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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner states that the claims are replete with errors and has attempted to document all instances, but encourages the Applicant to properly formulate the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: there’s space between commas and words; there also “…” after age in the limitation “outcome to make retrospective studies”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner states that the different training models listed in claims 2 and 9 are interpreted as Markush claims. See MPEP 2117.
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.
Claims 2-3, 9-11, and 16-17 are 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.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite “training a predictive computer model based on…and their outcome to….” (all instances in the claims). Examiner is unable to find support in the specification regarding training a predictive computer model to provide the outcomes laid out in the claims. The specification does provide support of using models to provide an outcome, but fails to show the actual training of the model.
Claims 3 and 10 recite “rated based upon scientific basis.” Examiner fails to find support for the limitation.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 recite the limitation “accessed without authorization but under law standards in case of emergency.” Examiner fails to find support of what authorization under law standards is permitted; it fails to teach the standards needed to access patients’ data.
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 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 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.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite “giving each health-related facility a unique universal predefined permanent ID.”
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite “training a predictive computer model based on…and their outcome to….”. Examiner is unable to determine if a single predictive computer model is being trained or multiple models are being trained. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the claim limitation to train a single model to outcome different types of results.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the limitation "allowing the connection". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 and 9 recite the limitation “allowing the connection”. Examiner is unable to determine what exactly is allowing the connection. For examination purposes, a permanent ID of a user allows users to connect with each other using a computer with a network.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. The claim recites “based on…etc.”. The “etc.” in the claim language renders to claim to be an omnibus type claim. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the claim to be based on any of the personal information to provide an outcome.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the limitation “training a predictive computer model based on values of the unique universal predefined permanent ID of the users e.g. the DNA, to understand familial relations between users.” The claim recites exemplary claim language and causes confusion over the intended scope of the claim. Examiner is having difficulty figuring out metes and bounds of the claim and therefore is indefinite. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets permanent ID to be identification that never changes for a user and is analyzed in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claims 3 and 10 recite “rated based upon scientific basis.” Examiner is unable to determine what exactly it means to be rated based on scientific basis and the specification does not provide any guidance. Furthermore, claim 1 from which the claim depends does not provide limitation where healthcare facilities are even being rated, therefore, how can they be rated when that step hasn’t occurred. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets being rated upon specialty related to the patient interest.
Claims 3 and 10 recite the limitation "wherein the health facilities and professionals". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 recite the limitation “accessed without authorization but under law standards in case of emergency.” Examiner is unable to determine which law standards the claim is referring to and provides no way of understanding. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the law standard to conform to the HIPPA standards when accessing patient’s data over network.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 recite the limitation "wherein some of the patients’ data". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 recite the limitation "wherein the Synchronizer module". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 recite the limitation "wherein the robotic surgical module". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 recite the limitation "wherein training the artificial intelligence computer model". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, there is no artificial intelligence model in claims 1 and 8 to be defined what that would pertain. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets training the artificial intelligence model to be based on information from previous surgeries.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “module” in claims 5-6 and 18-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1-7), machine (claims 8-14), and article of manufacture (claims 15-20). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 8 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 8 recites:
A system comprising:
-a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions encoded thereon; and
-one or more processors configured to, when executing the instructions, perform operations of:
-giving each health-related individual a unique universal predefined permanent ID.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: “certain methods of organizing human activity” because giving a unique ID to an individual is managing interactions between people.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A system (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) comprising:
-a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions encoded thereon (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 11); and
-one or more processors configured to, when executing the instructions, perform operations of (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 11):
-giving each health-related individual a unique universal predefined permanent ID.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 1 and 15 and analogous independent claim 8 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. Accordingly, representative independent claims 1 and 15 and analogous independent claim 8 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 2, 9, and 16: The claims specify allowing a connection and training a predictive computer model, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 3 and 10: The claims specify health facilities and professionals rated on, which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the use of at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 4, 11, and 17: The claims specify accessing patients’ data using law standards, which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the use of at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 5, 12, and 18: The claims specify synchronizer module, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 6, 13, and 19: The claims specify robotic surgical module, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 7, 14, and 20: The claims specify training artificial intelligence module, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims 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, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as giving a universal predefined permanent ID, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Dependent claims 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. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, and 18-19, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 2, 9, and 16 (allowing connection), 5, 12, 18 (synchronizer module allows connection), 6, 13, 19 (robotic module performing remotely) 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.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-20
are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 (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 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 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reddy (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0392629).
As per claim 1, Reddy teaches a computer implemented method, comprising:
-giving each health-related individual a unique universal predefined permanent ID (Reddy: para. 44; Register users via biometrics (i.e. permanent ID).).
As per claim 2, the method of claim 1 is as described. Reddy further teaches wherein giving each health-related facility a unique universal predefined permanent ID (Reddy: para. 44; Register users or health organizations (para. 18).);
-allowing the connection between any health-related individual user with any other (Reddy: para. 38; para. 61);
-allowing the connection any health-related individual user with any health facility (Reddy: para. 38; para. 56);
-allowing the connection between any health facility with any other health facility (Reddy: para. 38);
-training a predictive computer model based on values of the health status of the patients, their personal information like gender, family history, geographic location, age ...etc and their outcome to discover new drugs (Reddy: para. 36; para. 48);
-training a predictive computer model based on values of the health status of the patient, their personal information like gender, family history, geographic location, age ..etc and their outcome to discover new uses of existing drugs (Reddy: para. 36; para. 48);
-training a predictive computer model based on values of the health status of the patient and their personal information like gender, family history, geographic location, age ...etc, their personal information and their outcome to rate the existing drugs (Reddy: para. 36; para. 48);
-training a predictive computer model based on values of the health status of the patient and their outcome to rate the health professional (Reddy: para. 36; para. 48);
-training a predictive computer model based on values of the health status of the patients, their financial status, their geographic location and their outcome to recommend a suitable health professional for the patient (Reddy: para. 36; para. 48);
-training a predictive computer model based on values of the health status of the patient and their outcome to rate the health facilities (Reddy: para. 36; para. 48);
-training a predictive computer model based on values of the health status of the patients, their financial status, their geographic location and their outcome to recommend a suitable health facility for the patient (Reddy: para. 36; para. 48);
-training a predictive computer model based on values of the health status of the patient and their outcome to make artificial intelligence based diagnosis software (Reddy: para. 36; para. 48);
-training a predictive computer model based on values of the health status of the patients, their personal information like gender, family history, geographic location, age…etc., their personal information and their outcome to make retrospective studies (Reddy: para. 36; para. 48);
-training a predictive computer model based on values of the unique universal predefined permanent ID of the users e.g. the DNA, to understand familial relations between users (Reddy: para. 36; para. 48).
As per claim 5, the method of claim 1 is as described. Reddy further teaches wherein the Synchronizer module allows connection between users or different medical platforms (Reddy: para. 38).
Claims 8-9, 12, 15-16, and 18 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 1-2 and 5, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
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.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0392629) in view of Dobson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0410223).
As per claim 3, the method of claim 1 is as described. Reddy does not explicitly teach the following, however, Dobson teaches wherein the health facilities and professionals are rated based upon scientific basis (Dobson: para. 75; Providing communities based on specialties or diagnosis, etc.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Dobson would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Dobson to the teachings of Reddy would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying rating medical professionals to Reddy teaching a communication platform for healthcare would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a system that matched patients with proper providers and thus providing faster and quicker healthcare.
As per claim 4, the method of claim 1 is as described. Reddy does not explicitly teach the following, however, Dobson teaches wherein some of the patients’ data can be accessed without authorization but under law standards in case of emergency (Dobson: para. 50; Communicate with one another within HIPPA laws.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Dobson would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Dobson to the teachings of Reddy would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying medical information communicated according to law to Reddy teaching a communication platform for healthcare would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a system that provide an added level of security to patient information.
Claims 10-11 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 3-4, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0392629) in view of Rosson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0252247).
As per claim 6, the method of claim 1 is as described. Reddy does not explicitly teach the following, however, Rosson teaches wherein the robotic surgical module allows performing remote robotic surgeries even from other countries (Rosson: para. 80).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Dobson would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Dobson to the teachings of Reddy would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying performing surgeries to Reddy teaching a communication platform for healthcare would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a system that saves time and costs (para. 3-4).
As per claim 7, the method of claim 1 is as described. Reddy does not explicitly teach the following, however, Rosson teaches wherein training the artificial intelligence computer model based on values of robotic surgical surgeries to assist in and perform surgeries (Rosson: figure 5).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 6.
Claims 13-14 and 19-20 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 6-7, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arnold et al. – U.S. Patent No. 12,045,367 – Teaches a system for validating users for communicating health information.
Kanade et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2016/0063190 – Teaches a system for registering patient health information and authenticating access.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Peter H Choi can be reached on (469) 295-9171. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686