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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II claims 31-34 in the reply filed on 09/09/2025 is acknowledged. While not specifically stated, election is made as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1 & 21-27 and 9, 14, & 28-30 have been withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Status of Claims
In reply filed on 09 September 2025 the following changes have been made: claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15-20 have been cancelled. Claims 31-34 have been added
Claims 31-34 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice to Applicant
Examiner acknowledges [0040] of the specification disclosing a user can be “a patient, a family member of the patient, or a caregiver.”
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 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as process (claims 31-34).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 31 recites steps of
determining, by a processor, based on background information indicating one or more of a physical condition and a living environment of a patient, a symptom management method that includes one or more of a subject management item to be managed at the time of managing a symptom of the patient and an intervention method for the patient corresponding to the one or more of the subject management item, the intervention method including an intervention condition and a notice content when satisfying the intervention condition;
outputting, by a processor, each of the intervention condition and the notice content as one of a plurality of symptom management items on a display of a symptom management apparatus via an output unit so as to display the intervention method corresponding to the subject management item to be managed at the time of managing the symptom of the patient;
receiving, by the processor, a change by a user to the intervention condition and the notice content via an input unit; and
setting, by the processor, a terminal device via a communication unit such that the terminal device executes a symptom management according to the symptom management method reflecting the change by the user.
These steps for an intervention method, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by organizing the activity around executing a symptom management method based on an intervention method that includes an intervention condition and notice of content. This could be analogized to considering historical usage information while inputting data, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements non-italicized portions identified above for claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as
recitation of by a processor; outputting, by a processor, each of the intervention condition and the notice content as one of a plurality of symptom management items on a display of a symptom management apparatus via an output unit so as to display the intervention method corresponding to the subject management item to be managed at the time of managing the symptom of the patient; and, setting, by the processor, a terminal device via a communication unit such that the terminal device executes a symptom management according to the symptom management method reflecting the change by the user amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receiving […] a change by a user to the intervention condition and the notice content via an input unit amounts to mere data gathering since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Each of the above additional element(s) therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity, and also add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as by a processor; outputting, by a processor, each of the intervention condition and the notice content as one of a plurality of symptom management items on a display of a symptom management apparatus via an output unit so as to display the intervention method corresponding to the subject management item to be managed at the time of managing the symptom of the patient; and, setting, by the processor, a terminal device via a communication unit such that the terminal device executes a symptom management according to the symptom management method reflecting the change by the user, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f).
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of receiving […] a change by a user to the intervention condition and the notice content via an input unit, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 32-34 reciting particular aspects of an intervention method such as
[Claims 32] outputting, by a processor, basal information, which is related to the intervention condition, as another of the plurality of symptom management items on the display of the symptom management apparatus together with each of the plurality of symptom management items indicating each of the intervention condition and the notice content;
[Claims 33] receiving, by the processor, a change by the user to the basal information via the input unit;
[Claims 34] displaying the plurality of symptom management items as panes on the display;
these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity but for recitation of generic computer components since they merely describe types of data and determinations performed by humans).
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 32-34 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claim 32 (outputting, by a processor, basal information, which is related to the intervention condition; and, on the display of the symptom management apparatus), claim 34 (displaying the plurality of symptom management items as panes on the display), amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea such as claim 33 (receiving […] a change by the user to the basal information via the input unit) amounts to mere data gathering since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 32 & 34 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0040] which provides a list of various off-the-shelf computing devices, [0045] which provides a list of various off-the-shelf processing units, and [0051] which provides examples of various computer readable devices. Dependent claim 33 amounts to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tran et al. (US10998101B1).
Regarding claim 31, Tran discloses determining, by a processor, based on background information indicating one or more of a physical condition and a living environment of a patient ([pg. 6] “a sensor device includes a set of one or more sensors configured to obtain vital signs and motion data samples, and one or more processors coupled to the set of sensors.” [pg. 9] “The device 102 can detect various health states of the user, for example, good, fair, or bad.” [pg. 11] “The sensor can also include an indoor positioning system or alternatively a global position system (GPS) receiver that relays the position and ambulatory patterns of the patient to the server for mobility tracking”)
a symptom management method that includes one or more of a subject management item to be managed at the time of managing a symptom of the patient and an intervention method for the patient corresponding to the one or more of the subject management item, the intervention method including an intervention condition and a notice content when satisfying the intervention condition ([pg. 27] “In one preferred embodiment, the system guides participants diagnosed with prediabetes to lose weight to reduce their risk of developing diabetes.” [pg. 31] “In an example, promoting a therapeutic intervention can include activating an application executable on a mobile device associated with the user; and providing the therapeutic intervention through the application (e.g., in association with presenting the visual representation of the physical activity metric at the application, such as in parallel, in serial, etc.). The therapeutic interventions is preferably based on one or more physical activity metrics (e.g., recommending an increased frequency of outdoor walks based on a physical activity metric indicating a lower than average number of footsteps relative the user subgroup, etc.)” [pg. 27] “The progress feedback can display details and analyses of progress achieved by a given user in the health regimen such as a trend in a body metric measurement of the user”)
outputting, by a processor, each of the intervention condition and the notice content as one of a plurality of symptom management items on a display of a symptom management apparatus via an output unit so as to display the intervention method corresponding to the subject management item to be managed at the time of managing the symptom of the patient ([pg. 28] “In an example of displaying progress in relation to sub-programs, the system can be operable to determine a personal completion percentage for each human of the human subgroup based on a set of physical activity metrics (e.g., whether the physical activity metrics meet the weight loss goals and/or motion dataset-related goals associated with the sub-programs)” [pg. 31] “The providing feedback to the user can include displaying the physical activity metric in the body metric measurements of the user […] One or both of these physical activity metrics may be displayed on a profile page of the user in a user interface. The physical activity metrics are preferably displayed on charts as a function of time, with any suitable time divisions (e.g., daily, biweekly, weekly, monthly).”)
receiving, by the processor, a change by a user to the intervention condition and the notice content via an input unit ([pg. 35] “the user can enter a value to be defined as the RHR. Since the RHR may vary according to the user's health condition on a given day, the absolute value for workout intension may also vary. The range between RHR and MHR is divided into 10 parts. The current heart rate, the RHR and the MHR are used as parameters to calculate the current workout intensity.” [pg. 31] “the user may select settings such as to enable the coach and/or other participants to view a physical activity metric of his weight measurements represented in percentage of change”)
and setting, by the processor, a terminal device via a communication unit such that the terminal device executes a symptom management according to the symptom management method reflecting the change by the user ([pg. 36] “by the processor” [pg. 31] “In an example, promoting a therapeutic intervention can include activating an application executable on a mobile device associated with the user. […] In examples, the therapeutic intervention can include a personalized therapeutic intervention for the user (e.g., determined based on the physical activity metrics generated specifically for the user based on collected body metric measurement datasets for the user, etc.).”)
Regarding claim 32, Tran discloses outputting, by a processor, basal information, which is related to the intervention condition, as another of the plurality of symptom management items on the display of the symptom management apparatus together with each of the plurality of symptom management items indicating each of the intervention condition and the notice content ([pgs. 27-28] “User progress in the form of visuals and/or analyzed metrics is shown as a source of motivation for the user following a health regimen. […] The progress feedback may be further configured to display […] other personalized biometric data (e.g. current weight, height, age, body mass index). […] the progress feedback and profile page for a user are non-distinct pages.”)
Regarding claim 33, Tran discloses receiving, by the processor, a change by the user to the basal information via the input unit ([pg. 8] “personal computer, a smartphone, a tablet, or any other appropriate computing device that is configured to perform the data processing, evaluation, and/or feedback” [pg. 9] “The request sent by the disease management server may be in the form of surveys designed to collect particular information. The surveys may be targeted to collect information about a patient's dietary behavior (e.g., carbohydrate intake, portion control), self-monitoring of blood glucose, medication doses, physical activity, psychological status, alcohol intake, smoking activity, and any other information that might affect the patient's well-being such as blood lipid level, blood pressure, age, gender, height and weight, or race. The local computer 104 or the server at center 120 may prompt the user to enter information by displaying the survey and receiving the patient's responses to the questions posed in the survey.”)
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al. (US10998101B1) in view of Tran2 (US20180184907A1).
Regarding claim 34, Tran does not explicitly disclose however Tran2 teaches displaying the plurality of symptom management items as panes on the display ([0257] “FIG. 15E shows an exemplary multi-station vital parameter user interface for a professional embodiment.” Also, see Figure 15E which discloses displaying the plurality of symptom management items as panes.)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Tran displaying the plurality of symptom management items as panes on the display as taught by Tran2 since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed on 09 September 2025 have been considered, but are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the title objection, applicant has presented an amended title which is now reflected on the application. Therefore, the title objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the USC 101 rejection, applicant explains the language of the added claim(s) and then for eligibility under Step 2A Prong 2 first points to the specification and especially [0063] & Figure 4 explaining how the determination of the expert involved in inputting data for updating the symptom management method to perform a more appropriate symptom management. Applicant points to [0098] which explains on how the updating step for the symptom management method can lead to a more appropriate symptom management. Applicant states that under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by performing a more appropriate symptom management by reflecting a determination of a doctor in their selection of the symptom management method. Applicant requests withdrawal of the USC 101 rejection.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. The MPEP makes it abundantly clear that claims can recite can abstract idea even if they are performed on a computer. The MPEP also shows that the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite an abstract idea even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely by a human. The claims themselves do not go beyond what a human can do as will be further explained below. Examiner asserts that the present new claims are still not helpful and do not advance prosecution with respect to U.S.C. 101 under Step 2A Prong 2 because the specification provides a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The MPEP provides that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field can signal eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(a), and provides examples of improvements to computer functionality, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and improvements to any other technology of technical field, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool”. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification' s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. Unlike Enfish, the instant claimed invention appears to improve upon a judicial exception rather than a problem in the software arts. Rather than improving a computer's algorithm (i.e. solving a technically based problem), the claimed invention purports to solve the non-technological problems of extraordinary time & labor, difficultly to cope with individual patients with different backgrounds, and difficult for the patient who has cognitive aging ([0008] of the specification) through generically applying computer components as a tool for symptom management. Applicant needs to understand that one of the main/glaring issues is the specification does not show or describe a technological problem. Applicant’s own specification ([0003]-[0008]) suggests that previously the invention could be performed by doctors. Applicant is simply using computers in place of human effort to aid in symptom management. The applicant is clearly improving upon the judicial exception and not improving computer technology. The examiner asserts the following facts: 1) the invention does NOT involve a novel algorithm or data structure that significantly improves the computer's functionality, 2) the invention does NOT involve a new hardware component or configuration that works with the computer to achieve a specific technical benefit, and 3) the computer is NOT used in a completely new way demonstrating a significant technical advancement. Applicant’s cited portions of the specification, [0063] & [0098], literally admits to using computers to improve upon the abstract idea (i.e., perform a more appropriate symptom management by reflecting the determination of the user such as a doctor in the selection of the symptom management method). Improvement to the abstract idea of symptom management is not an improvement to computer technology. Thus, examiner does not see how the present claims improve the functioning of a computer or provide improvements to any other technology or technical field. The claimed invention appears similar to the example of improvements that are insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality such as arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(viii). The applicant’s specification does not show or describe a deficiency in existing computer technology. The asserted benefits seem to come as a result of the use of general-purpose computers. The broad claims are lacking concrete limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, in light of the generic disclosure of the specification, can be further characterized as a drafting attempt to monopolize the judicial exception; also confirmed by multiple subject matter experts. Examiner points out that the claimed limitations have no indication in the specification that the operations recited invoke any inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (fed Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). Most importantly, in DDR Holdings & unlike the present claims, the claims at issue specified how interactions with the Internet were manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrode the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink. 773 F.3d at 1258; 113 USPQ2d at 1106. The examiner also points out that there is no indication in the specification that the claimed invention affects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Furthermore, examiner also points out that reducing or improving upon human labor and time to perform a more appropriate symptom management by reflecting the determination of the user such as a doctor ([0008], [0063], and [0098] of the specification) are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality as set forth by the courts in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. This further supports the examiner’s assertion that the present invention does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To show an involvement of a computer assists in improving technology, the claims must recite details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems the courts found that the claims were “directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality…” (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The present invention does not meet the condition set forth by the courts and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims also do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The applicant has not demonstrated that their invention is inventive. As explained above, the USC 101 is firmly cemented for the present invention that does not justify withdrawal of the rejection. Therefore, the USC 101 rejection is strongly maintained.
Regarding the USC 102 rejection, examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments and asserts that the substantial disclosure of Tran still discloses the new claimed limitations in the present application. Additionally, under USC 103, another Tran reference has been cited for claim 34. Therefore, the USC 102 rejection is still maintained.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
Yun, J., Lee, Y., & Lee, H. J. (2022). A comparison of health-related quality of life and personal, social, and environmental factors of older adults according to a residential area: A propensity score matching analysis. Quality of Life Research, 31(9), 2631-2643.
This reference is relevant because is discloses symptom management matching a physical condition or a living environment of an individual patient.
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 WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM 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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/W.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687