound waves and a processor to digitize the sound waves into a signal; signal is compared to a database of songs to identify a song the DJ played to confirm that the request has been fulfilled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth and the jukebox request system and method of Nathan the ability wherein the determination that a song has been played is performed using performance logic or a microphone as disclosed by Herring since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide an “on-demand” component of live entertainment consumption. (See Herring, at least para. [0002]).
Claim 19: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 14 discussed above.
Roth further discloses wherein the ranked list is ordered in response to a…process in which multiple song requests are received, each of the received song requests being associated with a separate tip amount (See Roth, at least FIG. 14 and associated text; para. [0077], band user interface presents the request queue and the accepted queue; request queue is a list of request received by band device along with any associated tips).
Neither Roth nor Nathan expressly discloses that the process is a bidding process.
However, Herring discloses that the process is a bidding process (See Herring, at least para. [0023], performer might use the system to auction off the song they will play as an encore at a concert so that the highest bidder’s song will be played as the encore).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth and the jukebox request system and method of Nathan the ability that the process is a bidding process as disclosed by Herring since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide an “on-demand” component of live entertainment consumption. (See Herring, at least para. [0002]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth in view of Nathan as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US 2003/0050058 A1 to Walsh et al. (hereinafter “Walsh”).
The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Neither Roth nor Nathan expressly discloses wherein the request management logic is further configured to order a song request based on a number of requests from unique audience members that have been received for said song request.
However, Walsh discloses a “method and system for establishing a dynamic content delivery system.” (See Walsh, at least Abstract). Walsh further discloses making a request with a mobile device for specific content. (See Walsh, at least Abstract). Walsh further discloses wherein the request management logic is further configured to order a song request based on a number of requests from unique audience members that have been received for said song request (See Walsh, at least para. [0057], playlist algorithm may prioritize songs that have been requested by the greatest number of users; the algorithm may only count requests by distinct users, so as to prohibit one user from sending multiple requests for the same song in order to force that song to be played).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth and the jukebox request system and method of Nathan the ability wherein the request management logic is further configured to order a song request based on a number of requests from unique audience members that have been received for said song request as disclosed by Walsh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow listeners to alter the programming of a streaming service similarly to requesting a song on the radio. (See Walsh, at least para. [0006]).
Claims 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth in view of Nathan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0408122 A1 to Khanna et al. (hereinafter “Khanna”).
Claim 10: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Roth further discloses social network logic configured to manage social network connections between audience members (See Roth, at least para. [0076], system may feature social media where patrons at an event may send out text messages to the group of patrons at the event).
Neither Roth nor Nathan expressly discloses to notify members of a social network when one of their connections makes a song request or has a song request that changes rank in a ranked list of pending requests.
However, Khanna discloses a “live events platform is provided for live performances or presentations in an online environment.” (See Khanna, at least Abstract). Khanna further discloses that the system “may include any form of interactive data collection/sharing regarding the session 102a such as audio and/or video streaming solutions, conferencing solutions, online chat providers, or any other such provider of interactive online services. A non-exhaustive list of providers of such services may include FACEBOOK, FACEBOOK LIVE, YOUTUBE, TWITCH, ZOOM, TWITTER.” (See Khanna, at least para. [0028]). Khanna further discloses to notify members of a social network when one of their connections makes a song request or has a song request that changes rank in a ranked list of pending requests (See Khanna, at least para. [0036], system prompts users to request an encore to the event, whereby an “encore” meter may be shown that measures fan and artist engagement and requires a certain threshold to be reached for the encore to be provided by the artist).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth and the jukebox request system and method of Nathan the ability to notify members of a social network when one of their connections makes a song request or has a song request that changes rank in a ranked list of pending requests as disclosed by Khanna since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to encourage “audience members to join in the appreciation of the performing artist.” (See Khanna, at least para. [0036]).
Claim 12: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Neither Roth nor Nathan expressly discloses social network logic configured to encourage connected members of a social network to support each other's song requests by adding additional value to each other's song requests.
However, Khanna discloses social network logic configured to encourage connected members of a social network to support each other's song requests by adding additional value to each other's song requests (See Khanna, at least para. [0036], system prompts users to request an encore to the event, whereby an “encore” meter may be shown that measures fan and artist engagement and requires a certain threshold to be reached for the encore to be provided by the artist).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth and the jukebox request system and method of Nathan the ability of social network logic configured to encourage connected members of a social network to support each other's song requests by adding additional value to each other's song requests as disclosed by Khanna since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to encourage “audience members to join in the appreciation of the performing artist.” (See Khanna, at least para. [0036]).
Claim 13: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Neither Roth nor Nathan expressly discloses social network logic is configured to encourage collaborative bids for song requests among members of a social network.
However, Khanna discloses social network logic is configured to encourage collaborative bids for song requests among members of a social network (See Khanna, at least para. [0036], system prompts users to request an encore to the event, whereby an “encore” meter may be shown that measures fan and artist engagement and requires a certain threshold to be reached for the encore to be provided by the artist).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth and the jukebox request system and method of Nathan the ability of social network logic is configured to encourage collaborative bids for song requests among members of a social network as disclosed by Khanna since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to encourage “audience members to join in the appreciation of the performing artist.” (See Khanna, at least para. [0036]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth in view of Nathan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0303710 A1 to Roberts et al. (hereinafter “Roberts”).
The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Neither Roth nor Nathan expressly discloses social network logic configured to suggest connections between members of a social network based on members making requests for the same song.
However, Roberts discloses systems and methods “for generating and employing a social media graph” in which a “social media profile may be used to provide media recommendations to another user, to provide at least some of the media associated with the social media profile to another user.” (See Roberts, at least Abstract). Roberts further discloses social network logic configured to suggest connections between members of a social network based on members making requests for the same song (See Roberts, at least para. [0046], social graph system may provide to a user a recommendation to befriend another user such as a currently unknown user, or a user that is a "friend of a friend” based on similar tastes in music as reflected in the users’ social media profiles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth and the jukebox request system and method of Nathan the ability of social network logic configured to suggest connections between members of a social network based on members making requests for the same song as disclosed by Roberts since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “explore and recommend media content” to other users. (See Roberts, at least para. [0047]).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth in view of Nathan as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 2013/0218766 A1 to Mueller (hereinafter “Mueller”).
Claim 21: The combination of Roth and Nathan discloses all the limitations of claim 14 discussed above.
Neither Roth nor Nathan expressly discloses verifying the presence of the first audience member at a location of an event, wherein the verification is configured to assure that the first request originates from an attendee of the event.
However, Mueller discloses “an apparatus and method for identifying and connecting mobile devices by scanning a tag associated with a location, place, or other information.” (See Mueller, at least Abstract). Mueller further discloses that a tag is a “radio frequency identification (RFID), printed code, quick response (QR) code, and barcode.” (See Mueller, at least para. [0020]). Mueller further discloses that the tag is used for “remote mobile transactions at a bar/restaurant” in which there is “at least one bar/table with a tag. User 2 creates a connection with the tag using with the mobile device. The tag is associated with a specific location in the establishment (i.e. table, bar, counter, etc.). The connection created by User 2 connects the user to the establishment or the mobile application system. With this connection, User 2 can open a payment account for purchasing a plurality of different items at different times while in the establishment.” (See Mueller, at least para. [0077]). Mueller further discloses verifying the presence of the first audience member at a location of an event, wherein the verification is configured to assure that the first request originates from an attendee of the event (See Mueller, at least para. [0081], users who have scanned a tag can request songs to be played).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth and the jukebox request system and method of Nathan the ability of verifying the presence of the first audience member at a location of an event, wherein the verification is configured to assure that the first request originates from an attendee of the event as disclosed by Mueller since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “facilitate[e] remote/mobile transactions at a bar/restaurant.” (See Mueller, at least para. [0082]).
Claim 22: The combination of Roth and Nathan and Mueller discloses all the limitations of claim 21 discussed above.
Neither Roth nor Nathan expressly discloses wherein the presence of the first audience member is verified using a QR code, a ticket, GPS, near field communications, Bluetooth or Wifi.
However, Mueller discloses wherein the presence of the first audience member is verified using a QR code, a ticket, GPS, near field communications, Bluetooth or Wifi (See Mueller, at least paras. [0019]-[0020], tag may be RFID tag scanned with NFC or may be a QR code).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth and the jukebox request system and method of Nathan the ability wherein the presence of the first audience member is verified using a QR code, a ticket, GPS, near field communications, Bluetooth or Wifi as disclosed by Mueller since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “facilitate[e] remote/mobile transactions at a bar/restaurant.” (See Mueller, at least para. [0082]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth in view of Nathan and further in view of Mueller as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of US 2017/0228665 A1 to Levin et al. (hereinafter “Levin”).
The combination of Roth and Nathan and Mueller discloses all the limitations of claim 21 discussed above.
Neither Roth nor Nathan nor Mueller expressly discloses using code logic to generate a dynamic code configured to verify the presence of the first audience member at the event, wherein the dynamic code changes periodically to prevent unauthorized requests.
However, Levin discloses a “method for detection and use of device identifiers to enhance the security of data transfers between electronic devices. A first electronic device can transmit access data to a second electronic device. The access data can be associated with a first access code that can be generated based at least in part on data representing a device identifier of the first electronic device.” (See Levin, at least Abstract). Levin further discloses that a resource can include “one managed or provided by a client, such as a performing entity or an entity operating a venue. A mobile device 110 can transmit data corresponding to the access right (e.g., an access-enabling code) to a client device upon, for example, detecting the client device, detecting that a location of the mobile device 110 is within a prescribed geographical region, or detecting particular input. The receiving client device may include, for example, a client agent device 170 operated at an entrance of a defined geographical location or a client register 160 that includes or is attached to a locking turnstile. The client device can then analyze the code to confirm its validity and applicability for a particular resource and/or access type, and admittance to the event can be accordingly permitted. For example, a turnstile may change from a locked to an unlocked mode upon confirmation of the code's validity and applicability.” (See Levin, at least para. [0039]). Levin further discloses using code logic to generate a dynamic code configured to verify the presence of the first audience member at the event, wherein the dynamic code changes periodically to prevent unauthorized requests (See Levin, at least para. [0123], access-enabling code can include a dynamic code (e.g., with a feature depending on a current time, current location or communication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the live request system and method of Roth and the jukebox request system and method of Nathan and the tag system and method of Mueller the ability of using code logic to generate a dynamic code configured to verify the presence of the first audience member at the event, wherein the dynamic code changes periodically to prevent unauthorized requests as disclosed by Levin since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to enhance the security of access between devices. (See Levin, at least para. [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights