DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on April 22, 2026 for the patent application 18/545,235 filed on December 19, 2023. Claims 1, 6, 7, 14 and 17-18 are amended. Claims 5 and 19 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-18 and 20 are pending. The first office action of November 20, 2025 is fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informality: typographical error.
Claim 17 is objected to because a claim limitation reads as follows:
“generat8, using one of the at least one AI/ML model, one or more second conversational threads based on the adapted therapy plan;”
Specifically, “generate” is misspelled (i.e. appearing as “generat8”). The Examiner reasonably believes this is a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the term with the correct spelling. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claims 1 and 18 are directed to “a method” (i.e. “a process”), and claim 17 is directed to “a system” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “computerized human interaction,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“causing …at least one artificial intelligence ("AI")/machine learning ("ML") -driven persona to interact with a user…the interaction including a conversation between the at least one AI/ML-driven persona and the user during which the at least one AI/ML-driven persona engages in assisting the user in learning one or more social skills to interact with other people;
analyzing… and using one of at least one AI/ML model, the interaction to determine a first skill level of the user in at least one set of social skills among the one or more social skills, the first skill level comprising a level of competence in the at least one set of social skill that the user possesses;
generating… and using one of the at least one AI/ML model, one or more first conversational threads configured to achieve a first goal of developing the first skill level of the user in the at least one set of social skill, based on the analysis of the interaction and based on social or behavioral therapy data for the at least one set of social skills that is accessible from a database, wherein assisting the user in learning the one or more social skills is based on a therapy plan that is generated based on the social or behavioral therapy data for the at least one set of social skills;
causing…the at least one AI/ML-driven persona to continue the conversation with the user using the one or more first conversational threads to work toward achieving the first goal;
updating…and using one of the at least one AI/ML model, the therapy plan to generate an updated therapy plan, based on the analysis of the interaction and based on social or behavioral therapy data for the at least one set of social skills, wherein the one or more first conversational threads are further based on the updated therapy plan;
analyzing…and using one of the at least one AI/ML model, the continued conversation to determine effectiveness of the updated therapy plan, by determining whether there are any changes to the first skill level of the user in the at least one set of social skills, after use of the one or more first conversational threads;
adapting…and using one of the at least one AI/ML model, the updated therapy plan to generate an adapted therapy plan, based on the analysis of the continued conversation and based on the social or behavioral therapy data for the at least one set of social skills;
generating…and using one of the at least one AI/ML model, one or more second conversational threads based on the adapted therapy plan; and
causing…the at least one AI/ML-driven persona to continue the conversation with the user using the one or more second conversational threads.”
Per claim 17:
“cause at least one artificial intelligence ("AI")/machine learning ("ML") - driven persona to interact with a user …the interaction including a conversation between the at least one AI/ML- driven persona and the user during which the at least one AI/ML- driven persona engages in assisting the user in learning one or more social skills to interact with other people;
analyze, using one of at least one AI/ML model, the interaction to determine a first skill level of the user in at least one set of social skills among the one or more social skills, the first skill level comprising a level of competence in the at least one set of social skill that the user possesses;
generate, using one of the at least one AI/ML model, one or more first conversational threads configured to achieve a first goal of developing the first skill level of the user in the at least one set of social skill, based on the analysis of the interaction and based on social or behavioral therapy data for the at least one set of social skills that is accessible from a database, wherein assisting the user in learning the one or more social skills is based on a therapy plan that is generated based on the social or behavioral therapy data for the at least one set of social skills;
cause the at least one AI/ML-driven persona to continue the conversation with the user using the one or more first conversational threads to work toward achieving the first goal;
update, and using one of the at least one AI/ML model, the therapy plan to generate an updated therapy plan, based on the analysis of the interaction and based on social or behavioral therapy data for the at least one set of social skills, wherein the one or more first conversational threads are further based on the updated therapy plan;
analyze, using one of the at least one AI/ML model, the continued conversation to determine effectiveness of the updated therapy plan, by determining whether there are any changes to the first skill level of the user in the at least one set of social skills, after use of the one or more first conversational threads;
adapt, using one of the at least one AI/ML model, the updated therapy plan to generate an adapted therapy plan, based on the analysis of the continued conversation and based on the social or behavioral therapy data for the at least one set of social skills;
generate, using one of the at least one AI/ML model, one or more second conversational threads based on the adapted therapy plan; and
cause the at least one AI/ML-driven persona to continue the conversation with the user using the one or more second conversational threads.”
Per claim 18:
“causing…at least one artificial intelligence ("AI")/machine learning ("ML") -driven persona to interact with a user … the interaction including a conversation between the at least one AI/ML-driven persona and the user during which the at least one AI/ML-driven persona engages in assisting the user in learning one or more social skills to interact with multiple people at a time;
analyzing…and using one of at least one AI/ML model, the interaction to determine a first skill level of the user in the one or more social skills, the first skill level comprising a level of competence in the one or more social skills that the user possesses;
generating…and using one of the at least one AI/ML model, one or more first conversational threads configured to achieve a first goal of developing the first skill level of the user in the one or more social skills, based on the analysis of the interaction and based on social or behavioral therapy data for the one or more social skills that is accessible from a database, wherein assisting the user in learning the one or more social skills to interact with multiple people at a time is based on a therapy plan that is generated based on the social or behavioral therapy data for the one or more social skills;
causing…the at least one AI/ML-driven persona to continue the conversation with the user using the one or more first conversational threads to work toward achieving the first goal;
updating…and using one of the at least one AI/ML model, the therapy plan to generate an updated therapy plan, based on the analysis of the interaction and based on social or behavioral therapy data for the one or more social skills, wherein the one or more first conversational threads are further based on the updated therapy plan;
analyzing…and using one of the at least one AI/ML model, the continued conversation to determine effectiveness of the updated therapy plan, by determining whether there are any changes to the first skill level of the user in the one or more social skills, after use of the one or more first conversational threads;
adapting…and using one of the at least one AI/ML model, the updated therapy plan to generate an adapted therapy plan, based on the analysis of the continued conversation and based on the social or behavioral therapy data for the one or more social skills;
generating…and using one of the at least one AI/ML model, one or more second conversational threads based on the adapted therapy plan; and
causing…the at least one AI/ML-driven persona to continue the conversation with the user using the one or more second conversational thread.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a computing system, comprising: at least one first processor; and a first non-transitory computer readable medium” and “a user interface,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “computerized human interaction,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a computing system, comprising: at least one first processor; and a first non-transitory computer readable medium” and “a user interface,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a computing system, comprising: at least one first processor; and a first non-transitory computer readable medium” as described in paras. [0168], [0171], [0175], and [0176] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0168] The computer or hardware system 600—which might represent an embodiment of the computer or hardware system (i.e., computing systems 105, 105a, and 105b, user interactive systems 115a and 115b, AI/ML systems 120a and 120b, user device 140, gateway device 160, provider server(s) 175a, training server(s) 190a, and therapy server(s) 195a, etc.), described above with respect to FIGS. 1-5—is shown comprising hardware elements that can be electrically coupled via a bus 605 (or may otherwise be in communication, as appropriate). The hardware elements may include one or more processors 610, including, without limitation, one or more general-purpose processors and/or one or more special-purpose processors (such as microprocessors, digital signal processing chips, graphics acceleration processors, and/or the like); one or more input devices 615, which can include, without limitation, a mouse, a keyboard, and/or the like; and one or more output devices 620, which can include, without limitation, a display device, a printer, and/or the like.”
“[0171] The computer or hardware system 600 also may comprise software elements, shown as being currently located within the working memory 635, including an operating system 640, device drivers, executable libraries, and/or other code, such as one or more application programs 645, which may comprise computer programs provided by various embodiments (including, without limitation, hypervisors, virtual machines (“VMs”), and the like), and/or may be designed to implement methods, and/or configure systems, provided by other embodiments, as described herein. Merely by way of example, one or more procedures described with respect to the method(s) discussed above might be implemented as code and/or instructions executable by a computer (and/or a processor within a computer); in an aspect, then, such code and/or instructions can be used to configure and/or adapt a general purpose computer (or other device) to perform one or more operations in accordance with the described methods.”
“[0175] The terms “machine readable medium” and “computer readable medium,” as used herein, refer to any medium that participates in providing data that causes a machine to operate in a specific fashion. In an embodiment implemented using the computer or hardware system 600, various computer readable media might be involved in providing instructions/code to processor(s) 610 for execution and/or might be used to store and/or carry such instructions/code (e.g., as signals). In many implementations, a computer readable medium is a non-transitory, physical, and/or tangible storage medium. In some embodiments, a computer readable medium may take many forms, including, but not limited to, non-volatile media, volatile media, or the like. Non-volatile media includes, for example, optical and/or magnetic disks, such as the storage device(s) 625. Volatile media includes, without limitation, dynamic memory, such as the working memory 635. In some alternative embodiments, a computer readable medium may take the form of transmission media, which includes, without limitation, coaxial cables, copper wire, and fiber optics, including the wires that comprise the bus 605, as well as the various components of the communication subsystem 630 (and/or the media by which the communications subsystem 630 provides communication with other devices). In an alternative set of embodiments, transmission media can also take the form of waves (including without limitation radio, acoustic, and/or light waves, such as those generated during radio-wave and infra-red data communications).”
“[0176] Common forms of physical and/or tangible computer readable media include, for example, a floppy disk, a flexible disk, a hard disk, magnetic tape, or any other magnetic medium, a CD-ROM, any other optical medium, punch cards, paper tape, any other physical medium with patterns of holes, a RAM, a PROM, and EPROM, a FLASH-EPROM, any other memory chip or cartridge, a carrier wave as described hereinafter, or any other medium from which a computer can read instructions and/or code.”
As such, this is broadly described and reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which includes generic computer components that are commonly provided in commercially available computers.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “a user interface,” as described in paras. [0085] and [0090] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0085] In the non-limiting embodiment of FIG. 1, system 100 may include a computing system(s) 105, which may include computing system(s) 105a and/or computing system(s) 105b. In some cases, computing system(s) 105a and/or 105b may each include, without limitation, at least one of a processor(s) 110, a user interactive system(s) 115, and/or an artificial intelligence (“AI”)/machine learning (“ML”) system(s) 120, and/or the like. Each AI/ML system(s) 120 may include, but is not limited to, one or more AI/ML models 125a and one or more AI/ML-driven personas 125b. System 100 may further include a database(s) 130 (including database(s) 130a communicatively coupled to computing system(s) 105a and/or database(s) 130b communicatively coupled to computing system(s) 105b), a user interface (“UI”) 135a for a user device 140 that may be associated with a user 145, and the like. In some instances, the computing system(s) 105a, database(s) 130a, and user device 140 may be located at location 150, at which a local network(s) 155 may be established that communicates, via gateway device 160, to external network(s) 165a and/or 165b, or the like.”
“[0090] In some instances, the user device 140 may each include, but is not limited to, one of a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a smart phone, a mobile phone, or any suitable device capable of communicating with network(s) 155 or with computing system(s) 105a, gateway device 160, or other network devices within network(s) 155, or via any suitable device capable of communicating with at least one of the computing system(s) 105b, the user interactive system(s) 115b, the AI/ML system(s) 120b, the web portal 170, the provider server(s) 175a, the training server(s) 190a, and/or the therapy server(s) 195a, and/or the like, via a web-based portal (e.g., web portal 170, or the like), an application programming interface (“API”), a server, a software application (“app”), or any other suitable communications interface, or the like (not shown), over network(s) 155, 165a, and/or 165b, via gateway device 160, or the like.”
As such, “a user interface,” is reasonably interpreted to be a mere display device which is physically combined with ubiquitous, standard off-the-shelf equipment that is commercially available today.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-4, 6-16 and 20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-4, 6-16 and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 18. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims rejected under § 112(b)
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.
Claims 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 17, 18 and 20 recite the limitation “the interaction.” The limitation is not originally introduced in claim 17, 18 or 20. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims rejected under § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 20 recites the following: “The method of claim 19, ...”
Specifically, the dependency of claim 20 is ultimately dependent on cancelled claim 19. As such, claim 20 is of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on April 22, 2026 related to claims 1-4, 6-18 and 20 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. § 112
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as allegedly failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14-20 recite "the interaction," which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Claim 1 is amended to recite the AI/ML-driven persona is caused to interact with a user via a user interface "comprising an interaction" to provide sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 14 is also rejected for the limitations "a previous interaction," "one or more interaction characteristics," and "a determined corresponding interaction characteristic" each either lacking sufficient antecedent basis or intended to be a new limitation that ambiguously conflicts with previous limitations of claim 14. Claim 14 is amended to remove the last two limitations, which were inadvertent copies of the first two limitations, which addresses some of the issues noted above. Claim 14 is also amended to recite "one or more characteristics" and "a determined corresponding characteristic" for further clarity.
Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims continue to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), please see above. Furthermore, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(d) is necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Specifically, the claims are rejected as allegedly being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, reasonably in the form of mental processes, without providing anything significantly more. The Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
Independent claims 1, 17, and 18, from which all other claims depend, are amended to recite additional steps that include, for instance, updating a therapy plan based on interactions between the user and AI/ML-drive persona, analyzing the continued conversation to determine effectiveness of the updated therapy plan, adapting the updated therapy plan to generate an adapted one based on the analysis, generating new conversational threads based on the adapted therapy plan, and causing the AI/ML-driven persona to continue the conversation using the new conversational threads. These are steps that can only be performed by a specially configured computing system and place significant and meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea. For instance, the therapy plan has to be updated, the continued conversation that uses the updated therapy plan has to be analyzed, a new adapted therapy plan has to be generated using the analysis, new conversational threads have to be created using the adapted therapy plan, and the AI/ML-driven persona has to be instructed to move to a new conversational thread. Each of these represents a meaningful limit, and when considered as a whole provides an even more significant limitation on the alleged abstract idea. Thus, for at least this reason, the Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s statement that “these are steps that can only be performed by a specially configured computing system,” is unsupported. Specifically, and as previously indicated in the rejection, para. [0090] provides the following:
“[0090] In some instances, the user device 140 may each include, but is not limited to, one of a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a smart phone, a mobile phone, or any suitable device capable of communicating with network(s) 155 or with computing system(s) 105a, gateway device 160, or other network devices within network(s) 155, or via any suitable device capable of communicating with at least one of the computing system(s) 105b, the user interactive system(s) 115b, the AI/ML system(s) 120b, the web portal 170, the provider server(s) 175a, the training server(s) 190a, and/or the therapy server(s) 195a, and/or the like, via a web-based portal (e.g., web portal 170, or the like), an application programming interface (“API”), a server, a software application (“app”), or any other suitable communications interface, or the like (not shown), over network(s) 155, 165a, and/or 165b, via gateway device 160, or the like.”
Likewise, para. [0171] provides the following:
“Merely by way of example, one or more procedures described with respect to the method(s) discussed above might be implemented as code and/or instructions executable by a computer (and/or a processor within a computer); in an aspect, then, such code and/or instructions can be used to configure and/or adapt a general purpose computer (or other device) to perform one or more operations in accordance with the described methods.”
As such, it is unclear as to what amount of “specificity” the Applicant’s “specially configured computing system,” requires when it is clear in paras. [0090] and [0171] that only broadly described generic computers that are commonly and commercially available are necessary. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claims 1-4, 8-11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as allegedly being anticipated by Hayes-Roth (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0028498). Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Hayes-Roth. The Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
Independent claims 1, 17, and 18, from which all other claims depend, have been amended to incorporate the subject matter of claims 5 and 19, which are patentable over Hayes-Roth. Accordingly, for at least this reason, the Applicant respectfully submits that the claims of the present application are patentable over the cited reference. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103 are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00. 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, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights