DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/05/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 11/05/25. However, new objections have been presented in light of the amendments, as discussed in detail below.
The previous rejections of claims 1, 21-22, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 11/05/25. The previous rejections of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in part and maintained in part in light of the amendments to the claims. The previous rejections of claims 10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been maintained, as presented in detail below. Moreover, additional rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in light of the amendments to the claims have been presented, as shown in detail below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues, with respect to Step 2A – Prong 1, that the limitations of “capturing a first timeseries”, “aggregating the first timeseries of skin conductance signals and the first timeseries of motion signals into a first timeseries of biosignal data representative of physiological responses during performance of the cognitive evaluation by the user”, and “deriving a cognitive state model for the user, the cognitive state model linking the first timeseries of biosignal data recorded for the user to instances of cognitive states exhibited by the user during performance of the cognitive evaluation” are not included in the methods of organizing human activity deemed patent-ineligible by the 2019 Guidance. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The above-recited limitations were determined to be directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) or a mental process (including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion), as opposed to certain methods of organizing human activity, as argued (see Final Rejection, filed 01/06/25, pp. 7-14).
Applicant further argues, with respect to Step 2A – Prong 2, that the claim elements provide a specific, technological improvement to existing methods of detecting and assessing physiological conditions in a user, which do not integrate biomarkers from biosensors or utilize data over time, citing the Specification, [0003], and thus the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that the independent claims fail to recite the use of biomarkers, and thus, do not recite the alleged improvement. Second, the limitations of claims 8-9, which recite the generation of biomarkers corresponding to the first timeseries of biosignal data and use of the biomarkers to interpret a series of cognitive states of the user, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see Specification, [0032], “the system can match performance of the user on the cognitive evaluation to particular areas of the timeseries of biosignal data and thus delineate a set of ADHD biomarkers in the timeseries of biosignal data corresponding to portions of the cognitive evaluation in which the user's results indicate a potential ADHD diagnosis.”). There is no indication of a technological improvement in the claims or in the Specification.
Additionally, it is noted that Applicant states that independent claims 1, 13, and 19 have been amended, however, independent claims 1, 22, and 27, are presented. The independent claims have been amended to include “at least one processor” for performing the recited functions, as argued (Remarks, filed 11/05/25, pp. 24-28). However, the at least one processor is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea(s) using a generic computer component/using a generic computer component as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), as presented below.
Lastly, Applicant argues, with respect to Step 2B, that the claim limitations represent a specific technological improvement to existing methods of detecting and assessing psychological conditions in a user. However, as noted above in regards to the arguments with respect to Step 2A – Prong 2, neither the claims nor the Specification recites any improvement in the technology. Applicant cites the Specification, [0003], [0010], [0026], and [0062], however, the recited paragraphs fail to disclose a technological improvement, and rather, discuss the use of generic computer component(s) for receiving and organizing/analyzing collected data.
Accordingly, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as presented in detail below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 15, 21, 24, 26-27, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the cognitive exercise” recited in claim 1, ln. 53 should likely read “the cognitive evaluation”;
“a time period” recited in claim 4, ln. 2 should likely read “a third time period”;
“the time period” recited in claim 4, ln. 9 and claim 6, ln. 2 should likely read “the third time period”;
“a positive between cognitive states in the series of cognitive states, to” recited in claim 9, ln. 6-7 should likely read “a positive
“The method of Claim 1, deriving” recited in claim 15, ln. 1 should likely read “The method of Claim 1, wherein deriving”;
“a second cognitive exercise” recited in claim 21, ln. 2 should likely read “a second cognitive evaluation”;
“the second cognitive exercise” recited in claim 21, ln. 11, 12, & 15 should likely read “the second cognitive evaluation”;
“wherein characterizing user progress, in the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder profile, comprises” recited in claim 24, ln. 7-8 should likely read “wherein the characterizing user progress[[,]] in the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder profile[[,]] comprises”;
“the series of results of the cognitive evaluation” recited in claim 26, ln. 9 should likely read “the series of results of the cognitive evaluation period”;
“at uthe computer system” recited in claim 27, ln. 16 should likely read “at [[u]]the computer system”; and
“the series of results of the cognitive evaluation” recited in claim 29, ln. 13 should likely read “the series of results of the cognitive evaluation period”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 13-15, 21, 24, and 27-29 are 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 1 recites in part “characterizing, by the at least one processor, user progress, in the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder profile, based on results of the cognitive exercise, the second timeseries of biosignal data, and the cognitive state model”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the cognitive exercise” in the claim. Further, it is indefinite if “the cognitive exercise” is intended to refer to the cognitive evaluation or the first intervention exercise.
Claim 2 is rejected for similar reasoning (see claim 2, ln. 3-4, “the results of the cognitive exercise”).
Claims 2, 4, 6-10, 13-15, and 21 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim 10 recites in part “the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder model” in ln. 6. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, claim 10 recites “the test period” in ln. 8-9. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites in part “extracting a first timeseries of galvanic skin response data from the first timeseries of biosignal data”. It is indefinite as to how the first timeseries of galvanic skin response data from the first timeseries of biosignal data differs from the previously recited “first timeseries of skin conductance signals of the user” which, in part, comprises the first timeseries of biosignal data, as recited in claim 1, from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 further recites in part “the global cognitive state model”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Accordingly, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness. Further, it is indefinite as to whether the claim is intended to recite “the global model” and/or “the cognitive state model”.
Claim 24 recites in part “results of the cognitive exercise” recited in ln. 8-9. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “the cognitive exercise”. Further, it is indefinite as to whether “results of the cognitive exercise” are intended to refer to “the results of the cognitive exercise period”, or rather, different results.
Claim 27 recites in part “the series of results of the cognitive evaluation period” in ln. 20-21. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Accordingly, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness.
Claims 28-29 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 27.
Claim 27 further recites in part “the cognitive exercise” in ln. 45 and “the cognitive exercise period” in ln. 48. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Moreover, it is indefinite as to whether “a series of results of the cognitive exercise period” recited in ln. 47-48 is intended to be distinct from “the series of results of the cognitive evaluation period” previously recited in ln. 20-21 of the claim.
Claims 28-29 are further rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 27.
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 1-2, 4, 6-10, 13-15, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] The claim recites in part “A method […]”, which falls within the “process” statutory category of invention.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] The claim recites a series of steps which can be practically performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)), and/or mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). The limitations recited in the body of the claim are analyzed in the Independent Claim 1/Revised Guidance Table below to identify in italics the specific claim limitations found to recite an abstract idea and in bold the additional (non-abstract) claim limitations.
Independent Claim 1
Revised 2019 Guidance
A method of characterizing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder for a user comprising:
A method is a process, which is a statutory subject matter class. See 35 U.S.C. 101.
during a first time period, at a wearable device worn by the user and during performance of a cognitive evaluation by the user prompted by a computer system associated with the user:
A wearable device worn by the user is a generic computing component.
via an electrodermal activity sensor communicatively coupled with the computer system, capturing a first timeseries of skin conductance signals of the user;
Utilizing an electrodermal activity sensor to capture a first timeseries of skin conductance signals of the user encompasses the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
via an inertial measurement unit communicatively coupled with the computer system, capturing a first timeseries of motion signals of the user; and
Utilizing an inertial measurement unit to capture a first timeseries of motion signals of the user encompasses the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
aggregating, by at least one processor of the computer system, the first timeseries of skin conductance signals and the first timeseries of motion signals into a first timeseries of biosignal data representative of physiological responses during performance of the cognitive evaluation by the user;
Aggregating gathered data encompasses a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
Alternatively, aggregating gathered data into a first timeseries of biosignal data is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“At least one processor” is a generic computing component.
at the computer system and following completion of the cognitive evaluation by the user:
A computer system encompasses generic computing components.
accessing, by the at least one processor, a series of results of the cognitive evaluation performed by the user;
Accessing gathered data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
accessing, by the at least one processor a global model linking results of cognitive evaluations and biosignal data to cognitive states of users diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder;
Accessing gathered data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
accessing, by the at least one processor, a treatment model linking attention deficit hyperactivity disorder profiles of users diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to treatment pathways;
Accessing gathered data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
generating, by the at least one processor, an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder profile uniquely representing the user based on the series of results of the cognitive evaluation, the first timeseries of biosignal data, and the global model, the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder profile defining: a first confidence score representing a probability of a positive attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis for the user; a first intensity score representing intensity of attention deficit disorder exhibited by the user; and an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder type exhibited by the user;
Generating an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder profile as claimed defining a first confidence score, first intensity score, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder type encompasses a mental process(es) (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
in response to the first confidence score exceeding a threshold confidence: selecting, by the at least one processor, a first treatment pathway for the user based on the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder profile and the treatment model; and
Selecting a treatment in response to the analysis/comparison of the gathered data encompasses a method of organizing human activity – i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and/or mental process (including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
deriving, by the at least one processor, a cognitive state model for the user, the cognitive state model linking the first timeseries of biosignal data recorded for the user to instances of cognitive states exhibited by the user during performance of the cognitive evaluation;
Deriving a user model linking gathered data to instances of cognitive states exhibited by the user encompasses a mental process (including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
during a second time period following the first time period, at the wearable device:
The wearable device is a generic computing component.
via the electrodermal activity sensor, capturing a second timeseries of skin conductance signals of the user;
Utilizing the electrodermal activity sensor to capture a second timeseries of skin conductance signals of the user encompasses the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
via the inertial measurement unit, capturing a second timeseries of motion signals of the user;
Utilizing the inertial measurement unit to capture a second timeseries of motion signals of the user encompasses the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
aggregating, by the at least one processor, the second timeseries of skin conductance signals and the second timeseries of motion signals into a second timeseries of biosignal data representative of physiological responses during performance of the cognitive exercise by the user;
Aggregating gathered data encompasses a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
Alternatively, aggregating gathered data into a second timeseries of biosignal data is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
at the computer system:
The computer system encompasses generic computing components.
interpreting, by the at least one processor, and via an application of a trained machine learning or artificial intelligence model, an instance of an adverse cognitive state exhibited by the user based on the second timeseries of biosignal data and the cognitive state model;
Interpreting an instance of an adverse cognitive state based on gathered user data via application of a trained machine learning or artificial intelligence model encompasses a mental process(es) (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) and/or mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
selecting, by the at least one processor, a first intervention exercise associated with the adverse cognitive state and defined in the first treatment pathway;
Selecting a first intervention exercise encompasses a mental process(es) (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
serving, by the at least one processor, the first intervention exercise to the user; and
Serving the first intervention exercise to the user encompasses a method of organizing human activity – i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Alternatively, serving the selected first intervention exercise to a user is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission/display. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
triggering, by the at least one processor, vibration of the wearable device to prompt performance of the first intervention exercise by the user; and
Prompting a user to perform the first intervention exercise encompasses a method of organizing human activity – i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and/or mental process (including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
The at least one processor and vibrator of the wearable device are generic computer components.
following completion of the first intervention exercise: characterizing, by the at least one processor, user progress, in the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder profile, based on results of the cognitive exercise, the second timeseries of biosignal data, and the cognitive state model; and
Determining/characterizing user progress based on gathered data encompasses a mental process (including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
in response to the user progress exceeding a threshold progress, confirming, by the at least one processor, selection of the first treatment pathway for the user.
Confirming, based on user progress, analyzed based on collected data, a selected treatment pathway encompasses a method of organizing human activity – i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and/or mental process (including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
As noted in the Table above, the claim, as drafted, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal behavior or interactions between people, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts, specifically mathematical relationships, but for the recitation of generic computing components. That is, the claim is directed to a method of receiving/accessing gathered data, analyzing said data (i.e., in comparison to prior-gathered data), and assigning a treatment accordingly. This is no different than a physician/therapist/etc. accessing gathered user data (i.e., examination results, sensor data, etc.), mentally analyzing the data to determine a probability and intensity of a positive attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis for the user and/or user progress, and assigning a treatment plan accordingly. The mere nominal recitations of a generic wearable device, computer system, and at least one processor do not take the claim out of the abstract idea(s) grouping(s). Moreover, the limitation of “interpreting, by the at least one processor, via an application of a trained machine learning or artificial intelligence model, an instance of an adverse cognitive state exhibited by the user based on the second timeseries of biosignal data and the cognitive state model” corresponds to a mental process and/or mathematical concept (mathematical relationship), as noted in the Table above, which thereby falls within the grouping(s) of abstract idea(s). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea(s).
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity and/or the use of generic computer component(s) to perform the abstract idea(s) (i.e., sensors performing their known functions, computer system for storing/receiving data, etc.), as indicated in the Table above. That is, the additional limitations of a wearable device, computer system, and at least one processor are recited at a high level of generality such that they do not amount to a particular machine or technical improvement thereof. Rather, the generic manner in which these additional elements are claimed amount to mere instructions to invoke computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s) (see MPEP 2106.05(f); see also Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1366, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1652-53 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that the claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes)).
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or other technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), recites a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), recites a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or recites any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
[Step 2B] Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity and the use of generic computer components, as noted above. The recitation of the wearable device comprising integrated sensors (electrodermal activity sensor and inertial measurement unit) to collect biosignal data, the computer system for receiving/storing data, and the at least one processor for performing the abstract idea(s) are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field and are recited at a high level of generality such that the limitations do not provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). This may be evidenced by the lack of disclosure in the Specification surrounding the incorporation of the claimed sensors into the wearable device and the usage of the computer system and at least one processor to achieve the claimed functions (see Specification, [0059], which is the only location that mentions a processor and which states that “The computer-executable component can be a processor but any suitable dedicated hardware device can (alternatively or additionally) execute the instructions.”; see also Specification, [0059], “The systems and methods described herein can be embodied and/or implemented at least in part as a machine configured to receive a computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions. The instructions can be executed by computer-executable components integrated with the application, applet, host, server, network, website, communication service, communication interface, hardware/firmware/software elements of a user computer or mobile device, wristband, smartphone, or any suitable combination thereof.”; see further U.S. Pub. 2018/0070823 A1, [0035]; [0120]; [0123-0137]; [0178-0179], noting that wearable devices incorporating sensors are “well known” and “widely used” to monitor the physical fitness of a user by measuring parameters which may include skin conductance and/or activity/acceleration). Moreover, the machine learning/artificial intelligence model is claimed to be executed on the generic computing equipment. The Specification further indicates that the application of the machine learning/artificial intelligence model is well-understood, routine, conventional, such that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of the model or its implementation to satisfy enablement (see Specification, [0011]; [0028]; & [0040], which briefly mention the application of machine learning and/or other techniques to perform the routine function of deriving correlations between data).
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s).
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 22 and 27 are rejected for the similar reasoning as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-10, 13-15, 21, 23-26, and 28-29 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea(s) embodied in the independent claims. While the dependent claims may have a narrower scope than the independent claims, no claim contains “significantly more” to transform the corresponding claim into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). For example, claims 2, 4, 6-10, 13-15, 21, 23-26, and 28-29 further recite a mental process (estimating a second confidence score, affirming a positive ADHD diagnosis, extracting/aggregating timeseries data, interpreting a cognitive state, generating a second prompt, linking/correlating and interpreting data and generating biomarkers and a cognitive state model accordingly, estimating intensity scores and confidence scores, interpreting the first confidence score and characterizing a correlation, interpreting disorder types, diagnosis, and cognitive state(s), characterizing user progress, selecting a treatment pathway, generating an ADHD profile), certain method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) (generating and transmitting a second prompt, selecting a treatment pathway), and/or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering/recording, data transmission) (capturing, accessing, and transmitting data). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Therefore, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on the recited dependent claims, and the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. 2017/0000400 A1 – This reference relates to the field of biomarkers and teaches their utilization in optimizing treatment of ADHD.
GB 2538698 A – This reference teaches a system for assessing cognitive function, where parameters measured by a sensor (e.g., heart rate, skin conductance, GPS location, physical activity, or blood pressure) are compared to a baseline, and wherein a deviation triggers a cognitive test for the individual to perform whose results are then compared to a further baseline.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715