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 .
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 1-4, 6-10, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 12 recite “transferring the audio file …”, “extracting emotional markers …”, “providing journaling entries …”, “analyzing the journaling entries …”, “extracting topical patterns …”, “transforming …”, and “generating an emotional report …”. These limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “device”. For example, but for the “device” language, these steps in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually listening to an audio program, transferring to the brain to process the audio, extracting or recognizing emotional marker (tone, rhythm, loudness, etc.), providing journaling entries or writing down what was spoken in the audio, analyzing or understanding the message in spoken in the audio, extracting topics/topic patterns, generating or deriving an emotional report of the audio, and recommending an action to the user . All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements - using a device to perform these steps. The use of a device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional steps of “recording” and “recommending” are merely for the purpose of data gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similar to independent claims above, the steps of “counting out lout …” in dependent claims 2 and 13, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user verbally counting out loud some numbers. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Similar to independent claims above, the steps of “administering … survey to solicit … information …” in dependent claims 3 and 14, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user verbally asking for information. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Similar to independent claims above, the steps of “administering an emotional state survey to illicit emotional self-assessment data …” in dependent claims 4 and 15, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user verbally asking for emotional data. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Similar to independent claims above, the steps of transforming markers into binary states in dependent claims 6 and 17, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually assigning binary number to emotional states. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Similar to independent claims above, the steps of “recommending one or more action …” in dependent claim 8, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user verbally recommending an action. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Similar to independent claims above, the steps of “tracking … emotional scores …” in dependent claim 9, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually tracking emotions for a period of time. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Similar to independent claims above, the steps of “generating … weighting coefficients …” in dependent claim 10, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually assigning weighting coefficients. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alameh et al. (USPN 11902091, hereinafter Alameh).
Regarding claim 1, Alameh discloses a method for determining a user’s emotions and increasing the user’s emotional intelligence and self-awareness, comprising:
recording an audio file on a user device of the user’s voice engaging in a predetermined task (col. 2, lines 51-67, microphone for recording voice of the user);
transferring the audio file from the user device to an audio processing platform via an application programming interface (col. 2, lines 51-67, “the computing device 102 can communicate with the display 104, the microphone 106, and/or the speaker 108 via any of a variety of wired (e.g., Universal Serial Bus (USB), IEEE 1394, High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI)) or wireless (e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, infrared (IR)) connections”);
extracting emotional markers from the audio file (col. 5, lines 10-15, “emotional makers” include “data describing the voice of the user, such as how loud the user is, what words the user is speaking, whether the user is using profanity or angry words, whether there is a shift in frequency or acoustical response of the user's speech”);
predicting the user’s emotional states from the emotional markers (col. 5, lines 27-51, “angry, agitated, happy, alert, tired, sluggish, loud, relaxed, tired, sad, and so forth”); and
recommending one or more actions or prescriptions to the user based on the user’s emotional states (Col. 8, lines 1-15; “determine the reason for the change in user emotional state and suggest a course of action (e.g., make the call later, wait a bit, avoid performing a requested operation, make the user aware of the detected emotions, maintain a change until the context of the device changes, pinpoint the likely cause for the new emotion, suggest an alternative operation or input)”).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (USPG 2020/0152304, hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 7, Chang discloses a method for determining a user’s emotions and increasing the user’s emotional intelligence and self-awareness, comprising:
providing journaling entries via an app in response to survey prompts (paragraph 51, “provide user with … prompts to facilitate recording of a voice-based journal entry”);
analyzing the journaling entries using natural language processing (paragraph 53, “analyzer logic 223 facilitates the processing and generation of supplemental data related to journal entries”);
extracting topical patterns from the journaling entries (paragraphs 53 and/or 68, “Analyzer data 223 may also process the textual data 262 along with other available data sources to generate … topic classifications”);
generating emotional likelihoods for the user’s emotional states (paragraphs 83-84, “generate emotional score data”); and
transforming the emotional likelihoods of the user into standardized forms of emotional scores predictive of the user’s emotional states (paragraphs 68-70, “Emotion classification can encompass a plurality of emotional states (e.g., joy, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, disgust, shame, etc.)”; it’s obvious that a specific emotional state is determined from the determined emotion score).
Regarding claims 8-9, Chang further discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising recommending one or more actions or prescriptions to the user based on the user’s emotional states (figures 4-5 steps 480 and/or 570, generating a recommended action); and tracking the standardized forms of the emotional scores on the app sequentially across time (paragraphs 83-84, “generate emotional score data”; processing data and generating emotional scores continuously as the data come in).
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 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alameh in view of Hassan et al. (USPG 2018/0296092, hereinafter Hassan).
Regarding claim 2, Alameh fails to explicitly disclose, however, Hassan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined task comprises counting out loud (paragraph 91, “requesting the user to count”).
Since Alameh and Hassan are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of requesting a user to count out loud to collect speech data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alameh in view of Pogorelik et al. (USPG 2019/0130917, hereinafter Pogorelik).
Regarding claim 3, Alameh fails to explicitly disclose, however, Pogorelik teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising administering an onboarding survey to solicit user specific information comprising age, gender, and location (paragraph 42, “when the speaker 10 is first detected, such as speaker information (to provide context about the speaker, e.g., gender, age, etc.) and surroundings information (to provide context about the speaker's surroundings, e.g., location, temperature, weather conditions, etc.)”).
Since Alameh and Pogorelik are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of surveying for user-specific information comprising age, gender, and location. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alameh in view of Scheuerer et al. (USPG 2023/0284947, hereinafter Scheuerer).
Regarding claim 4, Alameh fails to explicitly disclose, however, Scheuerer teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising administering an emotional state survey to solicit emotional self-assessments data on the user’s conscious emotional states (paragraph 32, “questions on feelings and emotional state of user U are asked by computer system 100 and played through speakers 12, and the user U can answer with oral responses, that are captured and analyzed by voice recognition”).
Since Alameh and Scheuerer are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of surveying for user’s emotional state. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alameh in view of Enzinger et al. (USPG 2021/0193174, hereinafter Enzinger).
Regarding claim 5, Alameh fails to explicitly disclose, however, Enzinger teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising creating audio arrays based on combinations of spectral features extracted from the audio file (paragraph 43, “A collection of features (e.g. spectral or cepstral coefficients, or a sequence of time samples) can be organized in an array dubbed a “feature vector.””).
Since Alameh and Enzinger are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of creating audio arrays. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alameh in view of Khanagha (USPG 2023/007624, hereinafter Khanagha).
Regarding claim 6, Alameh fails to explicitly disclose, however, Khanagha teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the emotional markers are transformed into binary states (abstract section, “When the threshold number of moments corresponds to the first emotion type, the system may transmit a first message comprising a first binary indication. When the threshold number of moments do not correspond to the first emotion type, the system may transmit a second message comprising a second binary indication”).
Since Alameh and Khanagha are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of transforming emotional markers into binary states. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (USPG 2020/0152304, hereinafter Chang) in view of Ganti et al. (USPG 2023/0376518, hereinafter Ganti).
Regarding claims 10-11, Chang fails to explicitly disclose, however, Ganti teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising generating measurement signal amplifiers including weighting coefficients from the topical patterns (paragraph 100, “topic relevance feedback 513 about one or more specific topics outputted by the topic modeling module 520 by making relevant topic selections 511 and rating, scoring, commenting, and/or inputting other types of feedback about the accuracy, breadth, and/or scope of the topics selected”); modifying predictive algorithms based on the measurement signal amplifiers (paragraph 100, “using topic relevance feedback 513 from the user 501, the topic modeling algorithm 517 can constantly learn and update feature weights throughout each iteration”).
Since Chang and Ganti are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of updating algorithms using new weights. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alameh in view of Chang.
Regarding claim 12, Alameh further discloses a method for determining a user’s emotions and increasing the user’s emotional intelligence and self-awareness, comprising: recording an audio file on a user device of the user’s voice engaging in a predetermined task (see claim 1 above); transferring the audio file from the user device to an audio processing platform via an application programming interface (see claim 1 above); extracting emotional markers from the audio file (see claim 1 above); generating an emotional state report extrapolated from the emotional markers (see claim 1 above); and recommending one or more actions or prescriptions to the user based on the user’s emotional states (see claim 1 above).
Alameh fails to explicitly disclose, however, Chang teaches providing journaling entries via an app in response to survey prompts (paragraph 51, “provide user with … prompts to facilitate recording of a voice-based journal entry”); analyzing the journaling entries using natural language processing (paragraph 53, “analyzer logic 223 facilitates the processing and generation of supplemental data related to journal entries”); extracting topical patterns from the journaling entries (paragraphs 53 and/or 68, “Analyzer data 223 may also process the textual data 262 along with other available data sources to generate … topic classifications”).
Since Alameh and Chang are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of processing journaling entries to extract topical patterns. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding claim 18, Alameh further discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising personalizing the one or more actions or prescriptions based on the user’s cohort (Col. 8, lines 1-15; “determine the reason for the change in user emotional state and suggest a course of action (e.g., make the call later, wait a bit, avoid performing a requested operation, make the user aware of the detected emotions, maintain a change until the context of the device changes, pinpoint the likely cause for the new emotion, suggest an alternative operation or input)”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alameh in view of Chang, and further in view of Hassan.
Regarding claim 13, Alameh fails to explicitly disclose, however, Hassan teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the predetermined task comprises counting out loud (paragraph 91, “requesting the user to count”).
Since Alameh and Hassan are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of requesting a user to count out loud to collect speech data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alameh in view of Chang, and further in view of Pogorelik.
Regarding claim 14, Alameh fails to explicitly disclose, however, Pogorelik teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising administering an onboarding survey to solicit user specific information comprising age, gender, and location (paragraph 42, “when the speaker 10 is first detected, such as speaker information (to provide context about the speaker, e.g., gender, age, etc.) and surroundings information (to provide context about the speaker's surroundings, e.g., location, temperature, weather conditions, etc.)”).
Since Alameh and Pogorelik are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of surveying for user-specific information comprising age, gender, and location. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alameh in view of Chang, and further in view of Scheuerer.
Regarding claim 15, Alameh fails to explicitly disclose, however, Scheuerer teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising administering an emotional state survey to solicit emotional self-assessments data on the user’s conscious emotional states (paragraph 32, “questions on feelings and emotional state of user U are asked by computer system 100 and played through speakers 12, and the user U can answer with oral responses, that are captured and analyzed by voice recognition”).
Since Alameh and Scheuerer are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of surveying for user’s emotional state. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alameh in view of Chang, and further in view of Enzinger.
Regarding claim 16, Alameh fails to explicitly disclose, however, Enzinger teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising creating audio arrays based on combinations of spectral features extracted from the audio file (paragraph 43, “A collection of features (e.g. spectral or cepstral coefficients, or a sequence of time samples) can be organized in an array dubbed a “feature vector.””).
Since Alameh and Enzinger are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of creating audio arrays. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alameh in view of Chang, and further in view of Khanagha.
Regarding claim 17, Alameh fails to explicitly disclose, however, Khanagha teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the emotional markers are transformed into binary states (abstract section, “When the threshold number of moments corresponds to the first emotion type, the system may transmit a first message comprising a first binary indication. When the threshold number of moments do not correspond to the first emotion type, the system may transmit a second message comprising a second binary indication”).
Since Alameh and Khanagha are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of transforming emotional markers into binary states. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alameh in view of Chang, and further in view of Ganti.
Regarding claims 19-20, Alameh fails to explicitly disclose, however, Ganti teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising generating measurement signal amplifiers including weighting coefficients from the topical patterns (paragraph 100, “topic relevance feedback 513 about one or more specific topics outputted by the topic modeling module 520 by making relevant topic selections 511 and rating, scoring, commenting, and/or inputting other types of feedback about the accuracy, breadth, and/or scope of the topics selected”); modifying predictive algorithms based on the measurement signal amplifiers (paragraph 100, “using topic relevance feedback 513 from the user 501, the topic modeling algorithm 517 can constantly learn and update feature weights throughout each iteration”).
Since Alameh and Ganti are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of updating algorithms using new weights. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tietzen et al. (USPN 2016/0180360) teach a method of detecting emotion in speech and providing feedback that is considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN X VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
/HUYEN X VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656