DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 to 2, 4 to 5, 8 to 10, 12, and 15 to 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,469,207) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0343935).
Concerning independent claims 1, 8, and 15, Cohen et al. discloses a voice processing method, system, and computer program product, comprising:
“at least one processor coupled with a memory; and an audio modulation manager implemented at least partially in hardware and configured to:” – a voice processing system includes electronics component and software with control circuitry 304 and memory 306 (“at least one processor coupled with a memory”), and includes hardware and instructions with a backchannel response program 312 (“an audio modulation manager implemented at least partially in hardware and configured to:”) column 10, lines 6 to 46: Figure 5);
“detect an incoming communication [in a smart home environment]” – a predetermined pattern of speech and silence is determined while a user is speaking and recording a message (Abstract); a message is monitored to determine a predetermined pattern of speech and silence (column 3, lines 17 to 21); speech detector 16 comprises hardware and software that classifies incoming audio data via audio connection 12 as speech or silence (column 4, lines 51 to 53: Figure 1); speech detector 16 determines a predetermined pattern of speech and silence segments in the audio input (column 5, lines 15 to 18: Figure 1): system 10 receives audio input from a caller (column 7, lines 45 to 46: Figure 2: Step S104); a telephone network environment embodies a voice mail system 100 that is included in a public switched telecommunications network 102 (column 9, lines 9 to 19: Figure 4); backchannel response program 18 could be included in an environment of a digital answering machine 110 (column 9, lines 32 to 34: Figure 4); here, a voice mail system 100 operable in an environment of a telephone network or digital answering machine includes an “environment”;
“determine to simulate a secondary user presence of at least one other person from [in the smart home environment] using audio modulation” – an audible backchannel response is provided between the voice processing system and the user while the user is speaking (Abstract); a realistically simulated backchannel response makes a calling party feel more natural and comfortable by simulating a human listener (column 3, lines 45 to 48); based on the predetermined pattern of speech and silence, backchannel response program 18 provides commands to play a backchannel response 20 to the user (“determine to simulate a secondary user presence”) (column 5, lines 15 to 21: Figure 1); backchannel responses are produced by a speech synthesis mechanism in which system 10 generates sounds to make up spoken words; a backchannel response can be embodied in any appropriate digital encoded files; prerecorded responses are phrases that may be any appropriate backchannel response, e.g., ‘mm-hummm’, ‘OK’, ‘yeah’, ‘uh-huh’, ‘yes’, ‘right’, etc.; a designated owner is enabled to record or sample backchannel responses in their own unique voice; a designated owner of the mailbox is enabled to record a voice imprint having the tonal characteristics of their voice; this advantageously enables the system to synthesize other voices (“a secondary presence of at least one other person”); the owner of the mailbox may want the caller or speaker to hear a backchannel response in the voice of a famous person; a system provides for voice imprints to be adjusted by a digital sound manipulation device (“using audio modulation”) (column 5, line 40 to column 6, line 19: Figure 1); a randomly generated backchannel response enables simulation of a human listener (column 8, lines 32 to 36: Figure 2: Step S212); broadly, “a secondary user presence” is provided to a caller leaving a message because a backchannel response simulates that someone (“at least one other person”) is listening to a voice mail message being left by the caller; a backchannel response is produced “using audio modulation” because a voice of an owner of the mailbox may be adjusted to their tonal characteristics or a voice is synthesized in the voice of a famous person.
Concerning independent claim 1, Cohen et al. additionally discloses:
“delegate an outgoing audio communication to at least one media device for playback [in the smart home environment] to simulate the secondary user presence of the at least one other person” – the owner of the mailbox may want the caller or speaker to hear a backchannel response in the voice of a famous person; a system provides for voice imprints to be adjusted by a digital sound manipulation device (“to simulate the secondary user presence of the at least one other person”) (column 6, lines 4 to 19: Figure 1); system 10 is responsive and plays a backchannel response to the caller or user; backchannel responses 20 are played to the caller or user via a handset speaker or audio playback device (“delegate an outgoing communication to at least one media device for playback”); system 10 can be configured to play only a specific designated backchannel response that is pre-selected by the mailbox owner, or can be configured to play out a randomly selected backchannel response; a caller or user will hear a different backchannel response to make the user interface more natural as in speech with a human listener; randomly generated backchannel responses enable simulation of a human listener (“to simulate the secondary user presence”) (column 8, lines 21 to 36: Figure 2: Step S 212).
Concerning independent claims 8 and 15, Cohen et al. discloses:
“initiate the at least one modulated audio file as an outgoing audio communication [in the smart home environment] to simulate the secondary user presence of the at least one other person” – a preset backchannel response is played to the calling party in audible form (Abstract); backchannel responses 20 are embodied as computerized audio responses selectively stored on computer usable storage media including hard disk; a backchannel response can be embodied in any appropriate digital encoded files (“at least one modulated audio file”) (column 5, lines 40 to 52: Figure 1); the owner of the mailbox may want the caller or speaker to hear a backchannel response in the voice of a famous person; a system provides for voice imprints to be adjusted by a digital sound manipulation device (“to simulate the secondary user presence of the at least one other person”) (column 6, lines 4 to 19: Figure 1); system 10 can be configured to play only a specific designated backchannel response that is pre-selected by the mailbox owner, or can be configured to play out a randomly selected backchannel response; a caller or user will hear a different backchannel response to make the user interface more natural as in speech with a human listener; randomly generated backchannel responses enable simulation of a human listener (“to simulate the secondary user presence”) (column 8, lines 21 to 36: Figure 2: Step S 212).
Concerning independent claims 1, 8, and 15, Cohen et al. discloses all of the limitations with the exception of performing a method of detecting incoming communication and delegating an outgoing communication “in a smart home environment”. However, “a smart home environment” is mainly a statement of a field of intended use, and arguably does not set forth a limitation that contributes to patentability if a structure of the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. That is, there are no structural differences between “a smart home environment” of the claim language and a telecommunications environment that plays a simulated voice message of Figure 4 of Cohen et al. Arguably, Applicants’ limitation of “a smart home environment” is only a statement of intended use, and consequently does not distinguish over Cohen et al. in accordance with a patent law doctrine of “intended use”.
Concerning independent claims 1, 8, and 15, Harris et al. teaches a media playback system that operates in a plurality of modes in a home. (Abstract) A media playback system (MPS) is associated with a home environment having a plurality of rooms and spaces, and may be referred to as a ‘home environment’, ‘smart home’, or ‘environment’ 101. (¶[0038]: Figures 1A and 1B) One embodiment provides an away mode 760d that is intended to be utilized when users are away from media playback system 100. Since users are not expected to be home when playback devices 102 are operating in away mode 760d, configurations 764d are applied in a manner intended to promote security and user privacy. Configurations 764d may include playing back a mix of audio content to simulate presence of users in a household. Playback devices 102 in away mode 760d may switch between various content and take actions to simulate usage. An uninvited guest may be led to believe that users are home by this simulated usage. Playback device 102, to simulate presence in away mode 760d, may play back human voices, e.g., simulated conversation. (¶[0168] - ¶[0170]: Figure 7D) Playback devices 102 may operate as a central hub and manage changes for all devices within a home including smart home devices, e.g., home monitoring system, thermostat, etc. Servers 906 may operate as a cloud-based system for playback devices in ‘smart home’ systems. (¶[0216] - ¶[0217]: Figures 10A and 10B) Harris et al., then, teaches simulating voices of users in a conversation “in a smart home environment”. This simulation of voices in an away mode in a smart home environment is to “determine to simulate a secondary user presence of at least one other person from the smart home environment”. Playing back audio content on playback devices 102 is to “delegate an outgoing audio communication to at least one media device for playback in the smart home environment to simulate the secondary user presence of the at least one other person” and “initiating an outgoing audio communication in the smart home environment to simulate the secondary user presence of the at least one other person.” That is, playing back a simulated conversation in an away mode to lead an uninvited guest to believe that users are home is “to simulate the secondary user presence of at least one other person.” An objective is to provide a media playback system of playback devices that are operable in a plurality of modes that may include an away mode to simulate presence of users in a household by playing back audio content to enhance home security. (¶[0026] - ¶[0027]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to simulate a secondary user presence of at least one other person in a smart home environment as taught by Harris et al. to provide a simulated backchannel response of a human listener of an incoming communication in Cohen et al. for a purpose of enhancing home security.
Concerning claims 2, 10, and 19, Cohen et al. discloses that a designated owner (“a user”) is enabled to record or sample backchannel responses in their own unique voice; a designated owner of the mailbox is enabled to record a voice imprint having the tonal characteristics of their voice; this advantageously enables the system to synthesize other voices; the owner of the mailbox may want the caller or speaker to hear a backchannel response in the voice of a famous person; a system provides for voice imprints to be adjusted by a digital sound manipulation device (“the audio modulation manager is configured to modulate the outgoing audio communication to simulate the at least one other person”) (column 5, line 40 to column 6, line 19: Figure 1). Here, an owner of a voice mail system is “a user” who records a backchannel response in his own unique voice (“the outgoing communication is voiced by a user”) and a system provides for adjustment of the user’s voice to be a voice of a famous person (“the audio modulation manager is configured to modulate the outgoing audio communication to simulate the at least one secondary user of at least one other person”). That is, a famous person is “the at least one other person” in an embodiment of a backchannel response being simulated in a voice of a famous person instead of a user’s own voice. Harris et al. teaches “the smart home environment”.
Concerning claims 4 to 5, 12, and 18, Cohen et al. discloses that backchannel responses are produced by a speech synthesis mechanism in which system 10 generates sounds to make up spoken words; a backchannel response can be embodied in any appropriate digital encoded files; backchannel responses are produced by a speech synthesis mechanism in which system 10 generates sounds by splicing together prerecorded words; prerecorded responses are phrases that may be any appropriate backchannel response, e.g., ‘mm-hummm’, ‘OK’, ‘yeah’, ‘uh-huh’, ‘yes’, ‘right’, etc. (“wherein the outgoing audio communication is pre-recorded audio that simulates the secondary human presence”) (column 5, lines 40 to 58: Figure 1); a designated owner is enabled to record or sample backchannel responses in their own unique voice; a designated owner of the mailbox is enabled to record a voice imprint having the tonal characteristics of their voice; this advantageously enables the system to synthesize other voices; the owner of the mailbox may want the caller or speaker to hear a backchannel response in the voice of a famous person; a system provides for voice imprints to be adjusted by a digital sound manipulation device (“wherein the outgoing audio communication is computer-generated audio that simulates the secondary user presence”) (column 5, line 40 to column 6, line 19: Figure 1). Here, a voice that is speech synthesized is “computer-generated audio”.
Concerning claims 9 and 16, Cohen et al. discloses:
“delegate the outgoing audio communication to at least one media device for playback [in the smart home environment] to simulate the secondary user presence of the at least one other person” – a system provides for voice imprints to be adjusted by a digital sound manipulation device (“to simulate the secondary user presence of the at least one other person”) (column 5, line 40 to column 6, line 19: Figure 1); system 10 is responsive and plays a backchannel response to the caller or user; backchannel responses 20 are played to the caller or user via a handset speaker or audio playback device (“delegate an outgoing communication to at least one media device for playback”); system 10 can be configured to play only a specific designated backchannel response that is pre-selected by the mailbox owner, or can be configured to play out a randomly selected backchannel response; a caller or user will hear a different backchannel response to make the user interface more natural as in speech with a human listener; randomly generated backchannel responses enable simulation of a human listener (“to simulate the secondary user presence”) (column 8, lines 21 to 36: Figure 2: Step S 212). Harris et al. teaches “the smart home environment”.
Concerning claim 17, Cohen et al. discloses that a method produces an audible backchannel response based on a timing of a predetermined pattern between speech and silence periods (Abstract); based on a predetermined pattern of speech and silence, backchannel response program 18 provides a command to play a backchannel response (column 5, lines 15 to 21: Figure 1). Here, “an audio emulation mode” is initiated by backchannel response program 18 based upon a timing of a predetermined pattern of speech and silence (“wherein the audio modulation manager is configured to cause the media device to activate an audio emulation mode based at least on part on the incoming communication being detected”). That is, a backchannel response provides a mode for emulating audio of an owner of a voice mailbox.
Claims 3, 7, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,469,207) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0343935) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Paul (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0208163).
Cohen et al. broadly discloses generating an audio backchannel response from prerecorded or synthesized speech that can be adjusted (“modulated”) in a voice of a user or to a voice of a famous person so that a response is simulated at a time that a caller is leaving a message in an environment of a voice mail system. Here, Cohen et al. discloses the limitations of “modulating the outgoing audio communication to simulate the secondary user presence” and “delegating a selected one of the one or more of the selectable pre-recorded audio communications as the outgoing audio communication for playback [in the smart home environment] to simulate the secondary user presence”. However, Cohen et al. does not disclose “initiating a display of one or more selectable pre-recorded audio communications” or “initiating a selectable prompt to activate an audio emulation mode of the system” so that modulation of the outgoing audio communication is ”based at least on part on activation of the audio emulation mode”. That is, Cohen et al. only automatically generates a backchannel response based on timing of speech and silence of a caller, but does not provide a user with an ability to select a prompt from a display to activate an audio emulation mode.
Paul teaches dynamic and configurable responses to incoming phone calls by receiving a selection of an option to decline a call with a customized audio message. (Abstract) Device 104 may receive a phone call, and a UI window 250b may be displayed on display 104 to provide an indication of a phone call and to decline the phone call with a customized audio message. UI window 250c includes options 254 enabling a user to select a reason from one of possible reasons 260a, 260b, 260c, 260d for which the user is unable to attend to the phone call. An option 260a may be selected for ‘I am in a meeting’. Additional options include ‘I am busy’ 260b, ‘I am playing’ 260c, and ‘I am with the baby’ 260d. (¶[0042] - ¶[0048]: Figures 1 and 2A to 2C) Similarly, Figures 4B and 4C illustrate user interfaces 450a and 450b with customized audio messages. Paul, then, teaches, “initiating a selectable prompt to activate an audio emulation mode” and “initiate a display of one or more selectable pre-recorded audio communications” so that an outgoing audio communication is produced “based at least in part on activation of the audio emulation mode”. An objective is to generate a customized audio message in response to a phone call when a user is not available. (¶[0001] and ¶[0043]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to display a selectable prompt to activate an audio emulation mode as taught by Paul to provide automated backchannel responses in Cohen et al. for a purpose of generating a customized audio message in response to a phone call when a user is not available.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,469,207) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0343935) as applied to claims 1, 5, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Son et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0352895).
Cohen et al. discloses a backchannel response that is synthesized with the tonal characteristics of a designated owner of a voice mailbox or characteristics of a famous person. (Column 6, Lines 4 to 19) Consequently, Cohen et al. discloses “wherein the computer-generated audio is modulated utilizing at least a tone . . . to simulate the secondary user presence.” However, Cohen et al. does not expressly disclose that the computer-generated audio is modulated utilizing “a pitch of a related person to a user in the environment”. Arguably, speech synthesis is implicitly performed by specifying “a tone and a pitch”, but “a pitch is not expressly disclosed by Cohen et al. Mainly, Cohen et al. does not appear to disclose that computer-generated audio is modulated according to “a related person to a user”.
However, Son et al. teaches converting messages based on relationship information between a sender and a recipient. (Abstract) At least one voice variable is determined based on relationship information between a sender and a recipient and a message is output according to the determined voice variable. (¶[0009]) Determining a voice variable for outputting the message based on relationship information includes a voice variable for at least one of timbre, pitch, and volume. (¶[0085]: Figure 1) Relationships between persons include family members and friends, and an attribute of an electronic device may be friend, secretary, sibling, parent, worker in a particular job, or child. (¶[0149] - ¶[0150] and ¶[0156]) Attributes may include father, mother, son, daughter, or grandchild. (¶[0169]) Electronic device 101 may determine at least one voice determination variable according to relationship information between the sender and the recipient. Electronic device 101 may store, as the voice determination variable, at least one of a timbre database 1111, a pitch database 1112, and a volume database 1114. Electronic device 101 may include at least one timbre model in timbre database 1111 and at least one pitch model in pitch database 1112. Electronic device 101 may determine at least one of timbre, pitch, and volume from the databases based on relationship information. Electronic device 101 may determine the voice determination variable based on information on sender 1101 and information on recipient 1102. Electronic device 102 may determine the voice determination variable using at least one of the voice font of the sender 1101. (¶[0204] - ¶[0207]: Figures 10 to 11) Son et al., then, teaches computer-generated audio that is modulated utilizing at least “a pitch of a related person to a user”. That is, a voice variable for an audio message can be a voice pitch of a father or a child who is related to a recipient. An objective is to output audio messages that enable users to feel like they naturally receive services not from an electronic device but from a human being. (¶[0015]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to generate an audio message using a pitch of a related person as taught by Son et al. to provide an automated audible backchannel response that is generated with tonal characteristics in Cohen et al. for a purpose of outputting audio messages in a manner that enables users to feel like that are naturally interacting with a human being and not with an electronic device.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 05 November 2025 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Applicants amend independent claims 1, 8, and 15 to set forth a new limitation of “a smart home environment” and changes “simulate a secondary user presence of a least one secondary user” to “simulate a secondary user presence of at least one other person”. Applicants provide similar amendments to dependent claims 2, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 20. Then Applicants present arguments directed against the prior rejection of the independent claims as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) by Cohen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,469,207). Generally, Applicants argue that Cohen et al. does not disclose the limitations of “detect an incoming communication in a smart home environment” and “determine to simulate a secondary user presence of at least one other person from the smart home environment using audio modulation”. Applicants observe that Cohen et al. discloses a voice mail system that is included in a public switched telecommunication network and could be included in a digital answering machine, but state that there is nothing in Cohen et al. that provides “a smart home environment” or “detect an incoming communication in a smart home environment”. Additionally, Applicants argue that a backchannel response program of a telephone network environment that produces simulated backchannel responses to a calling party in Cohen et al. does not provide “a secondary user presence of at least one other person from the smart home environment.” Applicants appear to imply that Cohen et al. fails to disclose a “secondary user presence” with a backchannel response that simulates someone listening to a caller leaving a message.
Applicants’ amendments overcome the objections to the Specification.
Applicants’ arguments are not completely persuasive, but new grounds of rejection are set forth as directed to independent claims 1, 8, and 15 being obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Cohen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,469,207) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0343935). The rejection of some dependent claims continues to rely upon Paul (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0208163) and Son et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0352895).
Firstly, Applicants’ arguments are not completely persuasive because a new limitation of “in a smart home environment” can be construed as a mere ‘statement of intended use’. Generally, patent law doctrine holds that statements of intended use are not limiting for distinguishing over the prior art if the claim language does not set forth structural differences so that the prior art would not be capable of performing the intended use. Here, Cohen et al. discloses that a voice mail system can record messages on an automated recording device, and a backchannel response program can be included in a video telephone, video conference system, television, or set-up box type of device. See Column 1, Lines 53 to 56 and Column 10, Lines 47 to 51 of Cohen et al. Ordinarily, a television or set-top box are included in ‘an environment of a home’ of a user, and an automated recording device that generates a backchannel response to simulate a human listener can be considered to be “smart”. Arguably, Cohen et al., then, teaches a structure that is capable of being used in “a smart home environment” under a doctrine of “intended use”. Consequently, Applicants’ argument that “a smart home environment” is not disclosed by Cohen et al. is not completely persuasive under a doctrine of “intended use”.
Nevertheless Harris et al. teaches a similar way of generating audio content to simulate a presence of users in a household that is expressly incorporated into a smart home environment. Media playback system 100 may be associated with a home environment having a plurality of rooms and spaces, and may be referred to as a ‘home environment’, ‘smart home’, and ‘environment’ 101. Playback devices 102a may operate within a home including smart home devices, and one or more servers 906 may operate as a hub for ‘smart home’ systems. See ¶[0038] and ¶[0216] - ¶[0216]: Figures 1A and 1B of Harris et al. Accordingly, Harris et al. teaches the new limitations of “a smart home environment” even if this is not disclosed by Cohen et al. under a doctrine of “intended use”.
Secondly, Cohen et al. is maintained to disclose the limitation of “to simulate a secondary user presence of at least one other person”. Generally, Cohen et al. discloses producing backchannel responses by a speech synthesis mechanism that enables a designated owner of a voice mailbox to record or sample backchannel responses. However, Cohen et al. additionally discloses that a designated owner can record a voice imprint of tonal characteristics of their own voice or may want the caller to hear a backchannel voice in the voice of a famous person by adjusting the voice imprints by digital sound manipulation. Here, Cohen et al.’s embodiment of adjusting a backchannel response so that it sounds like the voice of a famous person instead of the voice of the designated owner can be fairly construed to simulate a voice “of at least one other person”. That is, a voice of a famous person is a voice of “at least one other person”. Cohen et al.’s backchannel responses, e.g., interjection of appropriate responses of ‘mm-hummm’, ‘yeah’, ‘alright’, are intended to simulate a presence of an actual person answering a phone call so as “to simulate a secondary user presence”.
Nevertheless Harris et al. teaches a similar way of generating audio content to simulate a presence of users in a household in an embodiment of an away mode by playing back human voices in a simulated conversation. (¶[0170]: Figure 7D) Here, a simulated conversation of human voices includes a plurality of voices so as to necessarily include audio of “at least one other person”. An objective is to lead an uninvited guest to believe that users are at home to promote security and user privacy. (¶[0168]: Figure 7D) Here, simulating a presence of users in a household in an away mode is “to simulate a secondary user presence”. Applicants’ claim language does not clearly set forth what constitutes “at least one other person”, e.g., there is no recitation of “a person” and then “at least one other person”, so that “at least one other person” could be construed as one of the plurality of voices in a simulated conversation or someone else than an uninvited guest. Accordingly, Harris et al. teaches the new limitations of “at least one other person” even if this is not disclosed by Cohen et al.
Applicants’ amendment necessitate these new grounds of rejection. This Office Action, then, is properly FINAL.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure.
Haldavnekar et al. and Goergen et al. disclose related prior art.
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN LERNER whose telephone number is (571) 272-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 AM-6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARTIN LERNER/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2658 November 25, 2025