HSPDETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection necessitated due to claim amendments and addition of new claims.
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, 8, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colunga (US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0193446), and further in view of Snapp (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0087160).
Regarding claim 1, Colunga teaches a method implemented by a system, the method comprising:
receiving a call (Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0033-0034, 0036-0038 “9-1-1” call to operator);
transmitting an emergency detail request; determining whether the call is legitimate, at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received over the call (Paragraphs 0026, 0035; 0039 querying caller and receiving type of emergency); and
routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP), if the determining determines the call is legitimate (Paragraphs 0026-0028, 0035, 0039 routing call to identified PSAP).
Colunga teaches of not resolvable ANI i.e. invalid ANI for 9-1-1 call (Paragraphs 0025, 0034, 0038), but Colunga does not specifically teach the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid.
However, in the similar field, Snapp teaches receiving a call, wherein the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid (Paragraphs 0006, 0023-0025, 0028-0033).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Colunga to include receiving a call, wherein the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid as taught by Snapp in order to support “Incognito mobile stations“ known as “Non-Service-Initiated (NSI; sometimes referred to as Non-Service-Initialized) phones” (Snapp, Paragraph 0002) and “"9-1-1 Only" phones as well as unsubscribed cellular phones distributed by donation programs to at-need individuals such as victim of domestic violence” (Snapp, Paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 8, Colunga teaches a system, comprising:
at least one network interface (Fig. 2 item 104, Fig. 3 item 304, Fig. 4 items 404, 414); and at least one processor (Fig. 2 items 106, 202, Fig. 3 items 306, 312, Fig. 4 items 406, 410) configured, with the at least one network interface, to cause the system to at least
receive a call (Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0033-0034, 0036-0038 “9-1-1” call to operator);
transmit an emergency detail request; perform a determination whether the call is legitimate, at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received over the call (Paragraphs 0026, 0035; 0039 querying caller and receiving type of emergency); and
perform a routing of the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP), if the determining determines the call is legitimate (Paragraphs 0026-0028, 0035, 0039 routing call to identified PSAP).
Colunga teaches of not resolvable ANI i.e. invalid ANI for 9-1-1 call (Paragraphs 0025, 0034, 0038), but Colunga does not specifically teach the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid.
However, in the similar field, Snapp teaches receiving a call, wherein the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid (Paragraphs 0006, 0023-0025, 0028-0033).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Colunga to include receiving a call, wherein the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid as taught by Snapp in order to support “Incognito mobile stations“ known as “Non-Service-Initiated (NSI; sometimes referred to as Non-Service-Initialized) phones” (Snapp, Paragraph 0002) and “"9-1-1 Only" phones as well as unsubscribed cellular phones distributed by donation programs to at-need individuals such as victim of domestic violence” (Snapp, Paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 15, Colunga teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program that, when executed by a system including at least one processor, causes the system to perform operations (Paragraph 0043) comprising:
receiving a call (Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0033-0034, 0036-0038 “9-1-1” call to operator);
transmitting an emergency detail request; determining whether the call is legitimate, at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received over the call (Paragraphs 0026, 0035; 0039 querying caller and receiving type of emergency); and
routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP), if the determining determines the call is legitimate (Paragraphs 0026-0028, 0035, 0039 routing call to identified PSAP).
Colunga teaches of not resolvable ANI i.e. invalid ANI for 9-1-1 call (Paragraphs 0025, 0034, 0038), but Colunga does not specifically teach the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid.
However, in the similar field, Snapp teaches receiving a call, wherein the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid (Paragraphs 0006, 0023-0025, 0028-0033).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Colunga to include receiving a call, wherein the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid as taught by Snapp in order to support “Incognito mobile stations“ known as “Non-Service-Initiated (NSI; sometimes referred to as Non-Service-Initialized) phones” (Snapp, Paragraph 0002) and “"9-1-1 Only" phones as well as unsubscribed cellular phones distributed by donation programs to at-need individuals such as victim of domestic violence” (Snapp, Paragraph 0005).
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0083902), and further in view of Snapp (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0087160), and further in view of Blustein (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0047788).
Regarding claim 1, Goswami teaches a method implemented by a system, the method comprising:
receiving a call (Paragraphs 0039, 0048, 0051);
determining whether the call is legitimate (Paragraphs 0039, 0043-0044, 0048, 0051 prank call determination); and
routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP) (Paragraphs 0041, 0043, 0049) (Paragraphs 0022, 0030-0054 for complete details).
Goswami does not teach wherein the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid, and does not teach transmitting an emergency detail request; and determining whether the call is legitimate, at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received over the call.
However, in the similar field, Snapp teaches receiving a call, wherein the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid (Paragraphs 0006, 0023-0025, 0028-0033).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Goswami to include receiving a call, wherein the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid as taught by Snapp in order to support “Incognito mobile stations“ known as “Non-Service-Initiated (NSI; sometimes referred to as Non-Service-Initialized) phones” (Snapp, Paragraph 0002) and “"9-1-1 Only" phones as well as unsubscribed cellular phones distributed by donation programs to at-need individuals such as victim of domestic violence” (Snapp, Paragraph 0005).
Goswami and Snapp do not teach transmitting an emergency detail request; and determining whether the call is legitimate, at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received over the call.
However, in the similar field of communication, Blustein teaches transmitting an emergency detail request; and determining whether the call is legitimate, at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received over the call (Paragraphs 0040-0046 automatic service agent querying the caller and determine valid emergency based on caller responses).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Goswami and Snapp to include transmitting an emergency detail request; and determining whether the call is legitimate, at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received over the call as taught by Blustein in order to “dispatch the appropriate ERU 226, such as a firefighting unit, an ambulance, a law enforcement unit, a coastguard or the like” (Blustein, Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 3, Goswami teaches wherein the call includes call detail information indicating a location of a cellular tower, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the cellular tower (Paragraph 0015 “a geographic location for an originating communication device may alternatively be determined based upon the location of a base station servicing a corresponding E911 call. A location for an originating communication device is conventionally used to route an E911 call to an appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (i.e. a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) within closest geographic proximity to an originating communication device)” (emphasis added).).
Regarding claim 4, Goswami teaches wherein the emergency detail response indicates a location of an emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the emergency (Paragraph 0015 “A geographic location may be determined for an originating communication device via an active location service (e.g. GPS) residing on the calling handset.” and “A location for an originating communication device is conventionally used to route an E911 call to an appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (i.e. a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) within closest geographic proximity to an originating communication device)” (emphasis added).).
Regarding claim 5, Blustein teaches wherein the emergency detail response indicates a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency (Paragraph 0026 an appropriate PSAP or emergency service provider (ESP) associated with the location and type of emergency may be identified).
Regarding claim 6, Goswami teaches releasing the call, if the determining determines that the call is not legitimate (Paragraphs 0022, 0033, 0040, 0046, 0049, 0051 dropping prank calls).
Regarding claim 7, Goswami teaches recording in a computer-aided dispatch log a disposition of the call, at least in part based on the determining (Paragraphs 0032-0033, 0036-0037, 0040, 0044-0045, 0048-0049, 0051 logging calls for audit and/or future filtering).
Regarding claim 8, Goswami teaches a system (Fig. 1), comprising: at least one network interface (obviously multiple interfaces among server, database and PSAP); and at least one processor configured (obviously server, database and PSAP implemented with processor and memory as was well known in the art), with the at least one network interface, to cause the system (Paragraphs 0030-0037) to at least
receive a call (Paragraphs 0039, 0048, 0051);
perform a determination whether the call is legitimate (Paragraphs 0039, 0043-0044, 0048, 0051 prank call determination); and
perform a routing of the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP) (Paragraphs 0041, 0043, 0049) (Paragraphs 0022, 0030-0054 for complete details).
Goswami does not explicitly teach network interface and processor configured with the at least one network interface. However, Goswami teaches subscriber wireless device receiving E911 service using network-based service (Paragraphs 0017-0018 i.e. not only well known in the art but also known to a general user of wireless phone as service using wireless network interface) using server, database etc. (Paragraphs 0035-0037 well known in the art implemented with stored program control processors).
Goswami further does not teach wherein the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid, and does not teach transmitting an emergency detail request; and determining whether the call is legitimate, at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received over the call.
However, in the similar field, Snapp teaches receiving a call, wherein the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid (Paragraphs 0006, 0023-0025, 0028-0033).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Goswami to include receiving a call, wherein the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid as taught by Snapp in order to support “Incognito mobile stations“ known as “Non-Service-Initiated (NSI; sometimes referred to as Non-Service-Initialized) phones” (Snapp, Paragraph 0002) and “"9-1-1 Only" phones as well as unsubscribed cellular phones distributed by donation programs to at-need individuals such as victim of domestic violence” (Snapp, Paragraph 0005).
Goswami and Snapp do not teach transmitting an emergency detail request; and determining whether the call is legitimate, at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received over the call.
However, in the similar field of communication, Blustein teaches transmitting an emergency detail request; and determining whether the call is legitimate, at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received over the call (Paragraphs 0040-0046 automatic service agent querying the caller and determine valid emergency based on caller responses).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Goswami and Snapp to include transmitting an emergency detail request; and determining whether the call is legitimate, at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received over the call as taught by Blustein in order to “dispatch the appropriate ERU 226, such as a firefighting unit, an ambulance, a law enforcement unit, a coastguard or the like” (Blustein, Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 10, Goswami teaches wherein the call includes call detail information indicating a location of a cellular tower, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the cellular tower (Paragraph 0015 “a geographic location for an originating communication device may alternatively be determined based upon the location of a base station servicing a corresponding E911 call. A location for an originating communication device is conventionally used to route an E911 call to an appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (i.e. a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) within closest geographic proximity to an originating communication device)” (emphasis added).).
Regarding claim 11, Goswami teaches wherein the emergency detail response indicates a location of an emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the emergency (Paragraph 0015 “A geographic location may be determined for an originating communication device via an active location service (e.g. GPS) residing on the calling handset.” and “A location for an originating communication device is conventionally used to route an E911 call to an appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (i.e. a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) within closest geographic proximity to an originating communication device)” (emphasis added).).
Regarding claim 12, Blustein teaches wherein the emergency detail response indicates a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency (Paragraph 0026 an appropriate PSAP or emergency service provider (ESP) associated with the location and type of emergency may be identified).
Regarding claim 13, Goswami teaches wherein to cause the system to at least release the call, if the determination determines that the call is not legitimate (Paragraphs 0022, 0033, 0040, 0046, 0049, 0051 dropping prank calls).
Regarding claim 14, Goswami teaches wherein to cause the system to at least record in a computer-aided dispatch log a disposition of the call, at least in part based on the determination (Paragraphs 0032-0033, 0036-0037, 0040, 0044-0045, 0048-0049, 0051 logging calls for audit and/or future filtering).
Regarding claim 15, Goswami teaches a computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program that, when executed by a system including at least one processor, causes the system (obviously server, database and PSAP implemented with processor executing program encoded in memory as was well known in the art) (Paragraphs 0030-0037) to perform operations comprising:
receiving a call (Paragraphs 0039, 0048, 0051);
determining whether the call is legitimate (Paragraphs 0039, 0043-0044, 0048, 0051 prank call determination); and
routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP) (Paragraphs 0041, 0043, 0049) (Paragraphs 0022, 0030-0054 for complete details).
Goswami does not teach wherein the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid, and does not teach transmitting an emergency detail request; and determining whether the call is legitimate, at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received over the call.
However, in the similar field, Snapp teaches receiving a call, wherein the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid (Paragraphs 0006, 0023-0025, 0028-0033).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Goswami to include receiving a call, wherein the call is received from a Non-Service Initialized (NSI) telephone having an automatic number identification (ANI) that is not valid as taught by Snapp in order to support “Incognito mobile stations“ known as “Non-Service-Initiated (NSI; sometimes referred to as Non-Service-Initialized) phones” (Snapp, Paragraph 0002) and “"9-1-1 Only" phones as well as unsubscribed cellular phones distributed by donation programs to at-need individuals such as victim of domestic violence” (Snapp, Paragraph 0005).
Goswami and Snapp do not teach transmitting an emergency detail request; and determining whether the call is legitimate, at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received over the call.
However, in the similar field of communication, Blustein teaches transmitting an emergency detail request; and determining whether the call is legitimate, at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received over the call (Paragraphs 0040-0046 automatic service agent querying the caller and determine valid emergency based on caller responses).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Goswami and Snapp to include transmitting an emergency detail request; and determining whether the call is legitimate, at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received over the call as taught by Blustein in order to “dispatch the appropriate ERU 226, such as a firefighting unit, an ambulance, a law enforcement unit, a coastguard or the like” (Blustein, Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 17, Goswami teaches wherein the call includes call detail information indicating a location of a cellular tower, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the cellular tower (Paragraph 0015 “a geographic location for an originating communication device may alternatively be determined based upon the location of a base station servicing a corresponding E911 call. A location for an originating communication device is conventionally used to route an E911 call to an appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (i.e. a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) within closest geographic proximity to an originating communication device)” (emphasis added).).
Regarding claim 18, Goswami teaches wherein the emergency detail response indicates a location of an emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the emergency (Paragraph 0015 “A geographic location may be determined for an originating communication device via an active location service (e.g. GPS) residing on the calling handset.” and “A location for an originating communication device is conventionally used to route an E911 call to an appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (i.e. a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) within closest geographic proximity to an originating communication device)” (emphasis added).).
Regarding claim 19, Blustein teaches wherein the emergency detail response indicates a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency (Paragraph 0026 an appropriate PSAP or emergency service provider (ESP) associated with the location and type of emergency may be identified).
Regarding claim 20, Goswami teaches releasing the call, if the determining determines that the call is not legitimate (Paragraphs 0022, 0033, 0040, 0046, 0049, 0051 dropping prank calls).
Claims 21, 22, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colunga and Snapp as applied to claims 1, 8, 15 above, and further in view of Cornwell (US Patent Application Publication No.2021/0058507).
Regarding claim 21, Colunga and Snapp do not teach determining whether the call is legitimate is further based on a machine-learning algorithm.
However, in the similar field, Cornwell teaches determining whether the call is legitimate is further based on a machine-learning algorithm (Paragraphs 0018, 0023, 0035-0037, 0041-0044, 0049, 0078, 0082, 0085-0086, 0095-0100).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Colunga and Snapp to include determining whether the call is legitimate further based on a machine-learning algorithm as taught by Cornwell in order to enable “a machine-learning model to predict the probability (represented as a risk score) that the call is spoofed or otherwise fraudulent” (Cornwell, Paragraph 0099).
Regarding claim 22, Colunga and Snapp do not teach determining whether the call is legitimate is further based on a machine-learning algorithm.
However, in the similar field, Cornwell teaches determining whether the call is legitimate is further based on a machine-learning algorithm (Paragraphs 0018, 0023, 0035-0037, 0041-0044, 0049, 0078, 0082, 0085-0086, 0095-0100).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Colunga and Snapp to include determining whether the call is legitimate further based on a machine-learning algorithm as taught by Cornwell in order to enable “a machine-learning model to predict the probability (represented as a risk score) that the call is spoofed or otherwise fraudulent” (Cornwell, Paragraph 0099).
Regarding claim 23, Colunga and Snapp do not teach determining whether the call is legitimate is further based on a machine-learning algorithm.
However, in the similar field, Cornwell teaches determining whether the call is legitimate is further based on a machine-learning algorithm (Paragraphs 0018, 0023, 0035-0037, 0041-0044, 0049, 0078, 0082, 0085-0086, 0095-0100).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Colunga and Snapp to include determining whether the call is legitimate further based on a machine-learning algorithm as taught by Cornwell in order to enable “a machine-learning model to predict the probability (represented as a risk score) that the call is spoofed or otherwise fraudulent” (Cornwell, Paragraph 0099).
Claims 21, 22, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami, Snapp and Blustein as applied to claims 1, 8, 15 above, and further in view of Cornwell (US Patent Application Publication No.2021/0058507).
Regarding claim 21, Goswami, Snapp and Blustein do not teach determining whether the call is legitimate is further based on a machine-learning algorithm.
However, in the similar field, Cornwell teaches determining whether the call is legitimate is further based on a machine-learning algorithm (Paragraphs 0018, 0023, 0035-0037, 0041-0044, 0049, 0078, 0082, 0085-0086, 0095-0100).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Goswami, Snapp and Blustein to include determining whether the call is legitimate further based on a machine-learning algorithm as taught by Cornwell in order to enable “a machine-learning model to predict the probability (represented as a risk score) that the call is spoofed or otherwise fraudulent” (Cornwell, Paragraph 0099).
Regarding claim 22, Goswami, Snapp and Blustein do not teach determining whether the call is legitimate is further based on a machine-learning algorithm.
However, in the similar field, Cornwell teaches determining whether the call is legitimate is further based on a machine-learning algorithm (Paragraphs 0018, 0023, 0035-0037, 0041-0044, 0049, 0078, 0082, 0085-0086, 0095-0100).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Goswami, Snapp and Blustein to include determining whether the call is legitimate further based on a machine-learning algorithm as taught by Cornwell in order to enable “a machine-learning model to predict the probability (represented as a risk score) that the call is spoofed or otherwise fraudulent” (Cornwell, Paragraph 0099).
Regarding claim 23, Goswami, Snapp and Blustein do not teach determining whether the call is legitimate is further based on a machine-learning algorithm.
However, in the similar field, Cornwell teaches determining whether the call is legitimate is further based on a machine-learning algorithm (Paragraphs 0018, 0023, 0035-0037, 0041-0044, 0049, 0078, 0082, 0085-0086, 0095-0100).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Goswami, Snapp and Blustein to include determining whether the call is legitimate further based on a machine-learning algorithm as taught by Cornwell in order to enable “a machine-learning model to predict the probability (represented as a risk score) that the call is spoofed or otherwise fraudulent” (Cornwell, Paragraph 0099).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEMANT PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8620. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fan Tsang can be reached at 571-272-7547. 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.
HEMANT PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/HEMANT S PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights