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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, “the instructions” should read “the instruction steps”
In claim 6, line 4, “passenter” should say “passenger”
In claim 11, line 5, “correlation, the monitored” should read “correlation and the monitored”
In claim 16, line 5, “the instructions” should read “the instruction steps”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"illustration device" in claim 1, line 3; equivalent structure found on page 15, lines 5-6. Therefore, in light of the specification, an illustration device is best understood as a display, such as a touchscreen, center information display, augmented and/or virtual reality glasses, head-up display, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the term “optionally” in line 4. It is unclear what this term imposes on the claim, specifically, whether or not a breathing hold phase is part of the multi-phase breathing exercise. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as if the term “optionally” is retracted.
The dependent claims not specifically addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite due to their dependence from indefinite claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11-12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prinz (US 2019/0061772).
Regarding 1, Prinz teaches a control device (Fig. 1, control unit 12; paras. 0005-0008) for assisting a multi-phase breathing exercise (Fig. 3, breathing exercise module 140; paras. 0039 and 0052) of a passenger of a vehicle (para. 0056), the control device configured to:
control an illustration device (para. 0058; Fig. 1, passenger display 18; Fig. 3, module 136) to illustrate instruction steps (Fig. 5, bar 142) of the multi-phase breathing exercise to the passenger (Fig. 5; paras. 0100-0101);
monitor aspects of the passenger while the instructions are being illustrated (para. 0101, “during the breathing guided by the breathing exercise module 140, the vital sign is measured continuously; paras. 0040, 0063, 0070, 0100 and 0102; Fig. 1, units 34; Fig. 2, sensor 36a);
evaluate a correlation of the monitored aspects to the illustrated instruction steps (paras. 0040-0041 and 0100-0103; Fig. 5, wherein a pointer 138 indicates the change in the passenger’s heart rate variability, which may be correlated to the passenger’s stress levels, in response to performing the breathing exercise, which illustrated as a bar 142); and
provide a feedback to the passenger based on the evaluated correlation (paras. 0040, “degree of improvement”; Claim 14, “wherein the control unit is further configured to display a degree of improvement of the state of health, wherein the degree of improvement is based, at least partially, on a heart rate variability of the vehicle occupant during the breathing exercise”);
wherein the monitored aspects of the passenger include at least one of the group consisting of breathing actions of the passenger and states of the passenger (paras. 0005, 0008, 0015-0016, and 0086-0087, wherein a diagnostic module, which is set up, at least partially based on the physiological parameters received, derives information regarding the state of health, state of well-being, or illness of the vehicle occupant, i.e., passenger).
Regarding claim 11, Prinz teaches the control device according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the control device is configured to provide feedback by:
controlling the illustration device to illustrate (para. 0100; Fig. 1, passenger display 18), simultaneously to the instruction steps (Fig. 5, bar 142) in a single representation, at least one of the group consisting of: the evaluated correlation and the monitored aspects of the passenger (Fig. 5, pointer 138; paras. 0100-0104).
Regarding claim 12, Prinz teaches the control device according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the control device is configured to:
receive identification data regarding the passenger (Fig. 4, step 68; paras. 0005, 0010, 0014-0018, and 0077-0078, wherein the passenger may be identified by their biometric/physiological parameters; Fig 3, authentication module 102); and
store in a passenger profile associated with the identification data (Fig. 3, memory unit 104; Fig. 4, step 70; paras. 0079 and 0081), at least one of the group consisting of the evaluated correlation, the aspects of the passenger (para. 0079, “medical data” is being construed as “aspects of the passenger”), and results based on the evaluated correlation.
Regarding claim 14, Prinz teaches the control device according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the control device is configured to:
adapt the multi-phase breathing exercise based on at least one of the group consisting of passenger performances in previous breathing exercises, a current journey length, a location in the current journey, a mood of the passenger, and a state of the passenger (Fig. 4, steps 75 and 80; paras. 0026, 0086-0087, and 0100-0103, wherein based on the passenger’s state of well-being, which is determined by the passenger’s physiological information, biofeedback in the form of breathing exercises is provided to said passenger; Fig. 3, state diagnostics module 112).
Regarding claim 15, Prinz teaches a vehicle (para. 0005) comprising:
the control device according to claim 1 (Fig. 1, control unit 12),
the illustration device (Fig. 1, passenger display 18) for illustrating the instructions steps (Fig. 5, bar 142) of the multi-phase breathing exercise (paras. 0058 and 0100-0101).
Regarding claim 16, Prinz teaches a method for assisting a multi-phase breathing exercise of a passenger of a vehicle (Fig. 4; para. 0075), the method comprising:
controlling an illustration device to illustrate instruction steps of the multi-phase breathing exercise to the passenger (Fig. 4, step 80; paras. 0100-0103; Fig. 5, bar 142);
monitoring aspects of the passenger while the instructions are being illustrated (Fig. 4, steps 74 and 80; paras. 0082 and 0100-0103);
evaluating a correlation of the monitored aspects of the passenger to the illustrated instruction steps (paras. 0040-0041 and 0100-0103; Fig. 5, wherein a pointer 138 indicates the change in the passenger’s heart rate variability, which may be correlated to the passenger’s stress levels, in response to performing the breathing exercise, which illustrated as a bar 142); and
providing feedback to the passenger based on the evaluated correlation (paras. 0040, “degree of improvement”; Claim 24, “displaying a degree of improvement in the state of health, wherein the degree of improvement is based, at least partially, on a measured heart rate variability of the vehicle occupant during the breathing exercise”) wherein the monitored aspects of the passenger include at least one of the group consisting of breathing actions of the passenger and states of the passenger (paras. 0005, 0008, 0015-0016, and 0086-0087, wherein a diagnostic module, which is set up, at least partially based on the physiological parameters received, derives information regarding the state of health, state of well-being, or illness of the vehicle occupant, i.e., passenger).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prinz in view of Brauers (WO 2008/139380).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Prinz teaches the control device according to claim 1 as stated above. Prinz further teaches wherein the multi-phase breathing exercise is composed of multiple phases comprising at least an inhale phase and at least an exhale phase (Fig. 5; para. 0101).
Prinz fails to teach wherein the multi-phase breathing exercise is composed of multiple phases comprising optionally at least a breathing hold phase, wherein the illustrated instruction steps specify at least one of the group consisting of a breathing duration, a breathing depth and a breathing rate for each of the multiple phases; and the control device is configured to evaluate the correlation by tracking whether the multiple phases are performed by the passenger in accordance with the illustrated instruction steps.
Brauers teaches an analogous control device (Fig. 1 instruction device 2) wherein the multi-phase breathing exercise (Abstract) is composed of multiple phases comprising optionally at least a breathing hold phase (Figs. 8a-8b, breath retention/keeping breath 15; page 12, lines 21-32), wherein the illustrated instruction steps specify at least one of the group consisting of a breathing duration (page 12, line 32; page 13, line 5; Figs. 8a-8b), a breathing depth, and a breathing rate for each of the multiple phases; and
the control device is configured to evaluate the correlation by tracking whether the multiple phases are performed by the user in accordance with the illustrated instruction steps (page 13, lines 16-24; page 6, lines 14-30; page 7, 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the control device of Prinz with the multi-phase breathing exercise comprising multiple phases of Brauers. Analyzing the respiratory pattern, characterized by distinct respiratory phases and their durations, enables easy identification of deviations from the normal pattern, which helps in adjusting the breathing exercises accordingly (Brauers, page 12, lines 21-32 and page 13, lines 24).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Prinz in view of Brauers teaches the control device according to claim 2 as stated above wherein the control device is configured to:
receive identification data regarding the passenger (Prinz, Fig. 4, step 68; paras. 0005, 0010, 0014-0018, and 0077-0078, wherein the passenger may be identified by their biometric/physiological parameters; Fig 3, authentication module 102); and
store in a passenger profile associated with the identification data (Prinz, Fig. 3, memory unit 104; Fig. 4, step 70; paras. 0079 and 0081), at least one of the group consisting of the evaluated correlation, the aspects of the passenger (Prinz, para. 0079, “medical data” is being construed as “aspects of the passenger”), and results based on the evaluated correlation.
Regarding claim 13, Prinz teaches the control device according to claim 12 as stated above. Prinz fails to teach wherein the control device is configured to: adapt the multi-phase breathing exercise based on passenger performances in previous breathing exercises.
Brauers teaches an analogous control device wherein the control device is configured to:
adapt the multi-phase breathing exercise based on passenger performances in previous breathing exercises (Abstract; page 9, lines 18-30; page 13, lines 16-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control device of Prinz with the adaptive breathing exercises of Brauers. Based on the user’s monitored breathing, the controller may adjust the breathing exercises to increase the intensity of the breathing exercises if the previous exercise did not challenge the user, or if the user is overstressed by the exercises, the controller may moderate the subsequent exercises (Brauers, page 2, lines 14-26).
Claim(s) 4-5 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prinz in view of Brauers, further in view of Lliffe-Moon (US 2021/0365105).
Regarding claim 4, Prinz in view of Brauers teaches the control device according to claim 2 as stated above. Prinz in view of Brauers fails to teach wherein the instruction steps comprise additional instructions regarding body gestures, each of the body gestures providing a measure of one of the aspects of the passenger; and the control device is configured to monitor the aspects of the passenger by: receiving, from a sensor device, data regarding recordings of body gestures of the passenger; and identifying the body gestures in the received data.
In the same field of endeavor, Lliffe-Moon teaches wherein the instruction steps comprise additional instructions regarding body gestures (paras. 0031-0032, and 0034), each of the body gestures providing a measure of one of the aspects of the passenger (para. 0021, wherein the user’s emotional state may be determined by facial gestures); and
the control device (Fig. 1, experience system 110) is configured to monitor the aspects of the passenger (Fig. 1, sensors 130; paras. 0060 and 0075) by:
receiving, from a sensor device, data regarding recordings of the at least one body gesture of the passenger (paras. 0031, 0075, 0082, and 0085); and
identifying the at least one body gesture in the received data (paras. 0021, 0034 and 0083-0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control device of Prinz in view of Brauers with the body gesture instructions of Lliffe-Moon. Detecting facial gestures with a camera allows the system to assess the user’s mood or state. This feature enhances the user experience by making it responsive to user input, including hand, body, and facial gestures (Lliffe-Moon, paras. 0021 and 0083).
Regarding claim 5, Prinz, in view of Brauers, further in view of Lliffe-Moon teaches the control device according to claim 4 as stated above wherein the body gesture is at least one of the group consisting of a facial gesture and a hand gesture (Lliffe-Moon, paras. 0021, 0031-0034, 0075, and 0083-0084)
Claim(s) 6-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prinz in view of Lliffe-Moon.
Regarding claim 6, Prinz teaches the control device according to claim 1 as stated above. Prinz fails to teach wherein the instruction steps comprise additional instructions regarding at least one body gesture, each of the at least one body gestures providing a measure of one of the aspects of the passenger; and the control device is configured to monitor the aspects of the passenger by: receiving, from a sensor device, data regarding recordings of the at least one body gesture of the passenger; and identifying the at least one body gesture in the received data.
In the same field of endeavor, Lliffe-Moon teaches wherein the instruction steps comprise additional instructions regarding at least one body gesture (paras. 0031-0032, and 0034), each of the at least one body gestures providing a measure of one of the aspects of the passenger (para. 0021, wherein the user’s emotional state may be determined by facial gestures); and
the control device (Fig. 1, experience system 110) is configured to monitor the aspects of the passenger (Fig. 1, sensors 130; paras. 0060 and 0075) by:
receiving, from a sensor device, data regarding recordings of the at least one body gesture of the passenger (paras. 0031, 0075, 0082, and 0085); and
identifying the at least one body gesture in the received data (paras. 0021, 0034 and 0083-0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control device of Prinz with the body gesture instructions of Lliffe-Moon. Detecting facial gestures with a camera allows the system to assess the user’s mood or state. This feature enhances the user experience by making it responsive to user input, including hand, body, and facial gestures (Lliffe-Moon, paras. 0021 and 0083).
Regarding claim 7, Prinz in view of Lliffe-Moon teaches the control device according to claim 6 as stated above wherein the at least one body gesture includes at least one of the group consisting of a facial gesture and hand gesture (Lliffe-Moon, paras. 0021, 0031-0034, 0075, and 0083-0084).
Regarding claim 8, Prinz in view of Lliffe-Moon teaches the control device according to claim 7 as stated above wherein the at least one body gesture includes a facial gesture (Lliffe-Moon, paras. 0021, 0034, 0075, and 0083).
Regarding claim 17, Prinz teaches the method according to claim 16 as stated above. Prinz fails to specifically teach a non-transitory computer storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method.
In the same field of endeavor, Lliffe-Moon teaches a non-transitory computer storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method (para. 0042; Claim 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Prinz with the non-transitory computer storage medium of Lliffe-Moon. Using a non-transitory machine-readable medium allows the method to be performed on any computer-controlled system (Lliffe-Moon, para. 0042).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prinz in view of Lliffe-Moon, further in view of Kundu (US 10,308,257).
Regarding claim 9, Prinz in view of Lliffe-Moon teaches the control device according to claim 6 as stated above. Prinz in view of Lliffe-Moon fails to teach wherein the control device is configured to monitor the aspects of the passenger by: receiving, from a sensor device, data regarding recordings of at least one bodily expansion and at least one bodily contraction of the passenger, wherein the bodily expansion is at least one of the group consisting of a chest expansion and a belly expansion; and determining the at least one bodily expansion and the at least one bodily contraction in the received data.
In the same field of endeavor, Kundu teaches wherein the control device (Fig. 1, respiration detection system 130) is configured to monitor the aspects of the passenger by:
receiving, from a sensor device, data regarding recordings of at least one bodily expansion and at least one bodily contraction of the passenger, wherein the bodily expansion is at least one of the group consisting of a chest expansion and a belly expansion (Col. 5, lines 22-42); and
determining the at least one bodily expansion and the at least one bodily contraction in the received data (Col. 3, lines 1-8; Col. 5, lines 6-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified control device of Prinz in view of Lliffe-Moon with the bodily expansion and contraction detection of Kundu. Breathing is accomplished by inhalation and exhalation through the respiratory system. Therefore, by monitoring abdomen/chest expansion-contraction, the user’s respiration rate may also be ascertained (Kundu, Col. 5, lines 6-42).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prinz in view of Kundu.
Regarding claim 9, Prinz teaches the control device according to claim 1 as stated above. Prinz fails to teach wherein the control device is configured to monitor the aspects of the passenger by: receiving, from a sensor device, data regarding recordings of at least one bodily expansion and at least one bodily contraction of the passenger, wherein the bodily expansion is at least one of the group consisting of a chest expansion and a belly expansion; and determining the at least one bodily expansion and the at least one bodily contraction in the received data.
In the same field of endeavor, Kundu teaches wherein the control device (Fig. 1, respiration detection system 130) is configured to monitor the aspects of the passenger by:
receiving, from a sensor device, data regarding recordings of at least one bodily expansion and at least one bodily contraction of the passenger, wherein the bodily expansion is at least one of the group consisting of a chest expansion and a belly expansion (Col. 5, lines 22-42); and
determining the at least one bodily expansion and the at least one bodily contraction in the received data (Col. 3, lines 1-8; Col. 5, lines 6-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control device of Prinz with the bodily expansion and contraction detection of Kundu. Breathing is accomplished by inhalation and exhalation through the respiratory system. Therefore, by monitoring abdomen/chest expansion-contraction, the user’s respiration rate may also be ascertained (Kundu, Col. 5, lines 6-42).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROGAN R LANDEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/B.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights