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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 15th May 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-21. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every objection to the drawings, specification, and claims. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 & 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) that were previously applied in the office action dated 6th February 2025.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of amendments changing the language to “configured to”, changing the limitations from conditional to required thus changing the scope of the claim. For example, previously, the limitation of ‘when said first electrode is disposed over a first side on said human’s head…’ was previously tied to the term ‘when’ via ‘…such that, when said first electrode is disposed over a first site on said human’s head…’, which is a conditional limitation, meaning the placement of the first electrode was not required due to the ‘when’ language, only that the invention would be structurally capable of performing said limitations. Amending the language of the claims to read ‘configured to’ ensures that the structural limitations are now required, thus the scope of the claim has changed thus necessitating the updated prior art rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 ‘signa’ should likely read ‘signal’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 15 recites the function of ‘comprising a housing that is integral with said headset and therefore cannot be detached from said headset’. As currently recited, this limitation implies that there is no possible way for the headset and the headband to be detached. Anything can be broken and therefore detached, for example, pulling apart the object with enough force to exceed the structural limitations of the object. The Applicant’s specification merely restates this limitation in Para. [031] without providing support for the language provided, the specification does not describe the specifics of how to achieve the above-recited function. See MPEP 2161 Therefore, adequate disclosure is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the function of ‘further comprising a housing that is integral with said headset and therefore cannot be detached from said headset’, it is unclear if this limitation is intending for the scope of the claim to imply that the housing being integral (interpreted as combined into a single structure) with the headset is impossible to break apart, and therefore be detached, or if the negative limitation of ‘cannot be detached’ is intending to mean that there is a lack of mechanical coupling between the headset and the housing, so that the housing and the headset are combined into a single structure, rendering Claim 15 indefinite. Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that ‘said headset further comprises a housing, wherein the housing is integral with said headset.’, as best understood by the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8938301 B2 to Hagedorn.
Regarding Claim 1, Hagedorn discloses an apparatus comprising a brain-training system for training neurons in a human's head to transition into a desired state (Hagedorn: Abstract),
said brain-training system comprising a headset that comprises an electroencephalograph that extends along an arcuate path in a median plane of said human's head (Hagedorn: Col. 9, lines 21-27; Figs. 6-8),
wherein said electroencephalograph comprises electrodes, wherein said electrodes comprise first, second, and third electrodes (Hagedorn: Fig. 8 item 612),
wherein said electrodes are dry electrodes (Hagedorn: Col. 9, line 46),
wherein said first electrode is configured to be disposed over a first site on said human's head, wherein said second and third electrodes are configured to be disposed relative to said first electrode such that, when said first electrode is disposed over a first site on said human's head, said second and third electrodes are disposed over corresponding second and third sites on said human's head (Hagedorn: Col. 9, lines 52-61; Figs. 8 & 9).
While Hagedorn does disclose adjustable placement of electrodes along the arcuate path which would enable the device to place the electrodes at a human’s posterior cortex, anterior cortex, and motor/sensory cortex (Hagedorn: Col. 9, lines 56-61; Figs. 8 & 9), Hagedorn does not explicitly disclose these as the intended sites specifically.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the position of the three electrodes on the tracks of the sidebars on the headgear taught by Hagedorn to position the electrodes in accordance with a human’s posterior cortex, anterior cortex, and motor/sensory cortex by rearranging the side bars to facilitate such positioning. The particular placement of the electrodes (posterior cortex, anterior cortex, and motor/sensory cortex) in an EEG headgear is held to be an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.. The proposed arrangement involves a straightforward adaptation of known components to yield expected results of spatial optimization of the components for the EEG headgear.
Regarding Claim 2, Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn further discloses wherein said headset further comprises earcups comprising loudspeakers (Hagedorn: Col. 9, lines 34-41)
for providing a conditioning stimulus for said neurons (Hagedorn: Col. 5, lines 43-51),
wherein when said earcups are over said human's ears, said first electrode is disposed over said first site (Hagedorn: Col. 9, lines 31-33; Figs. 6-8).
Regarding Claim 3, Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn further discloses wherein said headset further comprises a headband that is configured to extend along an arcuate path in a coronal plane of said head and loudspeakers disposed at ends of said headband (Hagedorn: Col. 9, lines 21-41; Figs. 6-9).
Regarding Claim 4, Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn further discloses wherein the headband is integral with said electroencephalograph (Hagedorn: Col. 9, lines 42-51; Note: The encephalograph is interpreted to be the cross bar, side bars, and the sensors, the sensors are configured to connect into the tracks of the cross bar and side bars of the headband).
Regarding Claim 5, Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn further discloses wherein the sensors of the encephalograph are configured to attach and detach from the headband (Hagedorn: Col. 9, lines 42-51), and the headband extending along said head’s coronal plane (Hagedorn: Fig. 6).
Attachment and detachment of the headband to/from the headset is absent from Hagedorn
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the headband of Hagedorn to be detachably coupled to the headset. If it were considered desirable for any reason to separate the headband from the headset to which it is connected, it would be obvious to make the electroencephalograph detachable for that purpose. See MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding Claim 6, Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn further discloses wherein said electrodes comprise protruding pins configured to make contact with said human's scalp (Hagedorn: Col. 10, lines 57-60).
Regarding Claim 9, Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn further discloses wherein said electroencephalograph is flexible so as to permit said electrodes to move relative to each other (Hagedorn: Col. 9, lines 22-27; Col. 9, lines 56-61; Figs. 6-9).
Regarding Claim 13, Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn further discloses further comprising fiducials for correct placement of said electrodes (Examiner notes in light of the specification earcups can act as fiducials: Hagedorn: Fig. 6; Note:
The earpieces of the headphones are interpreted to serve as fiducials for correct placement of
said electrodes; alternatively Hagedorn: Fig. 6-9, item 610; Note: The tracks of the headband are interpreted to serve as fiducials for correct placement of said electrodes).
Regarding Claim 15 Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn further discloses further comprising a housing that is integral with said headset and therefore cannot be detached from said headset (Hagedorn: Figs. 6-9, items 606, 608, and 610 combined are interpreted to make up the housing).
Regarding Claim 19 Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn further discloses further comprising; noise-reduction circuitry (Hagedorn: Col. 8, lines 8-10) and filtering circuitry (Hagedorn: Col. 8, lines 62-65), both of which receive a digital signal from at least one of said electrodes, an antenna, and a wireless interface(Hagedorn: Col. 10, lines 61-67; Fig. 12; Note: The PCB in Fig. 12 conducts the functionality of the system as a whole.),
wherein said noise-reduction circuitry and said filtering circuitry are both connected to said wireless interface (Hagedorn: Col. 10, lines 61-67) to permit transmission of said digital signal to a portable device via said antenna as a measurement signal (Hagedorn: Col. 6, lines 10-17; Col. 11, lines 51-56).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagedorn in view of US 20210282695 A1 to Goldstein et. al (hereinafter, Goldstein).
Regarding Claim 7 Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrodes comprise pins that resist being pushed back by a restoring force that increases as an extent to which said pins are pushed back increases.
However, Goldstein teaches wherein said electrodes comprise pins that resist being pushed back by a restoring force that increases as an extent to which said pins are pushed back increases (Goldstein: Para. [0096] ‘signal electrodes 4 may comprise multiple contact electrodes 5 in the nature of spring-loaded pins with contact heads 13.’).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the electrodes of Hagedorn to comprise the spring-loaded pins taught by Goldstein to ensure an adequate contact surface between the electrode head and the subject’s scalp (Goldstein: Para. [0095] ‘the skull is covered in hair and thus signal electrodes may need to ensure an adequate contact surface between the electrode head and the subject's scalp.’; Para. [0095] ‘The pin-like shape of the contact electrodes may allow for penetration through hair and increase the ability to form a good contact with the scalp, thereby increasing signal quality.’).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagedorn in view of US 5211174 A to Imran.
Regarding Claim 8 Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn does not explicitly disclose wherein each of said electrodes comprises a silicone layer
However, Imran teaches wherein each of said electrodes comprises a silicone layer (Imran: Para. Col. 2, lines 24-26 ‘an ECG electrode 11 is shown which incorporates therein a conductive silicone contact or element 12’; Col. 5, lines 33-37 ‘Although the electrode 11 has been discussed primarily for making ECG measurements, other skin type measurements such as EMG (electromyogram for muscle potential measurement), EEG (electroencephalogram for making brain wave measurements)…’) and
conductive pins that extend through said silicone layer (Imran: Col. 4, lines 41-43 ‘the conductive rods 42 extend through all of the outer surfaces of the silicone contact including 31, 32 and 33’).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the electrodes (sensors) of Hagedorn to comprise a silicone layer, with conductive pins extending through the silicone layer as taught by Imran to utilize the advantageous material properties of silicone (Imran: Col. 3, lines 16-20 ‘The conductive silicone contact 12 is formed of a conductive silicone. The silicone when cured is characterized in that it is dry and is very soft. It is nonconducting and has a tacky surface to the feel.’; Col. 3, lines 32-36 ‘when the gel and the catalyst are mixed together a silicone mass 41 is provided as shown in FIG. 7 in which conductive elements 42 are disposed. The conductive elements are formed of a material which is nonreactive to body fluids.’).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagedorn in view of US 20040122303 A1 to Kopke.
Regarding Claim 10 Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn discloses a headset with electrodes and an earcup (Hagedorn: Col. 9, lines 31-33; Figs. 6-8), but placement of an electrode on said earcup is absent from Hagedorn.
However, Kopke further teaches wherein said headset further comprises an electrode on said earcup (Kopke: Para. [0026] ‘electrodes mounted on the ear cushions of the headset’; Fig. 5).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the earcup of Hagedorn to implement an electrode on the ear cushion so that when worn, it is brought into contact with the head in front of the ear to detect a reference potential as taught by Kopke (Kopke: Para. [0026] ‘electrodes mounted on the ear cushions of the headset as well as on the headband of the headset. Usually three electrodes are used for each ear, namely a reference electrode for detecting a reference potential and two pickup electrodes.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagedorn in view of US 20210369190 A1 to Bauer et. al (hereinafter, Bauer).
Regarding Claim 11 Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn does not explicitly disclose a ground contact to provide a reference voltage for said electrodes.
However, Bauer teaches wherein said headset further comprises a ground contact to provide a reference voltage for said electrodes (Bauer: Para. [0023] ‘The data outputted by the electrodes are compared to that of a reference ground electrode ‘).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify EEG system of Hagedorn to implement a reference ground electrode as taught by Bauer, motivated by the need to compare data outputted by electrodes to the reference ground electrode to account for external variables that may influence data (Bauer: Para. [0023] ‘The data outputted by the electrodes are compared to that of a reference ground electrode 2 positioned behind the user's ear to account for external variables that may influence data. ’).
Claim(s) 12, 17-18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagedorn in view of US 20200298005 A1 to Howard.
Regarding Claim 12 Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn does not explicitly disclose the encephalograph further comprising a multiplexer that selects a signal from said electrodes for conversion into a digital signal.
However, Howard teaches wherein said electroencephalograph further comprises a multiplexer that selects a signal from said electrodes for conversion into a digital signal (Howard: Para. [0011] ‘The device may further comprise a multiplexer, coupled to a plurality of cells of circuitry adapted to receive and process the electrical neural signals, adapted to select at least one of the electrical neural signals from the plurality of fibers, and an analog-to-digital converter, coupled to the multiplexer, adapted to form digital data representing the electrical neural signals.).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the electroencephalograph of Hagedorn to include a multiplexer and a single ADC as taught by Howard for enhanced control of processing in order to reduce complexity (Howard: Para. [0522] ‘The Sequential Reading and Stimulation mode may share the same Mux/Demux block between ADCs and DACs. This method may reduce design complexity...’). This motivation to combine is shared with Claims 17-18, and 20-21.
Regarding Claim 17 Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn does not explicitly disclose wherein said electroencephalograph comprises an analog-to-digital converter and a multiplexer that receives analog signals from said electrodes, wherein said multiplexer comprises a selection input for selecting which of said analog signals is to be passed to said analog-to-digital converter.
However, Howard teaches an analog-to-digital converter and a multiplexer that receives analog signals from said electrodes, wherein said multiplexer comprises a selection input for selecting which of said analog signals is to be passed to said analog-to-digital converter (Howard: Para. [0011] ‘The device may further comprise a multiplexer, coupled to a plurality of cells of circuitry adapted to receive and process the electrical neural signals, adapted to select at least one of the electrical neural signals from the plurality of fibers, and an analog-to-digital converter, coupled to the multiplexer, adapted to form digital data representing the electrical neural signals.).
Regarding Claim 18 Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn does not explicitly disclose wherein said electroencephalograph comprises an analog-to-digital converter that samples an analog signal obtained from one of said electrodes and quantizes said analog signal into discrete levels to form a corresponding digital signal
However, Howard teaches an analog-to-digital converter that samples an analog signal obtained from one of said electrodes and quantizes said analog signal into discrete levels to form a corresponding digital signal (Howard: Para. [0158] ‘analog-to-digital converter circuitry (ADC) 9808, which may convert the analog signal to digital signals representative of the analog signals and may transmit 9810 the multiplexed digitized signals’).
Regarding Claim 20 Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn does not explicitly disclose further comprising a multiplexer that selects outputs from two of said electrodes, weights said outputs, and combines said outputs.
However, Howard teaches a multiplexer that selects outputs from two of said electrodes, weights said outputs, and combines said outputs (Howard: Para. [0158] ‘an analog signal multiplexer 9804, which may multiplex the multiple analog channels onto a lower number of multiplexed channels 9806.’).
Regarding Claim 21 Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn does not explicitly disclose further comprising a synthetic electrode, said synthetic electrode comprising weighted signals from at least two of said electrodes
However, Howard teaches a synthetic electrode, said synthetic electrode comprising weighted signals from at least two of said electrodes (Howard: Para. [0158] ‘an analog signal multiplexer 9804, which may multiplex the multiple analog channels onto a lower number of multiplexed channels 9806.’; Para. [0011] ‘The device may further comprise a digital-to analog converter, coupled to a multiplexer, adapted to form an analog electrical signal based on digital data representing a stimulation signal and a multiplexer, coupled to the circuitry adapted to transmit electrical neural signals, adapted to select at least one of the plurality of fibers to receive the analog electrical signal.’).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagedorn in view of US 5740812 A to Cowan.
Regarding Claim 14 Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn further discloses further comprising a headband (Hagedorn: Fig. 6-9; Note: The headband is interpreted to be items 606, 608, and 610 combined), a housing (Hagedorn: Fig. 8, item 610), and
While Hagedorn further discloses wherein the sensors of the encephalograph are configured to attach and detach from the headband (Hagedorn: Col. 9, lines 42-51; Fig. 8, items 612 & 610), a fastener that provides a mechanical coupling between said housing and said headband, whereby said headband is separable from said headset and re-attachable to said headset is absent from Hagedorn.
However, Cowan teaches a fastener that provides a mechanical coupling between said housing and said headband, whereby said headband is separable from said headset and re-attachable to said headset (Cowan: Col. 3, line 66-Col. 4, line 10)
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the housing of Hagedorn to be secured coupled to the headband as taught by Cowan. If it were considered desirable for any reason to separate the housing from the headband to which it is connected, it would be obvious to make the housing detachable for that purpose. See MPEP 2144.04 V. C..
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagedorn in view of US 20210290132 A1 to Hendler et al. (hereinafter, Hendler).
Regarding Claim 16 Hagedorn discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hagedorn further discloses wherein said brain-training system further comprises remote circuitry (Hagedorn: Col. 7, lines 7-15),
said remote circuitry receives a measurement signal and transmits, in response, a conditioning stimulus (Col. 8, line 61 – Col. 9, line 3; Fig. 5),
said conditioning stimulus having been tailored to cause features extracted from said measurement signal to move towards features in a target feature-set that corresponds to a desired mental state that is provided by a user of said electroencephalograph (Hagedorn: Col. 11, lines 51-56; Fig. 5).
Hagedorn does not explicitly disclose wherein said electroencephalograph is one of a plurality of encephalographs that are all in communication with said remote circuitry.
However, Hendler teaches wherein said electroencephalograph is one of a plurality of encephalographs that are all in communication with said remote circuitry (Hendler: Para. [0123] ‘a memory of the device comprises at least one EEG-EFP, or a plurality of EEG-EFPs, which are optionally personalized to the patient, and indicate an activation level of at least one specific brain region in the patient. Alternatively, the at least one EEG-EFP or the plurality of EEG-EFPs, optionally personalized to the patient, are stored in a remote server, for example a remote server of a cloud storage.’).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the remote server taught by Hagedorn to include a plurality of electroencephalographs that are all in communication with the remote circuitry as taught by Hendler to identify relations between EEG signatures (Hendler: Para. [0123] ‘to identify a relation between an activity signature of the at least one specific brain region, for example an activity signature also termed herein as an EEG electrical fingerprint (EEG-EFP), and at least a portion of the at least one electrical signal’) and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. MPEP 2144.04(VI-B).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-4pm EST..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights