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 .
This office action is a response to an application filed 02/06/2024, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 02/06/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, claim 1 recites “a method,” and therefore is a process, which is a statutory category. Meanwhile, claim 19 recites “a computing system,” which is a system, and thus is also a statutory category. Claim 20 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” which is a product, and also a statutory category.
At Step 2A, prong one, claims 1, 19, and 20 recite a limitation that involves determining a plurality of settings for a plurality of appliances based on wearable device health data and sensor data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is directed to the abstract ideas of mental limitations capable of being performed in the mind.
Specifically, the abstract idea includes the limitation of:
“determining a plurality of settings for the plurality of appliances based on the wearable device health data and the sensor data” in claim 1. Analogous limitations are found respectively in independent claims 19 and 20, and will be analyzed the same . As noted earlier, the limitations in question can essentially be interpreted to include a mental judgement of what settings to apply to various devices by mentally considering sensor and health data. 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.
At step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 19, and 20 respectively recite the limitations “a computing system,” “receiving sensor data associated with a plurality of appliances associated with a building; receiving wearable device health data including vital sign data associated with a plurality of occupants associated with the building; … and transmitting the plurality of settings to an automation system configured to control the plurality of appliances” (or a variation thereof). Claims 19 and 20 further recite “at least one processor,” and memory and/or storage.
At Step 2B, while the claims include additional elements as noted above in Step 2A prong 2, they are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the recitation of computing systems, processors, and memory/storage, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. These are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that the represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP2106.05(h)). Furthermore, the limitations of receiving data, such as sensor and health data from specified sources, amount to necessary data gathering, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Regarding the limitation of transmitting settings to an automation system, the limitation amounts to extra-solution activity and field-of-use to the extent that it does not impose meaningful limits on the claim because this aspect contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed subject matter. It would not integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more because the intent of the limitation is merely to generically highlight output communications in the field of use, and without integrally linking any aspect to the rest of the claim, since no other limitation explicitly and specifically uses said commutation output to specifically provide any control based on any of the other limitations in the claim (see MPEP2106.05(b)III., MPEP2106.5(c) 5., MPEP2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The limitations of transmitting, are mere information output and transmission, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution application activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims 2-18, similarly recite an abstract idea of mental limitations capable of being performed in the mind, without significantly more. Claim 2 merely expands on the field of use and intended form of the data gathered data. Claims 3-15 also recite field of use limitations of the type of intended use data that is gathered and mentally considered. Claim 16 recites field of use and intend use limitations of the type of settings and devices intended for the settings to be used in. Claims 18 and 17 recite further mere data gathering extra-solution activity of the nature of the source of the gathered data. The claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10-13, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication No. 2015/0320588 to Connor (hereinafter Connor)
Regarding claim 1, Connor discloses a method implemented on a computing system, the method comprising:
receiving sensor data associated with a plurality of appliances associated with a building (Data is received from a plurality of sensors (e.g., electromagnetic sensors, motion sensors, light sensors, optical sensors, moisture sensors, temperature sensors, etc.) that are associated with a plurality of appliance devices/components (e.g., hvac, mattresses, lights, fans, windows, etc.) by virtue that their sensed signals being used in eventual control of the various devices, and where the appliance devices are associated with a home/house building by virtue of being located in the house, see 138, 255, 144, 183-84, 210, 187, 544, 516, 173, 238, 257, 359, 396, Connor);
receiving wearable device health data including vital sign data associated with a plurality of occupants associated with the building (Wearable devices provide data to be received in controlling a home environment, where the wearable device data can include health data in the form of vital sign data (e.g. heart rate data, brain activity, respiratory activity, skin temperature, sleep data, blood oxygen, etc.,) of respective people in the home, see 325, 137, 329, 171, 353, 359, 493-502, 154, 227, 35, Connor);
determining a plurality of settings for the plurality of appliances based on the wearable device health data and the sensor data (A plurality of home appliance devices’ operation is controlled based on received health data sent from wearable devices and determined from sensor data captured by a plurality of sensors, with the implication of a determination of respective settings to alter the operation of the respective appliances, see 300, 36, 144, 173, 544, 255, 516, 144, 141, 227, Connor); and
transmitting the plurality of settings to an automation system configured to control the plurality of appliances (A plurality of home appliance devices’ operation is controlled based on received health data sent from wearable devices and determined from sensor data captured by a plurality of sensors, with the implication settings are transmitted to the respective appliances in order to affect their operation, see 300, 36, 144, 173, 544, 255, 516, 144, 141, 227, Connor).
Regarding claim 3, Connor discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further discloses wherein the wearable device health data includes heart rate data associated with the plurality of occupants (Heart rate/pulse/cardiac data, see 319-325, 137, 127, 493-502, 154, 227, Connor).
Regarding claim 6, Connor discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further discloses wherein the wearable device health data includes sleep activity data associated with the plurality of occupants (Data during sleep activity obtained, see 35, 150, 252, 137, 127, 493-502, 154, 227, Connor).
Regarding claim 7, Connor discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further discloses wherein the wearable device health data includes movement data associated with the plurality of occupants (Motion data obtained indicative of activity and movement, see 259, 289, 256-263, 252, 137, 127, 493-502, 154, 227, Connor).
Regarding claim 8, Connor discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further discloses wherein the wearable device health data includes light exposure data associated with the plurality of occupants (Data based on light absorbed by a wearable wearer, thus constituting data that includes light exposure data, see p127, p132, 158, 242, 246, 252, 137, 127, 493-502, 154, 227, Connor).
Regarding claim 10, Connor discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further discloses wherein the wearable device health data includes electrodermal response data associated with the plurality of occupants (Galvanic skin response sensor is a known sensor that provides electrodermal data, see p494, Connor).
Regarding claim 11, Connor discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further discloses wherein the wearable device health data includes oxygen level (SpO2) data, and skin temperature data (Oxygen level and saturation, and skin temperature, see 297, 237, 396, 421, 127, 294, Connor).
Regarding claim 12, Connor discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further discloses wherein the wearable device health data further includes respiration data (Respiratory data obtained, see 326, 134, 353, 252, 137, 127, 493-502, 154, 227, Connor).
Regarding claim 13, Connor discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further discloses wherein the wearable device health data includes activity data associated with the plurality of occupants (Motion data obtained indicative of activity and movement, see 259, 289, 256-263, 252, 137, 127, 493-502, 154, 227, Connor).
Regarding claim 15, Connor discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further discloses wherein the wearable device health data includes circadian rhythm data associated with the plurality of occupants (Data on sleep and sleep phases information constitute circadian rhythm data, see 192, 165, 153, 252, 137, 127, 493-502, 154, 227, Connor).
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor, in view of US Patent
Publication No. 2014/0207292 to Ramagem et al., (hereinafter Ramagem).
Regarding claim 2, Connor teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further teaches a portion of wearable device health data captured by a plurality of wearable monitoring devices associated with a plurality of occupants and determining the plurality of settings for the plurality of appliances associated with the building based on the wearable device health data (At least an entire portion of data that comprises health data, is captured from wearables from at least two people in a house, and used to determine control operation of a plurality of appliance devices associated with a home/house building, see 138, 255, 144, 183-84, 210, 187, 544, 516, 173, 238, 257, 359, 396, 325, 137, 329, 171, 353, 359, 493-502, 154, 227, 35, Connor).
Connor does not explicitly teach a first portion of a data was captured by a monitoring device within one hour of determining settings; and a second portion of data was captured by the monitoring device more than an hour previous from determining the setting.
However, Ramagem from the same or similar field of control based on wearable data, teaches a first portion of a data was captured by a monitoring device within one hour of determining settings (A system monitors captured physiological data from wearable sensors through-out the course of hours. A portion of data can be captured within an hour of determining and executing a setting change to climate control, for example data captured soon after setpoint T3 in Fig. 5E, or as exemplified in P61, see p36-38, p84, Fig. 5E, p83, Fig. 5D, p61, p59 Fig. 4C, p124, 74, Ramagem); and a second portion of data was captured by the monitoring device more than an hour previous from determining the setting (Data can be captured for hours prior to a specified setpoint change setting, for example, in a system that monitors captured physiological data in making setpoint decisions, a portion of data prior to a set-point T3 in Fig. 5E is captured for more than an hour previous from that setpoint, such as any data prior to set point T2 in Fig. 5E, see p36-38, p84, Fig. 5E, p83, Fig. 5D, p61, p59 Fig. 4C, p124, 74, Ramagem).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor based automation and settings as described by Connor and incorporating data captures for a period of time before and after a setting determination, as taught by Ramagem.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better obtain sufficient relevant data throughout the course of a day in order to learn the physiological response and receive biofeedback to settings before and after changes to better control and program a desired system such as climate control that affects a user (see p86, p36-38, p84, Fig. 5E, p83, Fig. 5D, p61, p59 Fig. 4C, p124, 74, Ramagem).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor, in view of US Patent Publication No. 2014/0334653 to Luna et al., (hereinafter Luna).
Regarding claim 4, Connor teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further teaches wherein the wearable device health data includes heart rate variability data associated with the plurality of occupants (Heart rate/pulse/cardiac data, see 319-325, 137, 127, 493-502, 154, 227, Connor).
Connor does not explicitly mention heart rate variability.
However, Luna from the same or similar field of control based on physiological and wearable data, explicitly mentions heart rate variability (Hear rate data can be heart rate variability of beat to beat interval, and used in control decision, see P91, P114, P136, P111, Luna).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor based automation and settings as described by Connor and incorporating heart rate variability, as taught by Luna.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to use specified data to extract physiological characteristics of interest such as heart rate variability of beat to beat data that can provide insight into a user emotional state, sleep activity, etc., and which can serve to control devices as desired based on analyzed characteristics that can provide a state of user (see P91, P114, P136, P111, Luna).
Regarding claim 5, Connor teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further teaches wherein the wearable device health data includes beat-to-beat (RR) interval data associated with the plurality of occupants (Heart rate/pulse/cardiac data, see 319-325, 137, 127, 493-502, 154, 227, Connor).
Connor does not explicitly mention data includes beat-to-beat interval data.
However, Luna from the same or similar field of control based on physiological and wearable data, explicitly mentions heart rate variability (Hear rate data can be heart rate variability of beat to beat interval, thus includes beat-to-beat interval data, and used in control decision, see P91, P114, P136, P111, Luna).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor based automation and settings as described by Connor and incorporating data that includes beat-to-beat interval data, as taught by Luna.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to use specified data to extract physiological characteristics of interest such as heart rate variability of beat to beat data that can provide insight into a user emotional state, sleep activity, etc., and which can serve to control devices as desired based on analyzed characteristics that can provide a state of user (see P91, P114, P136, P111, Luna).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor, in view of US Patent
Publication No. 2025/0114034 to Kokoszka et al., (hereinafter Kokoszka).
Regarding claim 9, Connor teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further teaches wherein a wearable device health data includes temperature exposure data associated with a plurality of occupants (Temperature data, see 396, 421, 127, 137, 227, Connor).
Connor does not explicitly teach ambient temperature exposure data.
However, Kokoszka from the same or similar field of physiological and wearable data, teaches temperature exposure data (Wearable data related to body health of a user can include ambient temperature, sun (ambient light exposure), or other surrounding environment metrics, and thus at least an ambient temperature to which a user is exposed, see P51, 87, 93, Kokoszka).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor based automation and settings as described by Connor and incorporating temperature exposure data, as taught by Kokoszka.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider environmental exposure that can affect a person’s state and aid in deciding how to manage/adjust an environment to promote a desired user physiological response (see P51, 87, 93, Kokoszka).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor, in view of US Patent Publication No. 2023/0049441 to Yuan et al., (hereinafter Yuan).
Regarding claim 14, Connor teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further teaches wherein a wearable device health data includes data associated with a plurality of occupants (Physiological data for users in a home from wearable device, see 325, 137, 329, 171, 353, 359, 493-502, 154, 227, 35, Connor).
Connor does not explicitly teach coughing data.
However, Yuan from the same or similar field of wearable data and control, teaches coughing data (Wearable derived body data can include coughing data, see P16-18, p152, p79, p88, Yuan).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor based automation and settings as described by Connor and incorporating coughing data, as taught by Yuan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better use specific data that can provide insight into a user status, such as a coughing state, and which can serve to control devices as desired based on the status that can provide a desired effect on the user to mitigate an issue or help the user (see P16-18, p152, p79, p88, Yuan).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor, in view of US Patent Publication No. 2022/0207281 to Troisi et al., (hereinafter Troisi).
Regarding claim 16, Connor teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further teaches wherein the plurality of settings includes: at least one brightness setting associated with at least one light fixture (Light control including brightness, see 289, 161, 137, 127, 493-502, 154, 227, Connor); and at least one ventilation setting (Fan control, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning control, etc., see 136, 255, 161, 166, 137, 127, 493-502, 154, 227, Connor).
Connor does not explicitly teach at least one plug load control setting.
However, Troisi from the same or similar field of wearable data and control, teaches at least one plug load control setting data (A smart plug, whose known function is to affect a load plugged into it, can be controlled based on wearable device, meaning at least one load control setting adjusted, see p32, p9, Troisi).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor based automation and settings as described by Connor and incorporating at least one load plug control setting, as taught by Troisi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better control a desired device, such as a smart plug, to provide desired functionality associated with the user and the device, such as affecting a load plugged into a smart plug (see p32, p9, Troisi).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor, in view of US Patent Publication No. 2023/0218225 to Mushtaq et al., (hereinafter Mushtaq).
Regarding claim 17, Connor teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further teaches health data associated with a plurality of occupants associated with a building and determining a plurality of setting for a plurality of appliances is further based on the health data (Data received that includes health data in the form of vital sign data (e.g. heart rate data, brain activity, respiratory activity, skin temperature, sleep data, blood oxygen, etc.,) of respective people in a home, and which is to control operation of various devices, see 325, 137, 329, 171, 353, 359, 493-502, 154, 227, 35, 300, 36, 144, 173, 544, 255, 516, 144, 141, Connor).
Connor does not explicitly teach receiving medical record health data from at least one medical record database associated with a user.
However, Mushtaq from the same or similar field of wearable data and control, teaches receiving medical record health data from at least one medical record database associated with a user (A system can receive health medical data associated with a user from databases such as data stored at medical providers, see p283, p303-304, p263, Abs., p245, p317, p212, p122, p17, 282, Mushtaq).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor based automation and settings as described by Connor and incorporating receiving medical record health data from at least a database, as taught by Mushtaq.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better use data from various sources including datastores, so as to gain greater insight to a user physiology and response, and that can be used for decisions that affect a user including environmental adjustments (see p303, p283, p303-304, p263, Abs., p245, p317, p212, p122, p17, 282, Mushtaq).
Regarding claim 18, Connor teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Connor further teaches health data associated with a plurality of occupants associated with a building and determining a plurality of setting for a plurality of appliances is further based on the health data (Data received that includes health data in the form of vital sign data (e.g. heart rate data, brain activity, respiratory activity, skin temperature, sleep data, blood oxygen, etc.,) of respective people in a home, and which is to control operation of various devices, see 325, 137, 329, 171, 353, 359, 493-502, 154, 227, 35, 300, 36, 144, 173, 544, 255, 516, 144, 141, Connor).
Connor does not explicitly teach receiving user entered health data associated with the user.
However, Mushtaq from the same or similar field of wearable data and control, teaches receiving user entered health data associated with the user (A system can receive user inputted data, such as their heath metrics data, see p263, Abs., p260, p317, p212, p122, p17, Mushtaq).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor based automation and settings as described by Connor and incorporating receiving user entered health data, as taught by Mushtaq.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better control a system that affects a user by obtaining relevant information directly from a user who knows their health information, and does may not necessitate the use of an alternate data source for said information (see p263, Abs., p260, p317, p212, p122, p17, Mushtaq).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Protzman et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2022/0385063 teaches load control in an environment that can include control of lugs and use of wearables to directly control devices.
Passe, US. Patent No. 11,550,360 teaches health monitoring of residents in a facility using wearables.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117