DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 22 are pending.
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 .
Response to Amendment
With regard to the Non-Final Office Action from 20 February 2026, the Applicant has filed a response on 22 June 2026.
Claim 8 has been cancelled.
New claims — 21 and 22 are added.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection given to the claims, the Applicant disagrees first with the Examiner’s use of the Geman et al. reference (Remarks: page 14 – 16) based on the way it handles scheduling, stating that this reference merely ‘teaches the capability of storing information in a database server’ making it different from the now-claimed scheduling server which is also capable of ‘invoking and/or initiating assistance through multiple methods, including a command word, a predetermined time, or a sensing event within a time frame.’ In fact, the Applicant argues against the use of the Geman et al. reference for addressing any of the newly amended limitations. The Examiner will address these limitations by their current presentation in the following sections.
The Applicant argues against the use of the Geman et al. reference (Remarks: page 19 par 3 – 5) also for addressing ‘a negative response event,’ indicating that this reference’s non-response event is different from the claimed negative response event. The reference of Geman et al. however is not applied to teach this in the most-recent Office Action. The Examiner instead relied upon the Carlson et al. reference, which, as can be seen from FIG. 10, a response from a user is expected at Step 1016, and proceeding to Step 1024 shows that a response was not detected, properly capable of teaching this aspect of the claimed invention. The Examiner maintains that the applied prior art teaches ‘at least one of: a negative response event, a positive response event, and a non-response event’ as recited by claim 1.
However, regarding the independent claims as well as claim 2, the Applicant’s arguments with respect to these claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment to the claims. The claims will be addressed by their current presentation in the following sections.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Geman et al. (US 2016/0106627 A1: hereafter — Geman) in view of Cho et al. (US 2014/0253326 A1: hereafter — Cho) further in view of Carlson et al. (US 2016/0004831 A1: hereafter — Carlson) further in view of Mihailidis et al. (US 2013/0100268 A1: hereafter — Mihailidis), further in view of HIROE et al. (US 2020/0066254 A1: hereafter — Hiroe), and further in view of Hopkins et al. (US 2015/0269827 A1: hereafter — Hopkins).
For claim 1, Geman discloses a system for providing assistance to a user (Geman: Abstract — the embodiments are to provide healthcare schedules, home health care, assisted living (forms of providing assistance to a user)), the system comprising:
at least one server computer comprising at least one processor, at least one memory (Geman: [0072] — a webserver which can store information (memory) and a database server which runs applications (possessing a processor)), a scheduling server (Geman: [0072] — storing medication adherence schedules on a database server (the database server is taken as the scheduling server as it stores schedule information)), [[an emergency server]], and an automated assistance server (Geman: [0074] — a call server which can use various VoIP protocols to initiate voice communications with patient (which can be taken here as the automated assistance server, the initiation of voice communications with a patient being an assistance action)) wherein:
the scheduling server comprises an assistance service scheduler, wherein the scheduling server is configured to interact with the automated assistance server (Geman: [0072] — when a determination is made that a reminder should be sent, database server can request that call server generates a reminder to call to one or more specified phone numbers, which can then initiate a communication with the patient (the database server here performs the task of the scheduling server as it maintains a schedule of events that should be performed, such as that for contacting the patient which is an assistance service, and also makes contact with a call server as the claimed assistance server since it initiates a call to the patient as an assistance action being offered to the patient));
an assistance device in a caregiving environment of the user, the assistance device comprising a processor, a memory, [[a hands-free speaker,]] and a microphone (Geman: [0088] — a microphone; [0009] — a patient answering a telephone (a telephone has a speaker); [0066] — memory and processor).
The reference of Geman provides teaching for a system providing assistance to a user in a caregiving environment. This reference however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for an emergency server that recognises emergency words.
This is however not new to the prior art as the reference of Cho is now introduced to teach this as:
at least one server computer comprising at least one processor, at least one memory, a scheduling server (Cho: [0021] — an emergency server), an emergency server, and an automated assistance server, wherein:
the emergency server is configured to interact with the automated assistance server, and wherein the emergency server comprises an emergency speech recognition engine configured to recognize an emergency word and/or a distressed voice tone (Cho: [0021] — an emergency server which includes a speech recognition unit (indicating the ability to perform speech recognition at the emergency server) and a communication unit; [0012] — an emergency server able to provide assistance in an emergency event; [0040] — recognising an emergency keyword from a user (recognising an emergency word); [0118] — an emergency server able to communicate through a network in order to provide assistance, as well as several emergency words that could be recognised).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of Geman which provides a system that provides assistance to a user in a caregiving environment, by applying the known technique of Cho which has an emergency server able to provide assistance and also to perform speech recognition of emergency words, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of providing a hands-free activation of emergency services and protocols for a user/patient. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Geman in view of Cho provides teaching for a system providing assistance to a user in a caregiving environment being capable of recognising emergency words. This combination differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the presenting of an audio for an input request to the user in order to derive a positive, negative or non-responsive event from the user and effectively notify the caregiver about it upon recognising the input speech.
This is however not new to the prior art as the reference of Carlson is now introduced to teach this as:
the automated assistance server comprises a speech recognition engine, a personal assistance engine, and at least one assistance application (Carlson: [0104] — servers able to perform the available tasks; [0083] — performing automated speech recognition; [0034] — performing personal assistance; [0043] — running application software (that is able to provide assistance and functionality to the user));
an assistance device in a caregiving environment of the user, the assistance device comprising a processor, a memory, a hands-free speaker, and a microphone (Carlson: [0088] — a speaker on a device (can function as a hands-free speaker));
wherein the system is configured to:
implement an assistance action associated with a voice routine for providing assistance to the user, the assistance action conforming to a voice command protocol for presenting input requests to the user and processing voice responses of the user (Carlson: [0034] — an action for requesting assistance on behalf of a patient; [0083] — obtaining a patient’s verbal response to queries as health survey questions (this being the presentation of input requests to the user and processing the user’s responses));
in response to receiving the first action instruction, initiate the first assistance action by generating and communicating a first invocation command from an assistance device, implement a first assistance action by instructing the assistance device to present audio for a first input request to the user, processing any of a first voice input of the user from an audio capture, and determining that the audio capture or any of the first voice input is at least one of: a negative response event, a positive response event, and a non-response event (Carlson: [0140] — prompts being delivered to a user; [0143] — the system detects a response to the prompt within a predetermined time period; [0144] — determining the response type (which could be indicative of positive or negative response events); [0083] — performing speech recognition (showing that user can provide speech responses); [0085] — various user responses (as an indication of positive or negative response events); FIG. 10, Step 1016 — a response from a user is expected at, Step 1024 —proceeding to show that a response was not detected (a non-response event));
selectively notifying a caregiver by causing a notification to be sent to a device of the caregiver [[based on a safety profile]] and a determination that the first voice input corresponds to a negative response event, a positive response event, or a non-response event (Carlson: [0058] — notifying a target recipient with [0039] showing that a target recipient could be a care giver; [0145] — if the response is addressable, a third party (such a caregiver) may be prompted to take action regarding the patient; [0034] — contacting an external entity on behalf of the patient when the patient requires assistance [0058] — the target recipient includes a device associated with a healthcare provider or care taker); and
wherein the assistance device is configured to:
receive information about the first input request and present audio of the first input request to the user based on executing the instructions (Carlson: [0140] — synthesised speech as prompts for the user; [0045] — prompts can take the form of questions (an input request) which gets presented to the user), and
receive the first voice input of the user [[and transmit the first voice input to the at least one server computer]] (Carlson: [0045] — user responds to the prompts through the use of a microphone; [0083] — performing speech recognition)); and
presenting the audio of at least one query for additional information based on communicating instructions for presenting the audio of at least one query (Carlson: [0138] — the system is able to issue one or more prompts based on the triggered target event to be delivered to the target recipients (teaching of the further presentation of a query for additional information based on the communication of the instructions as the detection of the target event)); and
wherein the system is further configured to:
initiate a confirmation request as a continuation of the first assistance action implemented by presenting the audio for the first request to the user, the confirmation request including at least one voice query for additional information associated with execution of the voice command protocol and capture of confirmation data that confirms any determination for the negative response event, the positive response event, and the non-response event (Carlson: [0138] — the system is able to issue one or more prompts; [0140] — synthesised speech as prompts for the user (to show the presentation of audio as a request to the user); [0045] — presenting at least one prompt (indicating the possibility of a series of prompts, so more than one, with one being a follow-up to the other) to the user which may be a spoken question in the language which the user understands (indicating presenting audio for a request to the user); [0059], [0124] — presenting a series of prompts as survey questions to a user (indicating the presence of one question after another, such that one question follows the other so as to confirm a particular situation regarding the user); [0118] — the presentation of a series of questions; [0145] — an initial response by the user may lead to further prompting the user to take an action (as a request for confirmation); FIG. 10 Step 1016 — detecting a user response (indicative of a determination of a negative, positive, or non-response event)).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the technique of the combination of Geman in Cho which provides assistance to a user in a caregiving environment being capable of recognising emergency words and stores information about a schedule of assistance actions, by applying the known teaching of Carlson which requests an audible response from a user to notify a caregiver, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of automatically monitoring the health status of a user through speech which is convenient and easily accessible over having the user physically input medical readings to transmit to a caregiver. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson provides teaching for a system environment that assists a user, such that a response is obtained from a user which is then used to notify a caregiver. This combination however differs from the claimed invention, in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for a server sending an action instruction to a device for instructing the assistance device to present audio for an input request to the user, and capturing audio from the user.
This is not new to the art, as the reference of Mihailidis is now introduced to teach this as:
wherein the system is configured to:
transmit, by the at least one server computer, to the assistance device, a first action instruction for implementing a first assistance action (Mihailidis: [0109] — a central server may tell the active emergency detection and response (EDR) unit to initiate a dialogue with the user (teaching of the server transmitting a first action instruction that initiates a dialogue, to the assistance device));
in response to receiving the first action instruction, initiate the first assistance action by generating and communicating a first invocation command from an assistance device, implement a first assistance action by instructing the assistance device to present audio for a first input request to the user, processing any of a first voice input of the user from an audio capture, [[and determining that the audio capture or any of the first voice input is at least one of: a negative response event, a positive response event, and a non-response event]] (Mihailidis: [0109] — initiating a dialogue with the user that is adaptable and appropriate for the particular situation to determine if assistance is required, such as asking the user if everything is ok, making use of TTS and ASR for recognising the user’s speech (the server passes the information to the assistance device, the EDR unit, telling the assistance device to present an adaptable message in audio form); [0058] — ‘the EDR unit 14 can communicate with the subject via the microphone 34 and loudspeaker 48 and initiate a dialog using speech recognition software’ (indicating that the user can provide a response to the EDR’s request));
wherein the assistance device is configured to:
transmit, the first invocation command (Mihailidis: [0108] — when the EDR unit determines that the user does require assistance, this information may be relayed to the central server (the information being relayed from the user device to the server is an indication of the invocation command requesting assistance for the user));
receive the first voice input of the user and transmit the first voice input to the at least one server computer (Mihailidis: [0110] — received user speech can be transmitted to be processed by a central server).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson which provides teaching for a system environment that assists a user, such that a response is obtained from a user which is then used to notify a caregiver, by applying the known technique of Mihailidis which teaches a server sending an action instruction to a device for instructing the assistance device to present audio for an input request to the user, and capturing audio from the user, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of having a system that proactively checks on the user to be able to quickly offer assistance if needed at the point of checking. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view Mihailidis provides teaching for implementing an assistance action for providing assistance, by presenting input requests to a user. This combination however fails to teach generating the request and transmitting to a speech processing server for communication.
This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Hiroe is now introduced to teach this as:
generate, by the at least one server computer a request and transmit the request to a speech processing server to obtain information for presenting audio of the first assistance action (Hiroe: [0096] — a dialog control server 12 which may present a response text to a speech synthesising server (the speech synthesising server being understood here to be able to present audio to the client or terminal));
communicate from the at least one server computer or the speech processing server instructions for presenting the audio of the first assistance action (Hiroe: [0118] — the robot (which is the terminal client in this case) is able to receive synthesised speech information from a speech synthesising server; [0071] — a speech conversation between the human and the robot (the presence of such a system that performs speech dialogue indicates the inherent presence of instructions to present the received audio to the user, for the user to be able to listen to).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view Mihailidis provides teaching for implementing an assistance action for providing assistance, by presenting input requests to a user, by applying the known technique of Hiroe which generates a response, presents it to a speech processing server, and communicates it from the server, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of generating speech requests in natural language that are directly applicable to the needed assistance at hand. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view Mihailidis and further in view of Hiroe provides teaching for sending a notification to be sent to the device of a caregiver. This combination however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the presence of a safety profile for a user to be used in notifying a caregiver.
This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Hopkins is now introduced to teach this as:
selectively notifying a caregiver by causing a notification to be sent to a device of the caregiver based on a safety profile and a determination that the first voice input corresponds to a negative response event, a positive response event, or a non-response event (Hopkins: [0009] — a database to store information; [0025] — configuring a caregiver to be able to receive an alert on the caregiver’s device based on rules set by stored profile information of a client (thereby teaching of a safety profile capable of notifying the caregiver of an adverse negative or no-response situation)).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view Mihailidis and further in view of Hiroe provides teaching for sending a notification to be sent to the device of a caregiver, by applying the known teaching of Hopkins which maintains a user safety profile, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of providing a caregiver with the adequate tools to be able to assist in keeping track of a patient/client’s health condition based on the situations that arise. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
For claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins discloses the system, wherein the system comprises one or more sensing pods in the caregiving environment of the user, wherein each sensing pod comprises a microphone and a speaker (Carlson: [0071] — system interface components for sensing, including audio sensors; [0078] — speakers and microphones being deployed as components available to the user).
For claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis and further in view of Hiroe and further in view of Hopkins discloses the system, wherein the assistance device transmits the first invocation command in response to an occurrence of a first time (Mihailidis: [0108] — when the EDR unit (assistance device) determines that the user does require assistance at a particular time, this information may be relayed to the central server (the information being relayed from the user device to the server is an indication of the invocation command requesting assistance for the user).
For claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins discloses the system, wherein the assistance device initiates the first assistance action by transmitting the first invocation command at a first time (Mihailidis: [0108] — when the EDR unit (assistance device) determines that the user does require assistance at a particular time, this information may be relayed to the central server (the information being relayed from the user device to the server is an indication of the invocation command requesting assistance for the user).
For claim 10, Geman discloses a computer-implemented method for providing assistance to a user, the method comprising:
storing, by at least one processor, information about a plurality of assistance actions for providing assistance to the user, [[wherein each assistance action conforms to a voice command protocol for presenting input requests to the user and processing voice responses of the user]] (Geman: FIG. 3 Part 320 — a processor; [0072] — caregiver can enter information regarding a medication adherence schedule (being an assistance action) that gets stored in a database server which performs tasks as generating reminders for patients by calling specified phone numbers and medication adherence schedule being stored in a database server);
transmitting, by at least one server computer, including a scheduling server (Geman: [0072] — storing medication adherence schedules on a database server (the database server is taken as the scheduling server as it stores schedule information)), [[an emergency server]], and/or an automated assistance server (Geman: [0074] — a call server which can use various VoIP protocols to initiate voice communications with patient (which can be taken here as the automated assistance server, the initiation of voice communications with a patient being an assistance action)), to an assistance device, a first action instruction for implementing a first assistance action, wherein:
the scheduling server comprises an assistance service scheduler, wherein the scheduling server is configured to interact with the automated assistance server (Geman: [0072] — when a determination is made that a reminder should be sent, database server can request that call server generates a reminder to call to one or more specified phone numbers, which can then initiate a communication with the patient (the database server here performs the task of the scheduling server as it maintains a schedule of events that should be performed, such as that for contacting the patient which is an assistance service, and also makes contact with a call server as the claimed assistance server since it initiates a call to the patient as an assistance action being offered to the patient)).
The reference of Geman provides teaching for a system providing assistance to a user in a caregiving environment. This reference however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for an emergency server that recognises emergency words.
This is however not new to the prior art as the reference of Cho is now introduced to teach this as:
transmitting, by at least one server computer, including a scheduling server, an emergency server (Cho: [0021] — an emergency server), and/or an automated assistance server, to an assistance device, a first action instruction for implementing a first assistance action, wherein:
the emergency server is configured to interact with the automated assistance server, and wherein the emergency server comprises an emergency speech recognition engine configured to recognize an emergency word and/or a distressed voice tone (Cho: [0021] — an emergency server which includes a speech recognition unit (indicating the ability to perform speech recognition at the emergency server) and a communication unit; [0012] — an emergency server able to provide assistance in an emergency event; [0040] — recognising an emergency keyword from a user (recognising an emergency word); [0118] — an emergency server able to communicate through a network in order to provide assistance, as well as several emergency words that could be recognised).
The motivation for combination as applied to the incorporation of Cho into the reference of Geman as applied above to claim 1 is applicable here still.
The combination of Geman in view of Cho provides teaching for a system providing assistance to a user in a caregiving environment being capable of recognising emergency words. This combination differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the presenting of an audio for an input request to the user in order to derive a positive, negative or non-responsive event from the user and effectively notify the caregiver about it upon recognising the input speech.
This is however not new to the prior art as the reference of Carlson is now introduced to teach this as:
storing, by at least one processor, information about a plurality of assistance actions for providing assistance to the user, wherein each assistance action conforms to a voice command protocol for presenting input requests to the user and processing voice responses of the user (Carlson: [0034] — an action for requesting assistance on behalf of a patient; [0083] — obtaining a patient’s verbal response to queries as health survey questions (this being the presentation of input requests to the user and processing the user’s responses));
the automated assistance server comprises a speech recognition engine, a personal assistance engine, and at least one assistance application (Carlson: [0104] — servers able to perform the available tasks; [0083] — performing automated speech recognition; [0034] — performing personal assistance; [0043] — running application software (that is able to provide assistance and functionality to the user));
in response to receiving the first action instruction, initiate the first assistance action by generating and communicating a first invocation command from an assistance device in a caregiving environment of the user, implementing a first assistance action by instructing the assistance device to present audio based on executing instruction, including audio for a first input request to the user, processing any of a first voice input of the user, and determining that the first voice input corresponds to at least one of: a negative response event, positive response event, and a non-response event (Carlson: [0140] — prompts being delivered to a user; [0143] — the system detects a response to the prompt within a predetermined time period; [0144] — determining the response type (which could be indicative of positive or negative response events); [0083] — performing speech recognition (showing that user can provide speech responses); [0085] — various user responses (as an indication of positive or negative response events); FIG. 10, Step 1016 — a response from a user is expected at, Step 1024 —proceeding to show that a response was not detected (a non-response event));
selectively notifying, by the at least one processor, a caregiver by causing a notification to be sent to a device of the caregiver [[based on a safety profile]] and at least one of the negative response event, the positive response event, or the non-response event (Carlson: [0058] — notifying a target recipient with [0039] showing that a target recipient could be a care giver; [0145] — if the response is addressable, a third party (such a caregiver) may be prompted to take action regarding the patient; [0034] — contacting an external entity on behalf of the patient when the patient requires assistance [0058] — the target recipient includes a device associated with a healthcare provider or care taker); and
communicating from the at least one server computer or the speech processing server instructions for presenting audio of a confirmation request as a continuation of the first assistance action implemented by presenting the audio for the first input request to the user, the confirmation request including at least one voice query for additional information associated with execution of the voice command protocol and capture of confirmation data, wherein the confirmation request confirms any determination for the negative response event, the positive response event, and the non-response event (Carlson: [0117] — communicating customised prompts to a medical device of a user (indicating the transmission of the selected survey questions from over a server to the user’s device); [0118] — the presentation of a series of questions; [0140] — the prompts may be delivered as speech; [0138] — the system is able to issue one or more prompts; [0140] — synthesised speech as prompts for the user (to show the presentation of audio as a request to the user); [0045] — presenting at least one prompt (indicating the possibility of a series of prompts, so more than one, with one being a follow-up to the other) to the user which may be a spoken question in the language which the user understands (indicating presenting audio for a request to the user); [0059], [0124] — presenting a series of prompts as survey questions to a user (indicating the presence of one question after another, such that one question follows the other so as to confirm a particular situation regarding the user); [0145] — an initial response by the user may lead to further prompting the user to take an action (as a request for confirmation); FIG. 10 Step 1016 — detecting a user response (indicative of a determination of a negative, positive, or non-response event).
The motivation for combination as applied to the incorporation of Carlson into the combination of Geman in view of Cho as applied above to claim 1 is applicable here still.
The combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson provides teaching for a system environment that assists a user, such that a response is obtained from a user which is then used to notify a caregiver. This combination however differs from the claimed invention, in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for a server sending an action instruction to a device for instructing the assistance device to present audio for an input request to the user, and capturing audio from the user.
This is not new to the art, as the reference of Mihailidis is now introduced to teach this as:
transmitting, by the at least one server computer, to the assistance device, a first action instruction for implementing a first assistance action (Mihailidis: [0109] — a central server may tell the active emergency detection and response (EDR) unit to initiate a dialogue with the user (teaching of the server transmitting a first action instruction that initiates a dialogue, to the assistance device));
in response to receiving the first action instruction, initiate the first assistance action by generating and communicating a first invocation command from an assistance device in a caregiving environment of the user, implementing a first assistance action by instructing the assistance device to present audio based on executing instruction, including audio for a first input request to the user, processing any of a first voice input of the user, [[and determining that the first voice input corresponds to at least one of: a negative response event, positive response event, and a non-response event]] (Mihailidis: [0109] — initiating a dialogue with the user that is adaptable and appropriate for the particular situation to determine if assistance is required, such as asking the user is everything is ok making use of TTS and ASR for recognising the user’s speech (the server passes the information to the assistance device, the EDR unit, telling the assistance device to present an adaptable message in audio form); [0058] — ‘the EDR unit 14 can communicate with the subject via the microphone 34 and loudspeaker 48 and initiate a dialog using speech recognition software’ (indicating that the user can provide a response to the EDR’s request)).
The motivation for combination as applied to the incorporation of Mihailidis into the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson as applied above to claim 1 is applicable here still.
The combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view Mihailidis provides teaching for implementing an assistance action for providing assistance, by presenting input requests to a user. This combination however fails to teach generating the request and transmitting to a speech processing server for communication.
This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Hiroe is now introduced to teach this as:
generating, by the at least one processor, a request and transmit the request to a speech processing server to obtain information for presenting audio of the first assistance action (Hiroe: [0096] — a dialog control server 12 which may present a response text to a speech synthesising server (the speech synthesising server being understood here to be able to present audio to the client or terminal));
communicating from the at least one server computer or the speech processing server the instructions for presenting the audio of the first assistance action (Hiroe: [0118] — the robot (which is the terminal client in this case) is able to receive synthesised speech information from a speech synthesising server; [0071] — a speech conversation between the human and the robot (the presence of such a system that performs speech dialogue indicates the inherent presence of instructions to present the received audio to the user, for the user to be able to listen to).
The motivation for combination as applied to the incorporation of Hiroe into the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis as applied above to claim 1 is applicable here still.
The combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view Mihailidis provides teaching for implementing an assistance action for providing assistance, by presenting input requests to a user. This combination however fails to teach generating the request and transmitting to a speech processing server for communication.
This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Hiroe is now introduced to teach of storing a safety profile related to a user (Hopkins: [0009] — a database to store information; [0025] — configuring a caregiver to be able to receive an alert on the caregiver’s device based on rules set by stored profile information of a client (thereby teaching of a safety profile capable of notifying the caregiver of an adverse negative or no-response situation)).
The motivation for combination as applied to the incorporation of Hopkins into the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson in view of Mihailidis, and further in view of Hiroe as applied above to claim 1 is applicable here still.
For claim 11, claim 10 is incorporated and the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins discloses the method, wherein the safety profile of the user is updated by the caregiver (Hopkins: [0065], [0009] — a database which stores information related to the functionality of an alert system, also containing profile information).
For claim 12, claim 10 is incorporated and the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins discloses the method, wherein at least one of the invocation commands comprises speech (Mihailidis: [0108] — when the EDR unit (assistance device) determines that the user does require assistance at a particular time, this information may be relayed to the central server (the information being relayed from the user device to the server is an indication of the invocation command requesting assistance for the user; [0116] — the system may be designed so the occupant may activate the system using the keyword ‘Help!’ which is speech).
For claim 13, claim 10 is incorporated and the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins discloses the method, wherein determining that a non-response event has occurred comprises setting a timer after the third input request is presented to the user (Carlson: [0143] — attempting to detect a response within a predetermined time period (so as to detect a non-response event has occurred)).
For claim 16, claim 10 is incorporated and the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins discloses the method, wherein the safety profile of the user indicates that a notification is to be sent to the caregiver after at least one of the following: a specified number of negative response events; or non-response events within a time period (Geman: [0082] — contacting a caregiver associated with a patient when the patient does not respond due to a lack of acknowledgement within a period of time).
As for claim 17, computer program product claim 17 and method claim 10 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for performing the claimed method steps on a computer. Geman in [0010] provides computer-readable media to read upon the limitations of this claim. Accordingly, claim 17 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 10.
For claim 18, claim 17 is incorporated and the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe and further in view of Hopkins discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, wherein the assistance device transmits the first invocation command in response to an occurrence of a first time (Mihailidis: [0108] — when the EDR unit (assistance device) determines that the user does require assistance at a particular time, this information may be relayed to the central server (the information being relayed from the user device to the server is an indication of the invocation command requesting assistance for the user).
For claim 20, claim 17 is incorporated and the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe and further in view of Hopkins discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, wherein the invocation command comprises speech (Mihailidis: [0108] — when the EDR unit (assistance device) determines that the user does require assistance at a particular time, this information may be relayed to the central server (the information being relayed from the user device to the server is an indication of the invocation command requesting assistance for the user; [0116] — the system may be designed so the occupant may activate the system using the keyword ‘Help!’ which is speech).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Geman (US 2016/0106627 A1) in view of Cho (US 2014/0253326 A1) further in view of Carlson (US 2016/0004831 A1) further in view of Mihailidis (US 2013/0100268 A1), further in view of Hiroe (US 2020/0066254 A1), and further in view of Hopkins (US 2015/0269827 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2016/0035353 A1: hereafter — Chen).
For claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins provides teaching for offering an assistance action to the user, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention now further teaches of an assistance action being ordering dinner, such that the first voice input is prestored and communicated to a server following an initiation command.
This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Chen is now introduced to teach this as:
the system, wherein the first assistance action assists the user in ordering dinner, wherein the first voice input is pre-stored in a database and communicated to the automated assistance application following an initiation command (Chen: [0025] — ‘a user 102 may initiate a conversation with a computer-implemented conversational agent 104 by saying “okay Google. I want to order pizza from John's Pizza Joint.”’ (having an initiation command in ‘okay Google’ and then going on to order pizza, as an assisted way of ordering dinner); [0017] — custom commands for the agent (indicating pre-stored voice inputs in a database); [0027] — server execution; [0052] — an assistance application).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins which offers an assistance action to the user, by applying the known technique of Chen which provides an assistance action of ordering a meal using a system that can store custom commands, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of serving as an extra care service in order to make a patient feel more comfortable, especially through the use of customized commands that would be convenient for the user. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Geman (US 2016/0106627 A1) in view of Cho (US 2014/0253326 A1) further in view of Carlson (US 2016/0004831 A1) further in view of Mihailidis (US 2013/0100268 A1), further in view of Hiroe (US 2020/0066254 A1), and further in view of Hopkins (US 2015/0269827 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Shoemake et al (US 2014/0168453 A1: hereafter — Shoemake).
For claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated but the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which Shoemake is now introduced to teach as
the system, wherein:
the assistance device comprises a presence sensor and is configured to transmit a second invocation command in response to detecting a presence of the user with the presence sensor (Shoemake: [0048] — presence sensor device; Fig. 3 Steps 355-375 — invocation of certain commands upon the detection of a user’s presence; [0129] — the control server might implement some control over some of the presence devices such as instructing them to perform the capturing of presence information and sending them to the server for presence determination (the capturing and sending of the presence information to the server being a second invocation command the image capture device – ICD in this case being the assistance device)); and
the at least one server computer is configured to, in response to receiving the second invocation command from the assistance device, implement a second assistance action (Shoemake: [0129] — the control server might implement some control over some of the presence devices such as instructing them to perform the capturing of presence information and sending them to the server for presence determination (the capturing and sending of the presence information to the server being a second invocation command the image capture device – ICD in this case being the assistance device), upon detecting presence information, having a control server which performs some actions).
The combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins provides teaching for obtaining an invocation command. It differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides for using presence detection information for an invocation command and then having the server perform an assistance action. This is however not new to the art as the reference of Shoemake is seen to provide above, teaching a presence detection device that receives presence detection information, and invokes a series of instructions based on that (as an invocation command) and then, have a server perform an action based upon receiving the presence information.
Hence, at the time the application was effectively filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins which obtains an invocation command, by applying the known technique provided by Shoemake which uses presence detection information for an invocation command and then having the server perform an assistance action, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of being able to perform assisting actions to a non-vocal patient (being the user of the device) by simply detecting the presence of the patient in proximity to the user device, possibly in association with pre-determined times. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Geman (US 2016/0106627 A1) in view of Cho (US 2014/0253326 A1) further in view of Carlson (US 2016/0004831 A1) further in view of Mihailidis (US 2013/0100268 A1), further in view of Hiroe (US 2020/0066254 A1), and further in view of Hopkins (US 2015/0269827 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of PARUNDEKAR et al. (US 2016/0041811 A1: hereafter — Parundekar).
For claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated but the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins fails to disclose the limitation of this claim, for which Parundekar is now introduced to teach as, the system, wherein the assistance device stores the first invocation command (Parundekar: [0065] — storing the received speech dialog data that is used to invoke a function of a device).
The combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins provides for an assistance system which receives an invocation command. It differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides storing the invocation command. This is however not new to the art as Parundekar is seen to provide teaching for storing such a command.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Parundekar which provides storing the invocation command, with the presence of an assistance system which receives an invocation command as taught by the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of being able to properly log the interactions which a user has with the assistance device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 19, computer program product claim 19 and method claim 5 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for performing the claimed method steps on a computer. Accordingly, claim 19 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 5.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Geman (US 2016/0106627 A1) in view of Cho (US 2014/0253326 A1) further in view of Carlson (US 2016/0004831 A1) further in view of Mihailidis (US 2013/0100268 A1), further in view of Hiroe (US 2020/0066254 A1), and further in view of Hopkins (US 2015/0269827 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Letzt et al. (U.S. 5,612,869: hereafter — Letzt).
For claim 9, claim 1 is incorporated but the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which Letzt is now introduced to teach as the system, wherein the assistance device is configured to, in response to not receiving a voice input of the user in response to the first speech within a time period:
75present the audio of the first input request a second time with increased volume (Letzt: Col 23 lines 7-11 — if the user fails to answer to an initial prompt within a time period, the device increases the volume and replays the audio prompt); or
present the audio of the first input request from another speaker.
The combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins provides that speech is obtained from a user in response to an audio being played by the user device. It differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides that if the user does not respond to speech communication within a time period, the volume of the system prompt is increased, with the prompt played back to the user. This is however not new to the art as the reference of Letzt provides teaching for such.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Letzt which provides that if the user does not respond to speech communication within a time period, the volume of the system prompt is increased, with provides that speech is obtained from a user in response to an audio being played by the user device s taught by the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of adjusting for a user of the device who might be hard of hearing, or possibly slightly moved out of a hearing range, or whose mine mind might have been carried away from the user device, the increase in volume being an attempt to allow the user continue an interaction with the device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Geman (US 2016/0106627 A1) in view of Cho (US 2014/0253326 A1) further in view of Carlson (US 2016/0004831 A1) further in view of Mihailidis (US 2013/0100268 A1), further in view of Hiroe (US 2020/0066254 A1), and further in view of Hopkins (US 2015/0269827 A1) as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2006/0288225 A1: hereafter — Jung).
For claim 14, claim 10 is incorporated but the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which Jung is now introduced to teach as the method, wherein determining that a negative response event has occurred comprises:
determining that the first voice input of the user is an incorrect answer to a question (Jung: [0037] — a situation whereby one or more answers include at least one incorrect answer, causing the system to disallow authentication (indicating a negative event));
determining that the first voice input of the user includes a word associated with a negative state; or
analyzing a tone or cadence of the second voice input of the user.
The combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins provides the occurrence of a negative response but fails to disclose that the user provides an incorrect answer to a question. This is however not new to the art as the reference of Jung provides teaching for a situation whereby one or more provided answers includes at least one incorrect answer.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Jung which provides for a situation whereby a user provides an incorrect answer that results in a negative response, with the occurrence of a user simply providing a negative response as taught by the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of classifying such responses for the purpose of not providing improper access to confidential information to unauthorised users. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Geman (US 2016/0106627 A1) in view of Cho (US 2014/0253326 A1) further in view of Carlson (US 2016/0004831 A1) further in view of Mihailidis (US 2013/0100268 A1), further in view of Hiroe (US 2020/0066254 A1), and further in view of Hopkins (US 2015/0269827 A1) as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Walsh et al. (US 2016/0052391 A1: hereafter — Walsh).
For claim 15, claim 10 is incorporated but the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which Walsh is now introduced to teach as the method, wherein the first assistance action presents a puzzle, a quiz, or a trivia question to the user (Walsh: [0049] — prompting a user by voice to answer one or more questions or asking to complete a puzzle).
The combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins provides for having an assistance action. It differs from the claimed invention in that the assistance action is one of presenting a puzzle to the user. This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Walsh is seen to provide such an assistance action of presenting a user with a puzzle.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Walsh which provides an assistance action of presenting a user with a puzzle, with the system which provides an assistance action as taught by the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins provides for having an assistance action, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of ensuring that the user maintains activity with the assistance device, for example, as a sleep prevention technique. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Geman (US 2016/0106627 A1) in view of Cho (US 2014/0253326 A1) further in view of Carlson (US 2016/0004831 A1) further in view of Mihailidis (US 2013/0100268 A1), further in view of Hiroe (US 2020/0066254 A1), and further in view of Hopkins (US 2015/0269827 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of AU (US 2012/0124151 A1).
For claim 21, claim 1 is incorporated but the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which Au is now introduced to teach as
the system, wherein:
the assistance service scheduler includes computer executable instructions that when executed on the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to define a custom command word and associate the custom command word with the at least one assistance application of the automated assistance server and an assistance action of the at least one assistance application (Au: [0027] — a rule engine which is configured to expose an API that allows a user to define a custom command and action for a particular software application).
The combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins provides for an automated assistance server providing assistance to the user. It differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides defining a custom command word to be associated with an assistance application and an action. This isn’t new to the art as is seen to be taught by the reference of Au above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins which provides for an automated assistance server providing assistance to the user, by applying the known teaching of the reference of Au which provides defining a custom command word to be associated with an assistance application and an action, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of providing the user with faster execution of intended actions, as well as adapting intended actions and workflows, making use of command words the user would remember more easily. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Geman (US 2016/0106627 A1) in view of Cho (US 2014/0253326 A1) further in view of Carlson (US 2016/0004831 A1) further in view of Mihailidis (US 2013/0100268 A1), further in view of Hiroe (US 2020/0066254 A1), and further in view of Hopkins (US 2015/0269827 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kanuganti et al. (US 2016/0063893 A1: hereafter — Kanuganti).
For claim 22, claim 1 is incorporated but the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which Kanuganti is now introduced to teach as
the system, wherein the automated assistance server implements artificial intelligence (Kanuganti: [0049] — a remote server providing automated assistance, the remote server having artificial intelligence).
The combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins provides for an automated assistance server providing assistance to the user. It differs from the claimed invention in that it provides that the automated assistance server offers artificial intelligence. This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Kanuganti is seen to provide above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Geman in view of Cho further in view of Carlson further in view of Mihailidis, further in view of Hiroe, and further in view of Hopkins which provides for an automated assistance server providing assistance to the user, by applying the known teaching of the reference of Kanuganti which provides a server equipped with artificial intelligence for offering automated assistance to a user, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior arts would have provided the predictable result that the presence of the artificial intelligence platform provides further support through autonomous and faster resolution of routine tasks, presenting further convenience to the user. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Cronin (WO 2016/097368 A1) provides teaching for an interface useful to provide inputs that may be directed to customising medical assistance for a patient [0049].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to OLUWADAMILOLA M. OGUNBIYI whose telephone number is (571)272-4708. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursday (8:00 AM – 5:30 PM Eastern Standard Time).
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, PARAS D. SHAH can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/OLUWADAMILOLA M OGUNBIYI/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
09/12/2026
Prosecution Insights