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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant's communication filed on 12/31/2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 1, 8, 15 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Argument
In view of applicant’s statement of the Interview hold on December 18, 2025 that “the Examiner agreed that the proposed amendments, substantially included in this response, appear to overcome the applied references”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner noted that no agreement was reach and already showed that the references still broadly teach and suggested amendment more details.
In view of applicant’s arguments that the amended independent claims overcome the Double Patenting rejection, examiner notes that the amended limitation in claims 1, 8, 15 “the keywords include a financial keyword” is found obviously in the Patent as “keywords related to a request for funds”, thus the Double Patenting is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As noted above, in the Interview hold on December 18, 2025 that no agreement was reach and already showed that the references still broadly teach by the references since the limitation was amended in an alternative language (see details below).
Double Patenting
4. 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 – 4, 6 – 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,958,784 B1 because all limitations of claims 1 – 4, 6 – 7 of the instant application are found in claims 1 – 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,958,784 B1. Notes that the amended limitation “the keywords include a financial keyword” is found obviously in the Patent as “keywords related to a request for funds”.
Claims 8 – 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 – 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,958,784 B1 because all limitations of claims 8 – 13 of the instant application are found in claims 8 – 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,958,784 B1. Notes that the amended limitation “the keywords include a financial keyword” is found obviously in the Patent as “keywords related to a request for funds”.
Claims 15 – 17, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,958,784 B1 because all limitations of claims 15 – 17, 20 of the instant application are found in claims 15 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,958,784 B1. Notes that the amended limitation “the keywords include a financial keyword” is found obviously in the Patent as “keywords related to a request for funds”.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because omission of element and its function (i.e., receiving, by the user device, a request to automatically screen the incoming call based on information associated with a user of the user device) in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,856,137 B1 because all limitations of claims 1 – 4, 6 – 7 of the instant application are found in claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,856,137 B1. Notes that the amended limitation “the keywords include a financial keyword” is found obviously in the Patent as “keywords indicate the purpose for the call” and “request that causes funds to be transferred”.
Claims 8 – 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 – 10, 12 – 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,856,137 B1 because all limitations of claims 8 – 13 of the instant application are found in claims 8 – 10, 12 – 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,856,137 B1. Notes that the amended limitation “the keywords include a financial keyword” is found obviously in the Patent as “keywords indicate the purpose for the call” and “request that causes funds to be transferred”.
Claims 15 – 17, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,856,137 B1 because all limitations of claims 15 – 17, 20 of the instant application are found in claims 15 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,856,137 B1. Notes that the amended limitation “the keywords include a financial keyword” is found obviously in the Patent as “keywords indicate the purpose for the call” and “request that causes funds to be transferred”.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because omission of element and its function (i.e., based on user device setting information, blacklist) in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. Claims 1 – 3, 6, 8 – 11, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matias et al. (hereinafter “Matias”) (Pub # US 2021/0314440 A1) in view of Bentitou et al. (hereinafter “Bentitou”) (Pub # US 2018/0020093 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Matias discloses a method, comprising:
screening, by a user device (see 110 in FIG. 1, 210 in FIG. 2 comprising processors 240, storage components 248 store program instructions, [0069], [0070]), a call from a calling device (see FIG. 3E) for based on whether information associated with the calling device is listed in whitelist information (i.e., call from Dad) (see [0002], FIG. 1, FIG. 3E for a call screening service (CSS) screens incoming telephone calls before or instead of enabling direct voice communication between the caller and the user, classify an incoming caller according to a particular type, see [0098] for the CSS determining that the caller is on a whitelist, favorites list, or address book);
analyzing, by the user device and based on screening the call, a transcription of voice input, from the calling device (see [0002], [0005], [0043], FIG. 3F, FIG. 3G, for provide an interrogation experience tailored for the particular type of caller, and the CSS presents an ongoing transcription of the interrogation with the caller);
outputting, by the user device, an option (i.e., 118 in FIG. 1, 318 C in FIG. 3G, 318 D in FIG. 3H for output options) based on detecting keywords in the transcription (see [0002], [0050], FIG. 3G, FIG. 3H for output options, and receive user inputs in response to the transcription, wherein the user inputs cause the CSS to asynchronously adjust how or what the CSS communicates to the caller),
wherein the keywords include one or more of: a financial keyword, and a time keyword (see 316E in FIG. 3H, [0114], [0118] for detecting keywords for purpose of the call “dropping by if you’re around today”, thus a time keyword); and
performing, by the user device, an action associated with the option (see [0002], [0054], FIG. 3G, FIG. 3H, FIG. 3I for receive user inputs in response to the transcription, wherein the user inputs cause the CSS to asynchronously adjust how or what the CSS communicates to the caller).
Matias teaches that the CSS may determine automatically based on contextual information from context module or a prediction made by a machine learning (ML) model of flow manager, that the user would prefer to screen the caller before speaking to him or her directly over the telephone connection (see [0108], [0113], [0126]). In addition, the CSS determining that the caller is on a whitelist, favorites list, or address book (see [0098], and see FIG.3E for call from Dad). However, Matias also teaches that the CSS may present an ongoing transcription of the interrogation with the caller and receive user inputs in response to the transcription, such user inputs may cause the example CSS to asynchronously adjust how or what the example CSS communicates to the caller (see [0002]).
Matias does not teach specifically that enables screening incoming calls automatically without requiring input from the called party.
In an analogous art, Bentitou discloses enables screening incoming calls automatically and intelligently without requiring input from the called party (see Bentitou, [0010] – [0011], [0165], [0178]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Matias, and have automatically screen the call, thereby allowing the called party to view the calling party's message in real-time, and allowing the called party to modify the screening process in real-time, as discussed by Bentitou (see Bentitou, [0010]).
Regarding claim 8, Matias discloses a user device (see 110 in FIG. 1or 210 in FIG. 2), comprising:
one or more memories (248); and one or more processors (240), communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
screen a call from a calling device (see FIG. 3E) for based on whether information associated with the calling device is listed in whitelist information (i.e., call from Dad) (see [0002], FIG. 1, FIG. 3E for a call screening service (CSS) screens incoming telephone calls before or instead of enabling direct voice communication between the caller and the user, classify an incoming caller according to a particular type, see [0098] for the CSS determining that the caller is on a whitelist, favorites list, or address book);
analyze, based on screening the call, a transcription of voice input, from the calling device (see [0002], [0005], [0043], FIG. 3F, FIG. 3G, for provide an interrogation experience tailored for the particular type of caller, and the CSS presents an ongoing transcription of the interrogation with the caller);
output an option (i.e., 118 in FIG. 1, 318 C in FIG. 3G, 318 D in FIG. 3H for output options) based on detecting keywords in the transcription (see [0002], [0050], FIG. 3G, FIG. 3H for output options, and receive user inputs in response to the transcription, wherein the user inputs cause the CSS to asynchronously adjust how or what the CSS communicates to the caller),
wherein the keywords include one or more of: a financial keyword, and a request keyword (see 316E in FIG. 3H, [0114], [0118] for detecting keywords for purpose of the call “dropping by if you’re around today”, thus a request keyword); and
perform an action associated with the option (see [0002], [0054], FIG. 3G, FIG. 3H, FIG. 3I for receive user inputs in response to the transcription, wherein the user inputs cause the CSS to asynchronously adjust how or what the CSS communicates to the caller).
Matias teaches that the CSS may determine automatically based on contextual information from context module or a prediction made by a machine learning (ML) model of flow manager, that the user would prefer to screen the caller before speaking to him or her directly over the telephone connection (see [0108], [0113], [0126]). In addition, the CSS determining that the caller is on a whitelist, favorites list, or address book (see [0098], and see FIG.3E for call from Dad). However, Matias also teaches that the CSS may present an ongoing transcription of the interrogation with the caller and receive user inputs in response to the transcription, such user inputs may cause the example CSS to asynchronously adjust how or what the example CSS communicates to the caller (see [0002]).
Matias does not teach specifically that enables screening incoming calls automatically without requiring input from the called party.
In an analogous art, Bentitou discloses enables screening incoming calls automatically and intelligently without requiring input from the called party (see Bentitou, [0010] – [0011], [0165], [0178]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Matias, and have automatically screen the call, thereby allowing the called party to view the calling party's message in real-time, and allowing the called party to modify the screening process in real-time, as discussed by Bentitou (see Bentitou, [0010]).
Regarding claim 15, Matias discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (see storage components 248 store program instructions), the instructions comprising: one or more instructions (see [0069], [0070]) that, when executed by one or more processors (240) of a user device (see 110 in FIG. 1or 210 in FIG. 2), cause the one or more processors to:
screen a call from a calling device (see FIG. 3E) for based on whether information associated with the calling device is listed in whitelist information (i.e., call from Dad) (see [0002], FIG. 1, FIG. 3E for a call screening service (CSS) screens incoming telephone calls before or instead of enabling direct voice communication between the caller and the user, classify an incoming caller according to a particular type, see [0098] for the CSS determining that the caller is on a whitelist, favorites list, or address book);
analyze, based on screening the call, a transcription of voice input, from the calling device (see [0002], [0005], [0043], FIG. 3F, FIG. 3G, for provide an interrogation experience tailored for the particular type of caller, and the CSS presents an ongoing transcription of the interrogation with the caller);
output an option (i.e., 118 in FIG. 1, 318 C in FIG. 3G, 318 D in FIG. 3H for output options) based on detecting keywords in the transcription (see [0002], [0050], FIG. 3G, FIG. 3H for output options, and receive user inputs in response to the transcription, wherein the user inputs cause the CSS to asynchronously adjust how or what the CSS communicates to the caller),
wherein the keywords include one or more of: a financial keyword, and an action keyword (see 316E in FIG. 3H, [0114], [0118] for detecting keywords for purpose of the call “dropping by if you’re around today”, thus an action keyword); and
perform an action associated with the option (see [0002], [0054], FIG. 3G, FIG. 3H, FIG. 3I for receive user inputs in response to the transcription, wherein the user inputs cause the CSS to asynchronously adjust how or what the CSS communicates to the caller).
Matias teaches that the CSS may determine automatically based on contextual information from context module or a prediction made by a machine learning (ML) model of flow manager, that the user would prefer to screen the caller before speaking to him or her directly over the telephone connection (see [0108], [0113], [0126]). In addition, the CSS determining that the caller is on a whitelist, favorites list, or address book (see [0098], and see FIG.3E for call from Dad). However, Matias also teaches that the CSS may present an ongoing transcription of the interrogation with the caller and receive user inputs in response to the transcription, such user inputs may cause the example CSS to asynchronously adjust how or what the example CSS communicates to the caller (see [0002]).
Matias does not teach specifically that enables screening incoming calls automatically without requiring input from the called party.
In an analogous art, Bentitou discloses enables screening incoming calls automatically and intelligently without requiring input from the called party (see Bentitou, [0010] – [0011], [0165], [0178]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Matias, and have automatically screen the call, thereby allowing the called party to view the calling party's message in real-time, and allowing the called party to modify the screening process in real-time, as discussed by Bentitou (see Bentitou, [0010]).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Matias in view of Bentitou disclose wherein the option permits a response to the call based on a fraud likelihood (see Matias, 118A in FIG. 1, 318A in FIG. 3C, [0032], [0101] for option to mark a caller and telephone call as a spam or an unwanted solicitation and cause CSS module to speak to the caller “Sorry,…”).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Matias in view of Bentitou disclose providing, for display, the transcription of the voice input and information identifying the option / output the option based on stored registration information associated with the calling device (i.e., screening call from Dad) (see Matias, FIG. 3H, [0115] - [0118]).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 17, Matias in view of Bentitou disclose detecting an interaction with the option; and wherein performing the action comprises: performing the action based on the interaction with the option (see Matias, FIG. 3G, FIG. 3H, FIG.3I, [0116] – [0119]).
Regarding claim 10, Matias in view of Bentitou disclose determine a related purpose of the call based on the detecting the keywords in the transcription; and output the option based on the related purpose of the call (see Matias, FIG. 3G, FIG. 3H, [0114] – [0118]).
9. Claims 4, 5, 7, 12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matias et al. (hereinafter “Matias”) (Pub # US 2021/0314440 A1) in view of Bentitou et al. (hereinafter “Bentitou”) (Pub # US 2018/0020093 A1) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Studnicka et al. (hereinafter “Studnicka”) (Pub # US 2018/0096334 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Matias in view of Bentitou do not disclose that transmitting a request that causes funds to be transferred from a first account associated with the user device to a second account associated with the calling device.
In an analogous art, Studnicka discloses transmitting a request that causes funds to be transferred from a first account associated with the user device to a second account associated with the calling device (see Studnicka, FIG. 4, [0030], [0074] for in response to the request, the payment application receives an authorization indication (e.g., via an input by the first user) that indicates the desired payment transaction is authorized by the first user, see [0074] – [0076] for determining the desired payment transaction is authorized, then determine first account information associated with a first account of the first user and the second account information associated with a second account of the second user, and cause the payment amount to be transferred between the first account and the second account).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Matias/ Bentitou, and have purpose of the call is transfer funds by transmitting a request that causes funds to be transferred from a first account associated with the user device to a second account associated with the calling device wherein the payment amount is determined based on the identified set of words spoken during the real-time voice communication, (which were taught by Matias/ Bentitou), thereby providing secure for a desired payment transaction between the first user and the second user, as discussed by Studnicka (see Studnicka, [0011] – [0016]).
Regarding claim 5, Matias in view of Bentitou and Studnicka disclose transmitting a message requesting authentication information to the calling device (see Studnicka, FIG. 4, [0030], [0074] – [0076]).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Matias in view of Bentitou and Studnicka disclose wherein the action is related to a request for funds; wherein the option is to transfer funds from a first account associated with the user device to a second account associated with the calling device, the method further comprising: detecting an interaction with the option (see Matias, FIG. 3G, FIG. 3H for interaction with the option); and transmitting, based on detecting the interaction, a request that causes funds to be transferred from the first account to the second account (see Studnicka, FIG. 4, [0030], [0074] –[0076] for in response to the request, the payment application receives an authorization that indicates the desired payment transaction is authorized by the first user, see [0074] – [0076] for cause the payment amount to be transferred between the first account and the second account).
Regarding claim 16, Matias in view of Bentitou and Studnicka disclose wherein the option includes one of: an option to transfer funds equal to a numeric value detected in the transcription of the voice input (see Studnicka, FIG. 4, [0029] – [0030], [0070] – [0074]), an option to transfer a different amount of funds than a numeric value detected in the transcription of the voice input, an option to input a custom amount of funds to be transferred, an option to deny transfer of funds, or an option to request additional information regarding the request for funds.
10. Claims 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matias et al. (hereinafter “Matias”) (Pub # US 2021/0314440 A1) in view of Bentitou et al. (hereinafter “Bentitou”) (Pub # US 2018/0020093 A1) as applied to claims 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Sawant et al. (hereinafter “Sawant”) (Patent # US 10,110,738 B1).
Regarding claims 14 and 18, Matias in view of Bentitou disclose the ML model establish a rule that whenever a telephone call originates from the particular caller to classify the caller as spam even though the caller may or may not be included in spam list, the call is determined to be from an unauthorized calling party based on a match of caller identification information or on the separate call processing criteria that is provided to the artificial intelligence, and the AI calculates all factors and compares to pre-designated data to determine urgent/spam of the call, for example, length of time remains on the call, e.g., hangs up after 10 seconds compared to an average call length of 10 minutes) ((see Matias, [0088], [0092], and see Bentitou, [0017], [0059] – [0061], [0068], [0075], [0106], [0107], [0159]).
Matias in view of Bentitou do not disclose that calculate a fraud score indicating a likelihood that a purpose for the call is fraudulent; and output the option based on determining that the fraud score satisfies a threshold.
In an analogous art, Sawant discloses that calculate a fraud score indicating a likelihood that a purpose for the call is fraudulent; and output the option based on determining that the fraud score satisfies a threshold (see Sawant, FIG. 3, FIG. 5, col. 1 lines 59 – 67, col. 2 lines 1 – 3, col. 11 lines 1 – 4, 29 – 46 for display the estimated likelihood that the incoming voice call is fraudulent and display suggested instructions to the user (e.g., to terminate the call, to avoid providing certain types of personal information and/or to avoid taking certain types of actions, such as money transfers, and see col. 12 lines 21 – 54 for performing module of the computing system perform the security action during the voice call and provide alert and/or drop the call during the voice call).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Matias/ Bentitou, and have calculate a fraud score indicating a likelihood that a purpose for the call is fraudulent and output the option based on determining that the fraud score satisfies a threshold, thereby performing a security action during the incoming voice call such that enhance facilitating the use of smart phone in financial transactions, as discussed by Sawant (see Sawant, col. 1 lines 6 – 18, 36 – 38, col. 4 lines 10 – 28).
Regarding claim 19, Matias in view of Bentitou and Sawant disclose calculate a fraud score indicating a likelihood that a purpose for the call is fraudulent; and output an indication (i.e., alert 530 in FIG. 5 of Sawant), see when the fraud score is greater than a threshold (see Sawant, FIG. 3, FIG. 5, col. 1 lines 59 – 67, col. 2 lines 1 – 3, col. 11 lines 1 – 4, 29 – 46 for display the estimated likelihood that the incoming voice call is fraudulent and display suggested instructions to the user).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-THUY THI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 6PM (IFP).
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, ANTHONY ADDY can be reached at (571)272-7795. 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.
/MONG-THUY T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645