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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The present claim recites “a psychological condition of the patient at the end of therapy.” The term “the end of therapy” lacks antecedent basis, so it is unclear what it refers to. For the purposes of examination under prior art, the examiner will interpret “the end of therapy” to be any kind of end of therapy, such as an end of a therapy session, an end of a text message that is part of therapy, or a patient ending a therapeutic relationship with a therapist.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims A-B of U.S. Patent No. 11,948,686 in view of Rajkhowa et al. (U.S. 2008/0262982, hereinafter “Rajkhowa”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
U.S. Patent 11,948,686
Rajkhowa
1. A computer-based system comprising a plurality of computing devices connectable, via one or more networks, to a server:
wherein the server is configured to provide a web interface to enable text-based messages to be sent between a patient user of a computing device and a therapist providing psychological therapy, and to carry out a method comprising:
obtaining text from the text-based messages;
determining at least one feature of the text;
determining a characteristic of the patient and/or the therapist using the at least one feature and questionnaire scores, wherein the characteristic relates to a predicted level or change in level of a psychological condition of the patient; and
taking an action in dependence upon the determined characteristic, the action comprising providing an alert to the therapist and/or a supervisor.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining text from text-based messages sent between a patient and a therapist providing psychological therapy;
determining at least one feature of the text;
determining a characteristic of the patient and/or the therapist using the at least one feature and questionnaire scores, wherein the characteristic relates to a change in level of a psychological condition of the patient; and
taking an action in dependence upon the determined characteristic, the action comprising providing an alert to the therapist and/or a supervisor.
1. A system for remotely conducting psychotherapy between a client having and a therapist comprising: a first web enabled computer device operated by the client, said first computer device having a web browser and being operatively coupled to the Internet; a second web enabled computer device operated by the therapist, said first computer device having a web browser and being operatively coupled to the Internet; a server operatively coupled to the Internet; a web server application resident on the server and a web site resident on the server, said web server application being operatively coupled to a private web based chat application, said chat application being activated by the client by engaging a first link on the web site, the private chat application being adapted and configured to relay live text, audio and video messages between the client and therapist via the web browsers of the first and second computer devices; the web server application and the private chat applications being adapted and configured to permit the client to interact anonymously with the therapist via the chat application.
2. The computer-based system according to claim 1, wherein the web interface further enables the patient to complete one or more questionnaires, and wherein the method carried out by the server further comprises determining the questionnaire scores from the one or more questionnaires completed by the patient via the web interface.
From 1:
determining a characteristic of the patient and/or the therapist using the at least one feature and questionnaire scores,
3. The computer-based system according to claim 1, wherein the method carried out by the server further comprises determining the characteristic using the at least one feature and a model obtained using supervised machine learning.
2. The method according to claim 1, comprising determining the characteristic using the at least one feature and a model obtained using supervised machine learning.
4. The computer-based system according to claim 3, wherein the method carried out by the server further comprises obtaining the model using training data comprising text obtained from other messages between patients and therapists and data relating to the characteristic.
3. The method according to claim 2, comprising obtaining the model using training data comprising text obtained from other messages between patients and therapists and data relating to the characteristic.
5. The computer-based system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one feature comprises at least one value describing a level to which the text relates to a topic.
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one feature comprises at least one value describing a level to which the text relates to a topic.
6. The computer-based system according to claim 5, wherein the method carried out by the server further comprises determining one or more topics using a topic model and text obtained from other messages between patients and therapists.
5. The method according to claim 4, comprising determining one or more topics using a topic model and text obtained from other messages between patients and therapists.
7. The computer-based system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one feature comprises at least one value relating to a frequency of a word or sequence of words in the text.
10. The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one feature comprises at least one value relating to a frequency of a word or sequence of words in the text.
8. The computer-based system according to claim 7, wherein each word or sequence of words is one of a set of most frequently-used words or sequences of words in text obtained from other messages between patients and therapists.
11. The method according to claim 10, wherein each word or sequence of words is one of a set of most frequently-used words or sequences of words in text obtained from other messages between patients and therapists.
9. The computer-based system according to claim 1, wherein the method carried out by the server further comprises:obtaining at least one further feature including at least one feature of text obtained from text-based messages previously sent between the patient and therapist; and determining the characteristic using the at least one feature and the at least one further feature.
12. The method according to claim 1, comprising: obtaining at least one further feature including at least one feature of text obtained from text-based messages previously sent between the patient and therapist; and determining the characteristic using the at least one feature and the at least one further feature.
10. The computer-based system according to claim 1, wherein the method carried out by the server further comprises:obtaining data relating to the patient, the therapist and/or communications therebetween; and determining the characteristic using the at least one feature and the data.
13. The method according to claim 1, comprising: obtaining data relating to the patient, the therapist and/or communications therebetween; and determining the characteristic using the at least one feature and the data.
11. The computer-based system according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the text comprises replacing words or sequences of words with alternatives, wherein each alternative can replace a plurality of different words or sequences of words.
14. The method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the text comprises replacing words or sequences of words with alternatives, wherein each alternative can replace a plurality of different words or sequences of words.
12. The computer-based system according to claim 1, wherein the psychological condition corresponds to depression and/or anxiety and the level of the psychological condition of the patient is determined based on at least one questionnaire score.
15. The method according to claim 1, wherein the psychological condition corresponds to depression and/or anxiety and the level of the psychological condition of the patient is determined based on at least one questionnaire score.
13. The computer-based system according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic relates to a likelihood of the patient engaging in risky behaviour and/or dropping out of the therapy.
16. The method according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic relates to a likelihood of the patient engaging in risky behaviour and/or dropping out of the therapy.
14. The computer-based system according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic relates to a level to which a therapist follows a particular psychological therapy approach.
17. The method according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic relates to a level to which a therapist follows a particular psychological therapy approach.
15. The computer-based system according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic can take one of two values, one of the two values corresponding to a situation or scenario of concern.
18. The method according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic can take one of two values, one of the two values corresponding to a situation or scenario of concern.
.
16. The computer-based system according to claim 15, wherein the method carried out by the server further comprises using three or more features of the text to predict the situation or scenario of concern with an accuracy of greater than 70%.
19. The method according to claim 18, comprising using three or more features of the text to predict the situation or scenario of concern with an accuracy of greater than 70%.
17. The computer-based system according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic relates to a predicted level or change in level of a psychological condition of the patient at the end of therapy.
20. The method according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic further relates to a predicted level or change in level of a psychological condition of the patient at the end of therapy.
As seen in the table above, the only differences between Claim 1 of the present application and Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11 are that first, the present claim recites “wherein the characteristic relates to a predicted level or change in level of a psychological condition of the patient” whereas the Patent requires “a change in level of a psychological condition of the patient.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the “or” clause of the present claim can reduce the meaning to only a change in level. And second, the present claim recites a system comprising computing devices, a server, and a web interface. These limitations are recited by claim 1 of Rejkhowa. The limitations of claims 2-17 of the present application are nearly identical to limitations of claims in the Patent, as shown above. Claims 18-19 of the present application are obvious in view of claim 1 of the Patent and claim 1 of Rejkhowa in a similar manner to claim 1 of the present application.
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 1-12, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diedrich et al. (U.S. 2005/0228263, hereinafter “Diederich”) in view of Saggion, Horacio, et al. (“NLP Resources for the Analysis of Patient/Therapist Interviews.” Proceedings of the Seventh conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10). 2010; hereinafter “Saggion”), and further in view of Rejkhowa.
Regarding Claim 1, Diederich teaches a to carry out a method (¶ [0018] – [0024]) comprising:
obtaining text from text-based messages (¶ [0024] and [0063] – [0064]);
determining at least one feature of the text (¶ [0025] and claim 1); and
determining a characteristic of a patient and/or a therapist using the at least one feature and questionnaire scores (¶ [0041] and [0062]. ¶ [0079] describes a clinical interview, which is a form of a questionnaire); and
taking an action in dependence upon the determined characteristic, the action comprising providing an alert to the therapist and/or a supervisor (¶ [0065], [0068], and [0082]—a positive classification of a diagnosis is an alert provided to a therapist).
Diederich teaches that the text can be in the form of a message such as an e-mail or a letter (¶ [0079]), but does not specifically teach that the text-based messages are sent between a patient and a therapist providing psychological therapy; and wherein the characteristic relates to a change in level of a psychological condition of the patient. Diedrich also does not teach a computer-based system comprising a plurality of computing devices connectable, via one or more networks, to a server: wherein the server is configured to provide a web interface to enable text-based messages to be sent between a patient user of a computing device and a therapist providing psychological therapy.
However, Saggion teaches obtaining text from text-based messages sent between a patient and a therapist providing psychological therapy (p. 2028, 1. Introduction and pp. 2029 – 2030, 4. Text Analysis of Interviews).
These claimed elements were known in Diederich and Saggion and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the text-based messages between a patient and therapist of Saggion with the text-based messages of Diederich to yield the predictable result of enable text-based messages to be sent between a patient user of a computing device and a therapist providing psychological therapy, and to carry out a method comprising: obtaining text from the text-based messages. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of enabling better diagnosis and follow-up by using natural language processing on text interactions between a patient and therapist (Saggion, p. 2028, 1. Introduction, last paragraph).
Diederich/Saggion does not specifically teach a computer-based system comprising a plurality of computing devices connectable, via one or more networks, to a server: wherein the server is configured to provide a web interface to enable text-based messages to be sent between a patient user of a computing device and a therapist providing psychological therapy. However, Rajkhowa teaches a computer-based system comprising a plurality of computing devices connectable, via one or more networks, to a server: wherein the server is configured to provide a web interface to enable text-based messages to be sent between a patient user of a computing device and a therapist providing psychological therapy (fig. 1; ¶ [0015] – [0018]).
All of the claimed elements were known in Diederich/Saggion and Rajkhowa and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the system and web interface of Rajkhowa with the messages of Diederich/Saggion to yield the predictable result of a computer-based system comprising a plurality of computing devices connectable, via one or more networks, to a server: wherein the server is configured to provide a web interface to enable text-based messages to be sent between a patient user of a computing device and a therapist providing psychological therapy, and to carry out a method comprising the operations of the present claim. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of improving a system of counseling by permitting a patient and practitioner to freely and fully exchange information with one another while maintaining the secrecy and anonymity of the patient (Rajkhowa, ¶ [0003]).
Regarding Claim 2, Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa teaches wherein the web interface further enables the patient to complete one or more questionnaires, and wherein the method carried out by the server further comprises determining the questionnaire scores from the one or more questionnaires completed by the patient via the web interface (Diederich, ¶ [0079]—a clinical interview is a form of a questionnaire. Saggion, sections 1 and 4.2 also describe a computer-implemented methods of interpreting patient interviews, which can be considered generating a questionnaire score. Rajkhowa, ¶ [0024] describes a patient using a web-based AI application to respond to questions asked by an AI system, which also interprets {i.e. scores} responses from the patient).
Regarding Claim 3, Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa teaches wherein the method carried out by the server further comprises determining the characteristic using the at least one feature and a model obtained using supervised machine learning (Diederich, ¶ [0007], [0025], [0031], and [0066] – [0067]).
Regarding Claim 4, Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa teaches wherein the method carried out by the server further comprises obtaining the model using training data comprising text obtained from other messages between patients and therapists and data relating to the characteristic (Diederich, ¶ [0007], [0025], [0031], and [0066] – [0067]).
Regarding Claim 5, Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa teaches wherein the at least one feature comprises at least one value describing a level to which the text relates to a topic (Diederich, ¶ [0064] – [0065]—the parameters are values and a diagnosis of a condition can be considered a topic).
Regarding Claim 6, Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa teaches wherein the method carried out by the server further comprises determining one or more topics using a topic model and text obtained from other messages between patients and therapists (Diederich, ¶ [0064] – [0067]).
Regarding Claim 7, Diederich/Saggion/Rojkhowa teaches wherein the at least one feature comprises at least one value relating to a frequency of a word or sequence of words in the text (Diederich, fig. 2; ¶ [0025], [0069], and [0084]).
Regarding Claim 8, Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa teaches wherein each word or sequence of words is one of a set of most frequently-used words or sequences of words in text obtained from other messages between patients and therapists (Diederich, ¶ [0025] and [0069]).
Regarding Claim 9, Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa teaches wherein the method carried out by the server further comprises: obtaining at least one further feature including at least one feature of text obtained from text-based messages previously sent between the patient and therapist; and determining the characteristic using the at least one feature and the at least one further feature (Diederich, ¶ [0025] and claim 1—multiple features are obtained and used to determine the characteristic).
Regarding Claim 10, Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa teaches wherein the method carried out by the server further comprises: obtaining data relating to the patient, the therapist and/or communications therebetween; and determining the characteristic using the at least one feature and the data (Diederich, ¶ [0024] and [0063] – [0064] and Saggion, p. 2028, 1. Introduction and pp. 2029 – 2030, 4. Text Analysis of Interviews).
Regarding Claim 11, Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa teaches wherein obtaining the text comprises replacing words or sequences of words with alternatives, wherein each alternative can replace a plurality of different words or sequences of words (Diederich, ¶ [0069]).
Regarding Claim 12, Diederich/Saggion/Lee teaches the psychological condition corresponds to depression and/or anxiety (Diederich, ¶ [0002] and [0082]) and the level of the psychological condition of the patient is determined based on at least one questionnaire score (Diederich, ¶ [0079]—an interview is a form of a questionnaire; see also Saggion, p. 2028, 1. Introduction for further teachings of interviews).
Regarding Claim 15, Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa teaches wherein the characteristic can take one of two values, one of the two values corresponding to a situation or scenario of concern (Diederich, ¶ [0082]—the two values may be depressed and not depressed; depression is a situation of concern).
Regarding Claim 17, Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa teaches wherein the characteristic further relates to a change in a level of a psychological condition of the patient and/or a predicted level or change in level of a psychological condition of the patient at the end of therapy (Diedrich, figs. 5 and 6; ¶ [0081] – [0082]—the end of the messages can be interpreted as an end of a session of therapy. Completion of an interview as described by Saggion, section 1 can also be considered an end of a therapy session, after which a level of a psychological condition is predicted).
Regarding Claim 18, Diederich/Saggion/Rejkhowa teaches the computer-implemented method of the present claim in a similar manner to claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 19, Diederich/Saggion/Rejkhowa teaches computer program code comprising instructions for performing a method according to claim 18 (Diederich, fig. 4 and Claim 21; also Rejkhowa, ¶ [0016]—a processor and/or server operates by programming and applications, i.e. computer program code).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diedrich in view of Saggion in view of Rajkhowa, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Poulin, Chris, et al. (“Predicting the risk of suicide by analyzing the text of clinical notes.” PloS one 9.1 (2014); hereinafter “Poulin”).
Regarding Claim 13, Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa does not specifically teach the characteristic relates to a likelihood of the patient engaging in risky behaviour and/or dropping out of the therapy. However, Poulin teaches a characteristic relates to a likelihood of the patient engaging in risky behaviour and/or dropping out of the therapy (p. 2, Overview and Primary Data, p. 3, Informative Features—characteristics of the text relate to a likelihood of suicide, which is a risky behavior).
All of the claimed elements were known in Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa and Poulin and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the analyzing text to make a prediction of a likelihood of risky behavior of Poulin with the characteristic determined from text-based messages of Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa to yield the predictable result of the characteristic relates to a likelihood of the patient engaging in risky behaviour and/or dropping out of the therapy. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of preventing death of patients by determining when they are at risk of self-harm or suicide.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diedrich in view of Saggion in view of Rajkhowa, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Castonguay, Louis G., et al. (“Predicting the Effect of Cognitive Therapy for Depression: A Study of Unique and Common Factors.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 64.3 (1996): 497-504; hereinafter “Castonguay”).
Regarding Claim 14, Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa does not specifically teach the characteristic relates to a level to which a therapist follows a particular psychological therapy approach. However, Castonguay teaches a characteristic relates to a level to which a therapist follows a particular psychological therapy approach (p. 500, “Predictions of posttreatment outcome {second column} and p. 502, “Discussion,” first paragraph—the level to which the therapist followed a particular approach is a characteristic that is related to the outcome).
All of the claimed elements were known in Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa and Castonguay and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the therapist following a particular psychological approach of Castonguay with the characteristic of Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa to yield the predictable result of the characteristic relating to a level to which a therapist follows a particular psychological therapy approach. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of improving patient outcomes by determining the most effective therapy approach.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diedrich in view of Saggion in view of Rajkhowa, as applied to claim 15, above, and further in view of Pacula, Maciej, et al. (“Automatic detection of psychological distress indicators and severity assessment in crisis hotline conversations,” 2014 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2014; hereinafter “Pacula”).
Regarding Claim 16, Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa does not specifically teach using three or more features of the text to predict the situation or scenario of concern with an accuracy of greater than 70%. However, Pacula teaches using three or more features of text to predict a situation or scenario of concern with an accuracy of greater than 70% (section 7-7.2.1, including tables 2 and 3—the classifiers predict situations of concern with accuracies of 79-88% according to experimental results).
All of the claimed elements were known in Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa and Pacula and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the three or more features and classification accuracy of Pacula with the text-based messages and situation or scenario of concern of Diederich/Saggion/Rajkhowa to yield the predictable result of using three or more features of the text to predict the situation or scenario of concern with an accuracy of greater than 70%. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of better serving patients in distress by accurately diagnosing their mental state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAL W SCHNEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1918. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m..
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at 303-297-4307. 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.
/HAL SCHNEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights