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 1st January 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 4-13, 15 & 19 are pending. Claims 2-3, 14, 16-18 & 20 are canceled. Applicants amendments have overcome the objection previously applied. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicants arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues that Claim 1 does not describe an abstract concept, or a concept similar to those found by the courts to be abstract, such as a mental process. Applicant further asserts that the human mind is not equipped to perform claimed features, and recites steps performed by the identified additional elements.
The additional elements are not part of the abstract idea, they are identified as additional elements that are generically recited within the claims and do not provide significantly more, and remain so, with the amendments.
The steps are, as previously stated in the office action dated 2nd October 2025, the abstract ideas grouped as a mental process including receiving data, manipulating data, and making determinations based on the data, and data output in the form of an alert. There is nothing providing significantly more with the data, nor does generically reciting additional elements that perform the abstract idea providing significantly more. The abstract ideas underlined in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement, and evaluation/opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The limitations as underlined in the rejection below are mere data gathering, and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 is similar to claim 2 of Example 37, in that Claim 1 requires machine execution of EEG signal calibration, spike threshold derivation, and device control—operations that inherently require electronic signal acquisition, memory access, and processor execution. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. Claim 2 of Example 37 is eligible because the determining step is accomplished by using a processor that tracks memory allocated to each application associated with each icon, which cannot be practically performed with the human mind. In contrast, Claim 1 of Applicant’s amended claims contain determining steps that do not require any processor to perform tracking of memory allocation as suggested, as shown in the rejection below and reiterated here:
“detect at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals based on a comparison of the received one or more brain signals against the spike threshold (Observation, Judgement), wherein the detected at least one spike indicates an increase in a stress level of the user (Evaluation/Opinion);
determine (i) a first set of users based on the detected at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals is greater than the spike threshold (Judgement), and (ii) a second set of users based on the detected at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals is equal to the spike threshold (Judgement)
determine (i) a first set of one or more actions to be triggered based on the detected at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals is greater than the spike threshold (Judgement), and (ii) a second set of actions to be triggered based on the detected at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals is equal to the spike threshold (Judgement).”
All of the steps above are well-within the capabilities to be practically performed in the human mind, that is, other than any generic recitation of additional elements within the claim language, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5 & Claim 15, line 6, ‘one more temple tips’ should read ‘one or more temple tips’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-13, 15, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, “…the detected one or more brain signals correspond to an electroencephalography (EEG) signal associated with a brain of the user”, “calibrate the received one or more brain signals based on analysis of parameters of the captured one or more brain signals…”, “…detect at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals based on a comparison of the received one or more brain signals against the spike threshold”, “a first set of users based on the detected at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals”, “a second set of users based on the detected at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals”, “the detected at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals”, the underlined portions of which lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 1 & 15, “the spike threshold” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner recommends amending to read “the value of spike threshold”, as best understood by the disclosure.
Claims 1 & 15 recites “a first set of users”, it is unclear if the initially recited “a user” is part of “a first set of users” or not, rendering Claims 1 & 15 indefinite. Similarly, Claims 1 & 15 recite “a second set of users”, it is unclear if the initially recited “a user” is part of “a second set of users” or not, rendering Claims 1 & 15 indefinite.
Claims 1 & 15 recite “a first set of user devices” and “a second set of user devices”, it is unclear if the initially recited “a first user device” is part of “a first set of user devices”, “a second set of user devices” or not, rendering Claims 1 & 15 indefinite.
Claim 10, “calibrate the captured one or more brain signals, wherein the calibration of the one or more brain signals…”, “…at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals based on the calibration”, the underlined portions of which lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 11, “…at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals”, the underlined portion of which lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 15 recites “receiving one or more brain signals”, then later recites “the one or more electrodes detect one or more brain signals”, it is unclear whether this limitation is the same one or more brain signals as previously recited or not, rendering claim 15 indefinite.
Claim 15, “wherein the received one or more brain signals correspond to an electroencephalography (EEG) signal…”, “…calibrating the received one or more brain signals based on analysis of parameters of the one or more brain signals…”, “at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals based on a comparison of the received one or more brain signals against the spike threshold”, “at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals is greater than the spike threshold”, “at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals is equal to the spike threshold”, the underlined portions of which lack sufficient antecedent basis.
The term “specific” in claims 7, 9 & 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “specific” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, ‘specific action’ renders Claims 7, 9 & 19 indefinite.
Claims 4-13 and 19 are rejected for their dependence on a rejected parent claim.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 1 recites ‘a wearable device worn by a user’, which appears to positively recite a human organism. Examiner recommends amending to ‘a wearable device configured to be worn by a user’.
For the purposes of compact prosecution the following Subject Matter Eligibility 101 analysis is provided, assuming these changes are made.
Claims 1, 4-13, 15 & 19 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.
Each of Claims 1, 4-13, 15 & 19 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1, 4-13, 15 & 19 recites at least one step or instruction for data gathering, comparing data, making determinations based on the data, and outputting data and alerts, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1, 4-13, 15 & 19 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claims 1 and 15 recite:
Claim 1: An alerting system comprising: a processor; a wearable device worn by a user,
wherein the wearable device is an eyeglass that includes one or more temple tips and one or more electrodes attached to the one more temple tips,
each of the one or more electrodes includes a metal disc attachable to a scalp of the user, when worn by the user,
the one or more electrodes are configured to detect one or more brain signals associated with the user,
the detected one or more brain signals correspond to an electroencephalography (EEG) signal associated with a brain of the user, and
the wearable device comprises a hardware button, and a subscriber identity module (SIM) card or an embedded SIM configured to enable cellular communication from the wearable device; and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores a plurality of processor-executable instructions which upon execution by the processor cause the processor to:
receive the one or more brain signals detected (Observation) by the wearable device;
calibrate the received one or more brain signals based on analysis of parameters of the captured one or more brain signals to determine a value of spike threshold (Observation), wherein the parameters include a sampling rate, a sensitivity, an amplifier integrity, and a frequency;
detect at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals based on a comparison of the received one or more brain signals against the spike threshold (Observation, Judgement), wherein the detected at least one spike indicates an increase in a stress level of the user (Evaluation/Opinion);
determine (i) a first set of users based on the detected at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals is greater than the spike threshold (Judgement), and (ii) a second set of users based on the detected at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals is equal to the spike threshold (Judgement)
determine (i) a first set of one or more actions to be triggered based on the detected at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals is greater than the spike threshold (Judgement), and (ii) a second set of actions to be triggered based on the detected at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals is equal to the spike threshold (Judgement); and
control a first user device to trigger the first set of actions to a first set of user devices associated with the first set of users, when the detected at least one spike is greater than the spike threshold, and
the second set of actions to a second set of user devices associated with the second set of users, when the detected at least one spike is equal to the spike threshold,
wherein the control of the first user device is initiated based on cellular communication enabled by the SIM card or the embedded SIM of the wearable device.
Claim 15: A method comprising: receiving one or more brain signals (Observation) from a wearable device worn by a user, wherein the received one or more brain signals correspond to an electroencephalography (EEG) signal associated with a brain of the user,
wherein the wearable device is an eyeglass that includes one or more temple tips and one or more electrodes attached to the one more temple tips,
each of the one or more electrodes includes a metal disc attachable to a scalp of the user, when worn by the user,
the one or more electrodes detect one or more brain signals associated with the user, and
the wearable device comprises a hardware button, and a subscriber identity module (SIM) card or an embedded SIM configured to enable cellular communication from the wearable device;
calibrating the received one or more brain signals based on analysis of parameters of the one or more brain signals to determine a value of spike threshold (Judgement), wherein the parameters include a sampling rate, a sensitivity, an amplifier integrity, and a frequency;
detecting at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals based on a comparison of the received one or more brain signals against the spike threshold, wherein the detected at least one spike indicates an increase in a stress level of the user (Judgement);
determining (i) a first set of users based on the detected at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals is greater than the spike threshold, and (ii) a second set of users based on the detected at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals is equal to the spike threshold (Judgement)
determining (i) a first set of actions to be triggered based on the detected at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals is greater than the spike threshold, and (ii) a second set of actions to be triggered based on the detected at least one spike in the received one or more brain signals is equal to the spike threshold (Judgement); and
controlling a first user device to trigger the first set of actions to a first set of user devices associated with the first set of users, when the detected at least one spike is greater than the spike threshold, or the second set of actions to a second set of user devices associated with the second set of users, when the detected at least one spike is equal to the spike threshold, wherein the control of the first user device is initiated based on cellular communication enabled by the SIM card or the embedded SIM of the wearable device.
Regarding the dependent claims, the following dependent claims are directed to steps that are also abstract.
Claims 5, 7, 10-11, 13, and 19 include steps that are also abstract as a mental process through additional data gathering or analysis
Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 15 (and their respective dependent Claims 4-13 & 19) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 15), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: processor; memory; wearable device; user device(s); one or more electrodes; SIM card (or embedded SIM card); trigger at least a first action associated with an initiation of a first call; and set of user devices; controlling a first user device to trigger the first set of actions to a first set of user devices associated with the first set of users, when the detected at least one spike is greater than the spike threshold, or the second set of actions to a second set of user devices associated with the second set of users, when the detected at least one spike is equal to the spike threshold, wherein the control of the first user device is initiated based on cellular communication enabled by the SIM card or the embedded SIM of the wearable device are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) performing extra-solution data-gathering which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., processor as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1, 4-13, 15 & 19 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: processor; memory; wearable device; user device(s); one or more electrodes; SIM card (or embedded SIM card); trigger at least a first action associated with an initiation of a first call; and set of user devices; controlling a first user device to trigger the first set of actions to a first set of user devices associated with the first set of users, when the detected at least one spike is greater than the spike threshold, or the second set of actions to a second set of user devices associated with the second set of users, when the detected at least one spike is equal to the spike threshold, wherein the control of the first user device is initiated based on cellular communication enabled by the SIM card or the embedded SIM of the wearable device.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, processor (Para. [54]); memory (Para. [55]); user device(s) (Para. [45]); wearable device (Para. [44]); one or more electrodes (Para. [72]); and set of user devices (Para. [47]),
In light of the specification, regarding the limitation of “control a first user device to trigger the first set of actions to a first set of user device”, actions are defined as calling or texting, which would be considered data output completed on a generic mobile phone, which appears to be either a mental process of providing an opinion or essentially extra-solutionary data output.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term processor is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to further recite additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art or steps that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment of field of use.
Claims 4-13 and 19 recite additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art
Claims 4, 10 and 12 include steps that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1, 4-13, 15 & 19 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatus, system, and method of Claims 1, 4-13, 15 & 19 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1, 4-13, 15 & 19 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 15 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1, 4-13, 15 & 19 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1, 4-13, 15 & 19 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1, 4-13, 15 & 19 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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