DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶[001], a publication date of U.S. Patent No. 8,923,490 should be changed from “30 December 2016” to “30 December 2014”.
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 14 to 20 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 claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 14 sets forth limitations of “storing the communication in a first search index associated with the first threshold amount in lieu of a second searchable index associated with a second threshold amount, the first searchable index being different than the second searchable index”, which raise issues of new matter under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Here, there is no express support for this limitation directed to “in lieu of a second searchable index . . .” in the originally filed Specification. Generally, Applicant’s Specification sets forth twelve occurrences of the term “searchable” as descriptive of customer call indexes or databases, but does not expressly describe “a first searchable index” and “a second searchable index”. Certainly, Applicants’ Specification, as originally filed, does not expressly set forth storing the communication in a first searchable index “in lieu of” a second searchable index. The Specification, ¶[0038] - ¶[0039], briefly describes “one or more threshold amounts” with a single call meeting more than one threshold being placed into multiple indexes. However, Applicant’s Specification does not provide any description of storing a communication in a first searchable index “in lieu of” a second searchable index with the first searchable index being different than the second searchable index. Nor is it evident how to construe this limitation given an absence of written description in the Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1 to 2, 8 to 9, 13 to 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Erb (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0110157) in view of Korenblit et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0195944).
Concerning independent claims 1, 8, and 14, Erb discloses a method, apparatus, and computer-readable medium code for managing a call, comprising:
“in connection with receiving communication information associated with a communication between a user and a receiving system” – system 50 manages a call between communication device 100 associated with first user 105 and communication device 110 associated with second user 115 (¶[0016]: Figure 1); call answer unit 125 (“a receiving system”) is enabled to monitor a call including an initial interaction with first user 105 and/or monitoring a call while first user 105 is interacting with second user 115; call answer unit 125 may provide user 105 with information regarding providing a satisfaction level 135 (“information associated with a communication”) (¶[0019]: Figure 1); call data capture unit 127 captures call data associated with an interaction on the call between first user 105 and second user 115 including a satisfaction level associated with the call (¶[0037]: Figure 2: Step 220);
“determining, based on the communication of information, a determination element that satisfies a threshold amount” – a satisfaction level going beyond a threshold satisfaction level may comprise the satisfaction level falling below a threshold satisfaction level or the satisfaction level rising above a threshold satisfaction level (¶[0019]: Figure 1); call data capture unit 127 is enabled to transmit a trigger 141 to handling point 140 if the satisfaction level associated with the call goes beyond a threshold satisfaction level (¶[0023]: Figure 1); it is determined if the satisfaction level associated with the call goes beyond the threshold satisfaction level (¶[0040]: Figure 2: Step 230);
“based on the communication element satisfying the threshold amount, storing the communication in a searchable index associated with the threshold amount” – call data is logged for follow-up by a handling point specialized in dealing with satisfaction level if the satisfaction level goes beyond a threshold satisfaction level (Abstract); switch 120 is coupled to database 132 for storing at least call information record 134 comprising information associated with first user 105; call information record 134 may comprise at least a portion of call data 129 including a call recording (“storing the communication”) (¶[0024]: Figure 1); call information record 134 stores whether the satisfaction level associated with the call has gone beyond a threshold satisfaction level; a flag may be stored within call information record 134 as to whether the call goes beyond a threshold satisfaction level (¶[0025]: Figure 1); call information record 134 comprises a flag of ‘Yes’ associated with a threshold satisfaction level (“storing the communication in a [searchable] index associated with the threshold amount”); if a satisfaction level associated with the call does not go beyond a threshold satisfaction level, a method ends and call data 129 may be discarded (¶[0045]: Figure 2: Step 240); if a satisfaction level associated with the call does go beyond a threshold satisfaction level, logging call data 129 occurs (“based on the communication element satisfying the threshold amount, storing the communication in a [searchable] index associated with the threshold amount”) (¶[0046]: Figure 2: Step 250).
Concerning independent claims 1, 8, and 14, Erb discloses storing recordings of at least a portion of a call in an index if information of a satisfaction level of the call goes beyond a threshold. However, Erb does not expressly state that an index associated with the threshold amount is “searchable”, “generating search results from a search of the searchable index according to a search query” (independent claim 1) or “analyzing search results from a search of the searchable index according to a search query to determine patterns in the search results” (independent claims 8 and 14), and “changing a user interface based on the search.”
Concerning independent claims 1, 8, and 14, Korenblit et al. teaches a system and method for workforce optimization with an analytic function 385 that uses speech recognition to convert recorded calls into a searchable repository (“a searchable index”) that enables for query of words and/or phrases within recorded calls. The repository may manifest itself as a text transcript or searchable phonetic model of the recorded calls. Analytics function 385 may apply additional unstructured data techniques to refine and extract context and meaning from conversations. With recorded calls converted to searchable content, analytics function 385 enables users to look back in time to discover what customers have said. Analytics function 385 includes a search function 1060. An append feature in the search function enables a user to modify an initial search by tacking on additional criteria and logic (“generating search results from a search of a searchable index according to a search query”). A refine feature enables a user to add to the search criteria, which are then used on the results of the last search. (¶[0118] - ¶[0122]: Figure 10) Analytics function 385 enables a user a variety of ways to derive insight from search results (“analyzing search results from a search of the searchable index according to a search query”). Search statistics component 1098 displays information on a current search, and includes a call visualization component which includes an interface for displaying the text of a set of calls along with other data captured by the integrated system (“changing a user interface based on the patterns in the search results”). (¶[0126]: Figure 10) Analytics functions 385 enables a user to create a graphical representation of trends found in the calls via a graphical representation module 1066 (“changing a user interface based on the patterns in the search results”). This enables users to view statistics about complex trends over a large time period. Another trending capability is the display of the top 20 words mentioned in the recorded calls to enable organizations to understand how conversations have changed from one period to the next (“to determine patterns in the search results”). (¶[0131] - ¶[0134]: Figure 10) Figure 18 is an exemplary user interface for a performance manager that displays key performance indicators (KPIs). (¶[0155]: Figure 18) Broadly, any display of search results provides a ‘change’ to a user interface as new search results are displayed. An objective is to facilitate workforce management by quality monitoring to gain more insight about service and operations. (Abstract) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to perform a search and display search results to determine patterns in call data as taught by Korenblit et al. in a method for managing a call of Erb for a purpose of facilitating workforce management by quality monitoring to gain insight about service and operations.
Concerning independent claim 14, Erb discloses “storing the communication in a first searchable index associated with the first threshold amount in lieu of a second searchable index associated with a second threshold amount, the first searchable index being different than the second searchable index” – an embodiment of a satisfaction level 135 includes one of a plurality of satisfaction indicators levels indicative of a different level of satisfaction (¶[0022]: Figure 1); a mood logic unit may be monitoring a call to determine a mood of first user 105 and/or second user 115, and may notify call data capture unit 127 if the mood of first user 105 and/or second user 115 exceeds a preset threshold; mood logic may be enabled to determine a degree to which the satisfaction level has gone beyond a threshold satisfaction level; there may be a first threshold satisfaction level associated with ‘annoyed’ and a second threshold satisfaction level associated with ‘very annoyed’ (¶[0044]: Figure 1); here, “a first searchable index” corresponds to “the first threshold amount” of ‘annoyed, and “a second searchable index” corresponds to “a second threshold amount” of ‘very annoyed’. Applicant’s limitation of “in lieu of a second searchable index associated with a second threshold amount, the first searchable index being different than the second searchable index” may be construed so that it does not set forth a positive limitation; that is, these claim limitations only positively set forth storing the communication in a first searchable index because there is no positive act set forth to store in a second searchable index by “in lieu of a second searchable index”.
Concerning claims 2, 9, and 15, Korenblit et al. teaches that an analysis tracks information of an interaction as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ to adapt and change operations so that agent skills can be improved by training in deficient areas (“identifying agents, associated with the receiving system, who are insufficiently trained in resolving communication issues, according to user interaction criteria”). (¶[0067] -¶[0068]) An evaluation component 380 scores an agent in various categories, and learning component 330 enables a customer center manager to develop training lessons for agents and assign lessons to agents. Training lessons can include assessments to help track and measure agent performance. (¶[0077] - ¶[0079]: Figure 3)
Concerning claims 13 and 19, Korenblit et al. teaches that an analysis tracks information of an interaction as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ to adapt and change operations so that agent skills can be improved by training in deficient areas. (¶[0067] -¶[0068]) An evaluation component 380 scores an agent in various categories, and learning component 330 enables a customer center manager to develop training lessons for agents and assign lessons to agents. Training lessons can include assessments to help track and measure agent performance. (¶[0077] - ¶[0079]: Figure 3) Here, changing operations to train agents in deficient areas is “designing company changes based on the patterns and the company changes comprise training an agent, associated with the receiving system, in according with user interaction criteria.”
Claims 3 to 5, 10 to 12, 16 to 18, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erb (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0110157) in view of Korenblit et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0195944) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of Agapi et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0121824).
Concerning claims 3, 10, and 16, Korenblit et al. teaches monitoring agent performance as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but does not expressly “identify a second communication in which an agent acted in an inappropriate manner towards the user according to user interaction criteria.” However, Agapi et al. teaches a system and method for call center agent quality assurance using biometric detection technologies to automate monitoring of call center agents’ professionalism. (Abstract) Signal patterns produce data representative of a call agent’s behavioral characteristics, and can be analyzed by comparison to a set of pre-defined rules, events, and threshold values in database 180. A Biometric Quality Assurance System (BQAS) 170 can quickly determine if a call agent’s voice characteristics reveal any pre-defined desirable or undesirable behavioral patterns. (¶[0021] - ¶[0022]: Figure 1) Analyzed voice characteristics can identify behavioral patterns that could be defined as ‘desirable’ patterns or ‘undesirable’ patterns. Specifically, undesirable patterns could be the use of abusive language, voice agitation, which may represent a poor or disagreeable mood, and lack of providing a proper response to a customer question indicating a lack of skill. (¶[0028] - ¶[0029]: Figure 2) Here, abusive language or voice agitation correspond to “an agent acted in an inappropriate manner” and pre-defined rules of undesirable behavior patterns are “user interaction criteria”. An objective is to provide call center quality assurance using biometric technologies to improve customer handling and satisfaction. (Abstract) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to identify a communication in which an agent acted in an inappropriate manner towards a user according to user interaction criteria as taught by Agapi et al. in monitoring of agent performance of Korenblit et al. for a purpose of providing call center quality assurance to improve customer handling and satisfaction.
Concerning claims 4, 11, and 17, Agapi et al. teaches that system 100 determines a relative behavioral mood of a call agent 140 using speech analysis. An agent’s voice under normal non-stress conditions can be compared to a call agent’s real-time voice during an actual conversation with a customer (“identifying a stress feature in at least one of the voiceprints”). A call center agent’s normal voice may provide an additional benchmark to determine if one or more behavioral patterns exist. (¶[0025]: Figure 1) Implicitly, speech analysis of stress involves voiceprints. A ‘voiceprint’ is defined as an individually distinctive pattern of voice characteristics. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/voiceprint.
Concerning claims 5, 12, and 18, Agapi et al. teaches that BQAS 170 analyzes speech of each call agent 140 and searches for phrases and voice inflection that may indicate an emotion and mood of call agent 140. (¶[0019]: Figure 1) System 100 determines a relative behavioral mood of a call agent 140 using speech analysis. An agent’s voice under normal non-stress conditions can be compared to a call agent’s real-time voice during an actual conversation with a customer (“as compared to a second portion of the communication”). A call center agent’s normal voice may provide an additional benchmark to determine if one or more behavioral patterns exist. (¶[0025]: Figure 1) Here, a voice ‘inflection’ is defined as a ‘change in pitch or loudness of the voice’ (“a change in at least one of volume, speed, or pitch of a voice of a caller”). See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inflection.
Concerning claim 20, Korenblit et al. teaches: “determining an audio recording associated with the conversation” – call recorder 170 provides call recording capabilities, and recording server 180 maintains an interaction database 190 which stores recorded content and descriptive information about a recording (¶[0052]: Figure 1). Agapi et al. teaches “determining one or more stress ratings based on the audio recording” – an agent’s voice under normal non-stress conditions can be compared to a call agent’s real-time voice during an actual conversation with a customer. (¶[0025]: Figure 1); “comparing the one or more stress ratings with the threshold amount, the threshold amount comprising a baseline stress rating” – signal patterns produce data representative of a call agent’s behavioral characteristics and may be analyzed by comparison to a set of pre-defined rules, events, and threshold values (¶[0021]: Figure 1); defined business rules and threshold values are stored in rules database 180 (“comparing . . . with the threshold amount”) (¶[0024]: Figure 1); a call center agent’s normal voice may provide an additional benchmark to determine if one or more behavioral patterns exist (“the threshold amount comprising a baseline stress rating”) (¶[0025]: Figure 1); “based on determining that the one or more stress ratings are greater than the baseline stress rating, identifying the conversation” – analyzed voice characteristics may identify behavioral patterns that could be defined as ‘desirable’ patterns or ‘undesirable’ patterns (¶[0028]: Figure 2); once it is determined that a behavioral pattern exists, BQAS 170 determines if a pattern is desirable or undesirable; if a detected pattern is desirable, it is noted, and if an identified call agent behavioral pattern is considered to be undesirable, additional action may be taken. (¶[0030] - ¶[0031]: Figure 2)
Claims 6 to 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erb (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0110157) in view of Korenblit et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0195944) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0143306).
Concerning claim 6, Korenblit et al. teaches generating search results based on call data to monitor quality of agents and providing training lessons for agents, but omits “based on the search results, updating a website.” Still, Yang teaches integrated website management in which log information on visitors to a website and a result of searching thereof are displayed on a single screen so that the log information can be clearly analyzed, and contents data of a web page can be updated using web log analysis information and a search result. (Abstract) One skilled in the art could understand that applying a known technique of updating a website as taught by Yang according to an analytics function of Korenblit et al. would yield predictable results in accordance with KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). An objective is to use log analysis to grasp characteristics and behavior patterns of users to properly provide services satisfying customers’ desires through customer relationship management (CRM) services. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use search results of Korenblit et al. to change a website as taught by Yang for a purpose of grasping behavior patterns of users to properly provide services of customer relationship management.
Concerning claim 7, Korenblit et al. teaches that an analysis tracks information of an interaction as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ to adapt and change operations so that agent skills can be improved by training in deficient areas (“training an agent, associated with the receiving system, in accordance with user interaction criteria”). (¶[0067] -¶[0068]) An evaluation component 380 scores an agent in various categories, and learning component 330 enables a customer center manager to develop training lessons for agents and assign lessons to agents. Training lessons can include assessments to help track and measure agent performance. (¶[0077] - ¶[0079]: Figure 3)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 August 2025 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant provides amendments mainly to independent claims 1, 8, and 14, and presents some brief arguments directed against the prior rejection of these independent claims as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Reynolds et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,687,776) in view of Korenblit et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0195944). Specifically, Applicant’s amendment to independent claims 1 and 8 clarifies that storing a communication in a searchable index is “based on the communication element satisfying the threshold amount”. Additionally, Applicant amends independent claim 14 to include a new limitation of storing a communication in a first searchable index associated with a first threshold amount “in lieu of a second searchable index associated with a second threshold amount, the first searchable index being different than the second searchable index”. Applicant argues that Reynolds et al. only stores event logs in memory for tags that sum a score greater than a threshold score, but that the claim language sets forth “storing the communication in a searchable index associated with the threshold amount”. Applicant’s argument appears to imply that an event log is different from a communication, and Applicant argue that Reynolds et al. does not disclose a memory being associated with the threshold amount. Moreover, Applicant argues that Korenblit et al. may determine trends found in call, but does not analyze search results to determine patterns in search results.
Applicant’s amendment addresses almost all of the objections to the Specification. However, Applicant’s amendment to ¶[0001] of the Specification is incorrect because the issue date of patent U.S. Patent No. 8,923,490 appears that it should be “30 December 2014” and not “30 December 2016”. The amendment is being entered, but this additional correction is requested.
Applicant amends independent claim 14 set forth a new limitation of “in lieu of a second searchable index associated with a second threshold amount, the first index being different than the second index”, which raises issues of new matter under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). This limitation is problematic for a variety of reasons, but the claim language is at least is not expressly supported by the originally-filed Specification. Here, Applicant’s Specification, at ¶[0038] - ¶[0039], at best, describes that a single call may meet more than one threshold providing for that single call being placed in multiple indexes. The Specification, however, does not describe placing a call in a first index “in lieu” of placing the class in a second index. Nor would it be clear what precisely is intended by this “in lieu of” limitation given an absence of written description in the Specification. Moreover, it is unclear if storing a first index “in lieu of” storing in a second index, with a first index being different than the second index, should be construed as a positive limitation given that nothing is actually being performed with the second index as set forth by the claim limitations.
Generally, Applicant’s arguments are not completely persuasive, but new grounds of rejection are set forth as directed to independent claims 1, 8, and 14 being obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Erb (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0110157) in view of Korenblit et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0195944). The rejection of some of the dependent claims continues to rely upon Agapi et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0121824) and Yang (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0143306). Specifically, Applicant’s argument that an event log representing a communication is different from the communication is not completely persuasive. Here, there is nothing in the claim language that requires that a communication that is being stored must be an audio communication. Even if only an event log comprising a log file is being stored in memory of Reynolds et al., an event log file still represents a communication and can be construed as “the communication”. Erb is being substituted for Reynolds et al. in these new grounds of rejection, but the examiner reserves the right in future prosecution to reapply Reynolds et al.
Mainly, Erb is somewhat better as compared to Reynolds et al. in addressing the limitations of the new claim amendments. Here, Erb clearly discloses storing a communication “based on the communication element satisfying the threshold amount” by disclosing an embodiment of logging call data only when a satisfaction level goes beyond a threshold. (¶[0045] - ¶[0046]: Figure 2: Steps 230 to 250) Additionally, Erb discloses that a database 132 for storing call information record 134 can store at least a portion of a call including a call recording. (¶[0024]: Figure 1) Consequently, Erb discloses storing “the communication”, and not merely some representation of the communication as a log file. Moreover, Erb, at ¶[0025], provides call information 134 as a table that includes ‘Threshold Satisfaction Level’ and ‘Yes’ so that a communication is stored in an index “associated with the threshold amount”. Erb can be construed to disclose the limitations of independent claim 14 directed to storing the communication in a first index associated with a first threshold amount “in lieu of a second index associated with a second threshold amount, the first index being different than the second index” at least because multiple threshold satisfaction levels are disclosed at ¶[0044]. Applicant’s limitation of “in lieu of a second index associated with a second threshold amount” does not clearly set forth a positive limitation because there is nothing that is actually stored in the second index as set forth by the claim language.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive as directed against Korenblit et al. Firstly, Applicant admits that Korenblit et al. teaches determining trends found in calls, but trends can be broadly construed as “patterns in the search results”. That is, if search results discover a trend that bad performance of an agent or agents is increasing, then this trend of increase is “a pattern”. Secondly, Korenblit et al. includes various descriptions of determining call ‘patterns’. Korenblit et al., at ¶[0078], teaches that analytics component 385 can analyze interactions in various ways, including the use of speech analytics, and that analysis includes categorizing calls based on content, analyzing a call against an expected call pattern and reporting exceptions to the pattern. Similarly, Korenblit et al., at ¶[0119], teaches that analytics function 385 converts the audio of the conversation into a phonetic representation of the call and uses a word-spotting method 1030 (or a query analysis), flagging or tagging calls by a specific word, phrase, proximity, inflection, tempo, or emotion, so that queries may be performed on an ad-hoc basis or stored for pattern analysis. Korenblit et al., then, is maintained to teach “analyze search results from a search of the search index according to a search query to determine patterns in the search results”.
Applicant’s amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection. All of these new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment. Accordingly, this rejection is properly FINAL.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Khan et al., Becker et al., Diskin et al., Zepperfeld et al., and Walters et al. disclose related prior art.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 MARTIN LERNER whose telephone number is (571) 272-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 AM-6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Richemond Dorvil can be reached on (571) 272-7602. 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.
/MARTIN LERNER/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2658 October 6, 2025