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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 Abstract Idea in regards to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments. See detailed rejection below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 in regards to claims 1, 67 and 9-10 have been considered but are moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments. See detailed rejection below.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are directed to an abstract idea of selectively transcribing speech based on a user list and available resources. The steps of checking a list to decide whether to transcribe someone’s voice, converting that voice to text, and displaying the result are fundamentally mental processes or organizational decisions that humans have long performed. For example, a human interpreter choosing whose speech to transcribe based on a participant list and their own available time. The Office has consistently held that collecting information, making a decision based on that information, and displaying the result are abstract ideas, regardless of how they are described using technical-sounding language. The claim’s use of terms like “real-time communications” and “calling user identifier” does not transform the underlying concept away from abstraction.
The claims fail to add “significantly more” to transform it into patent-eligible subject matter. The claims recites generic computer components — a processor, memory, and a terminal screen — performing their routine, conventional functions. Running speech recognition software on a processor, storing data in memory, and displaying text on a screen are all well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claim essentially instructs: use a computer to do what a human dispatcher or transcriptionist would do, but faster. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, even in real-time, is not enough to confer patent eligibility under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014).
The claims attempt to frame itself as a technical improvement by stating it “optimizes consumption of computing resources” by limiting speech recognition to selected users. However, this optimization is merely an inherent result of the abstract idea itself. If you transcribe fewer people, you naturally use fewer resources. There is no disclosure of a specific, concrete technical mechanism that improves the computer or speech recognition system itself in an unconventional way. The Office has repeatedly rejected similar “result-oriented” claim language where the claimed improvement is simply a byproduct of performing the abstract idea, rather than a genuine technical innovation in how the underlying system operates. Therefore, the optimization language adds no meaningful weight to the eligibility analysis.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. There is further no improvement to the computing device.
Dependent claims 2-8 further recite an abstract idea performable by a human and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as they do not provide steps other than what is conventionally known.
Claim 2: it only adds checking resource availability at set times and doing delayed transcription, which is routine scheduling and information processing on a generic computer.
Claim 3: it only adds randomly or rule-based selecting voice data for transcription, which is an abstract selection rule without a specific technical improvement.
Claim 4: it only adds deciding whether resources are available and canceling selected transcription tasks, which is generic task prioritization and cancellation.
Claim 5: it only adds random or rule-based cancellation of transcription tasks, which is an abstract decision rule implemented on a computer.
Claim 6: it only adds displaying the same transcript screen to a user or monitor, which is insignificant display/output activity.
Claim 7: it only adds storing communication data, searching it by user conditions, and transcribing it when displayed, which is collecting, searching, analyzing, and displaying information.
Claim 8: it only adds dividing voice data into units and processing them in parallel at a high level, without reciting a specific technical improvement to speech recognition or computer operation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1, 6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloran et al. (US 2010/0063815) in view of Bhowmik et al. (US 2020/0219515) in view of Ljolje et al. (US 2013/0090925).
Claims 1 and 9-10,
Cloran teaches a speech recognition system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the speech recognition system to perform operations ([0012] Computer 200, as this example will generically be referred to, includes processor 210 in communication with memory 220, output interface 230, input interface 240, and network interface 250), the operations comprising:
based on a calling user identifier in a display list of real-time communications ([0011] [0019] display list and caller/user identifiers: Browser 150 … shows a list 152 of participants 110, 120, and 130 in the call; Ass service factory 320 captures audio from a conference call participant, it associates the audio data with the particular line from which it came. For a POTS line, the line might be identified by ANI data … while VOIP data might be identified by its association with a particular user of a particular service),
wherein the display list describes one or more real-time voice-based communications for displaying texts that have been generated by speech recognition on a real-time basis ([0011] participant 110 uses a web browser 150 to access a webpage or other interface associated with the call. Browser 150, displaying that page, shows a list 152 of the participants 110, 120, and 130 in the call. Browser 150 also displays a transcript of the conference call in substantially real time, including the timestamp 154 for each chunk of audio from a particular speaker, speaker tag 156, and text that was spoken 158);
generating text that represents an outcome of the speech recognition on a real- time basis ([0034] The transcript visually connects the name of (or another identifier for) the speaker 156 alongside the words they have spoken 158); and
displaying the generated text on a screen of a terminal connected to the speech recognition system ([0010-0011] The computing devices 116 and 126 in this embodiment include a display (such as a monitor 117); Browser 150 also displays a transcript of the conference call in substantially real time).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Cloran does not explicitly teach determining, based on a calling user identifier in a display list of real-time communications, whether to execute speech recognition of voice data of a communicating user with the communicating user identifier in a voice-based communication on a real-time basis, executing, based on a result of the determining whether to execute the speech recognition indicating execution of the speech recognition of the voice data of the calling user with the calling user identifier and further based on availability of unoccupied computing resources for performing the speech recognition, the speech recognition on the voice data on a real-time basis; thereby optimizing consumption of computing resources used by limiting execution of the speech recognition on the real-time basis to voice data of one or more communicating users for display on the screen.
Bhowmik teaches determining whether to execute speech recognition of voice data of a communicating user with the communicating user identifier in a voice-based communication on a real-time basis ([0034] [0079] [Fig. 6] determining which speaker/voice data should be transcribed: The system may store audio signatures of specific individuals and use the audio signatures to determine which sounds to transcribe; that the system identifies the audio input coming from specific individuals and transcribes the audio input from those individuals. An audio signature may be associated with a contact record, which can include the name of a person; selective execution: the user can select speakers 1-4 for transcription and exclude speaker 5-8),
executing, based on a result of the determining whether to execute the speech recognition indicating execution of the speech recognition of the voice data of the calling user with the calling user identifier ([0050] [0082] [Fig. 7] executing transcription based on selection: the system receives user input selecting one of the first voice signal and the second voice signal as a selected voice signal. Next, the system converts the selected voice signal to text data and displays a transcript on the display device; see Fig. 7; a user may be permitted to select a specific audio stream for transcription).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Cloran with teachings of Bhowmik by modifying the real-time transcription as taught by Cloran to include determining whether to execute speech recognition of voice data of a communicating user with the communicating user identifier in a voice-based communication on a real-time basis; executing, based on a result of the determining whether to execute the speech recognition indicating execution of the speech recognition of the voice data of the calling user with the calling user identifier as taught by Bhowmik for the benefit of converting the selected voice signal to text data and display a transcript on the display device (Bhowmik [Abstract]).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Cloran nor Bhowmik do not explicitly teach further based on availability of unoccupied computing resources for performing the speech recognition, the speech recognition on the voice data on a real-time basis; thereby optimizing consumption of computing resources used by limiting execution of the speech recognition on the real-time basis to voice data of one or more communicating users for display on the screen.
Ljolje teaches further based on availability of unoccupied computing resources for performing the speech recognition, the speech recognition on the voice data on a real-time basis ([0025] the unoccupied/idle-resource condition: A system 100 identifies idle speech recognition resources (302). Idle speech recognition resources can include networked computing devices, spare CPU cycles, available memory or storage, bandwidth, available throughput on a local bus, etc.; see Fig. 3; that the system may reallocate underutilized superfluous, or otherwise unnecessary resources to another recognition task);
thereby optimizing consumption of computing resources used by limiting execution of the speech recognition on the real-time basis to voice data of one or more communicating users for display on the screen ([0028] resource optimization through idle-resource allocation: A substantial portion of the speech recognition resources go unused and remain in an idle state in a typical speech recognition system; the system can dynamically scale the complexity of the recognition based on overall speech recognition demand and available resources such as processor cycles, storage space, memory, bandwidth and so forth).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Cloran and Bhowmik with teachings of Ljolje by modifying the real-time transcription as taught by Cloran to include further based on availability of unoccupied computing resources for performing the speech recognition, the speech recognition on the voice data on a real-time basis; thereby optimizing consumption of computing resources used by limiting execution of the speech recognition on the real-time basis to voice data of one or more communicating users for display on the screen as taught by Ljolje for the benefit of tailoring a particular combination of speech recognition resources and release the supplemental speech recognizer based on increased demand (Ljolje [Abstract]).
Claim 6,
Cloran further teaches the speech recognition system according to claim 1, wherein the set of operations further comprises displaying the screen on one or both of a terminal that a first user engaged in the voice-based communication uses ([Fig. 1] [00100011] participants engaged in a conference call using terminal equipment and display capable computing devices: The overall system 100 connects users 110, 120, and 130 by way of their respective terminal equipment 112, 122, and 132, and the central system 140; that each participant has at least a voice connection 115, 125, and 135 to central system 140 and that participants may have a data connection through computing devices such as computer 116 and laptop computer 126; the computing devices 116 and 126 in this embodiment include a display, such as a monitor; a participant uses a browser interface and that the transcript is display in real time; display a transcript of the conference call in substantially real time including the timestamp 154 for each chunk of audio from a particular speaker, speaker tag 156, and text that was spoken 158), and a terminal that a second user monitoring the voice-based communication of the first user uses.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloran et al. (US 2010/0063815) in view of Bhowmik et al. (US 2020/0219515) in view of Ljolje et al. (US 2013/0090925) and further in view of Bowater et al. (US 6,278,772).
Claim 2,
Cloran, Bhowmik and Jjolje teach all the limitations in claim 1. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Cloran, Bhowmik nor Ljolje explicitly teach determining, at predetermined intervals of time, whether a computing resource is available for use for the speech recognition, and, when the unoccupied resources are available, executing the speech recognition on the voice data, wherein the result of the determining whether to execute the speech recognition indicates the speech recognition on a non-real-time basis, and executing the speech recognition on the voice data, for which the execution of the speech recognition on a real-time basis has not been determined, and generating text that represents an outcome of the speech recognition.
Bowater teaches determining, at predetermined intervals of time, whether a computing resource is available for use for the speech recognition ([col. 5 lines 46 to col. 6 line 28] determining whether sufficient recognition capacity is available: The voice processing system 8 monitors its own resource usage and determines if there is enough capacity to perform the speech recognition function on the stored voice data conversations; scheduled/off-peak timing: the speech to text conversion may be performed at any time and preferably in off peak hours; that recognition is performed at a time when performance of other functions in the voice processing system is substantially at a minimum .. when the call centre closes for the night), and,
when the unoccupied resources are available, executing the speech recognition on the voice data ([Claim 1] [col. 5 line 60 to col. 6 line 2] executing speech recognition when enough capacity is available: The voice processing system 8 monitors its own resource usage and determines if there is enough capacity to perform the speech recognition function on the stored voice data conversations. When it is so determined an Archive Conversations state table 32 (or custom server) is started; this fetches the voice data and creates a network message including instructions and the voice data for sending to the voice recognition system over the LAN connection; claim 1 similarly recites: monitoring the capacity of the voice recognition resource; determining if there is enough capacity in the voice recognition resource; and when so determined performing voice recognition on the voice data to convert it into text data representing the telephone conversation),
wherein the result of the determining whether to execute the speech recognition indicates the speech recognition on a non-real-time basis ([col. 2 line 66 to col. 3 line 8] [col. 5 lines 46-59] non-real time/offline speech recognition: Preferably the voice data is stored before the conversion process takes place so that the conversion process can be performed off-line; With present technology the conversion process is performed at a rate slower than in real time; the voice processing system 8 does not perform voice recognition on the voice data simultaneously or even immediately after the termination of recording the voice data), and
executing the speech recognition on the voice data, for which the execution of the speech recognition on a real-time basis has not been determined ([col. 5 lines 46-59] executing speech recognition later on stored voice data rather than simultaneously or immediately: In the preferred embodiment the voice processing system 8 does not perform voice recognition on the voice data simultaneously or even immediately after the termination of recording the voice data; that because the voice data has been stored, the speech to text conversion may be performed at any time and preferably in off peak hours), and
generating text that represents an outcome of the speech recognition ([Abstract] [col. 1 line 66 to col. 2 line 9] generating text from voice recognition: Then a voice recognition function is performed on the voice data to convert it into text data representing the telephone conversation and the text data is stored for later retrieval; performing a voice recognition function on the voice data to convert them into text data representing the telephone conversation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Cloran, Bhowmik and Ljolje with teachings of Bowater by modifying the real-time transcription as taught by Cloran to include determining, at predetermined intervals of time, whether a computing resource is available for use for the speech recognition, and, when the unoccupied resources are available, executing the speech recognition on the voice data, wherein the result of the determining whether to execute the speech recognition indicates the speech recognition on a non-real-time basis, and executing the speech recognition on the voice data, for which the execution of the speech recognition on a real-time basis has not been determined, and generating text that represents an outcome of the speech recognition as taught by Bowater for the benefit of performing voice recognition on the voice data and uses the text data to place the catalog order (Bowater [Summary of the Invention]).
Claim 3,
Bhowmik further teaches the speech recognition system according to claim 2, wherein the set of operations further comprises: selecting, randomly or according to predetermined rules, one or more pieces of the voice data for executing the speech recognition ([0039] rule based selection and prioritization of voice data for transcription: The system may store voice signal profiles for user favorites. The system may save a voice recording of a known person and preferential transcribe that person; that the system may transcribe that person's speech or portions of that person's speech before transcribing another person's speech in an audio signal and that the system may be configured to assign or allow a user to assign a priority level to a voice signal; automatic rule based priority: The system may be configured to automatically assign a higher priority to any voice signal having a stored voice profile),
executing the speech recognition on the one or more pieces of the voice data selected ([0082] [Fig. 7] executing transcription on selected voice data: the system receives user input selecting one of the first voice signal and the second voice signal as a selected voice signal. Next, the system converts the selected voice signal to text data).
Bowater further teaches from among the voice data, for which the execution of the speech recognition on a real-time basis has not been determined ([col. 5 lines 46-59] stored voice data that is not processed in real time and in instead later converted: the voice processing system 8 does not perform voice recognition on the voice data simultaneously or even immediately after the termination of recording the voice data; Since the voice data of the conversation has been stored in the primary 24 or archive 26 storage the speech to text conversion may be performed at any time and preferably in off peak hours); and
and generate text that represents an outcome of the speech recognition ([Abstract] [claim 1] generating text from speech recognition: a voice recognition function is performed on the voice data to convert it into text data representing the telephone conversation and the text data is stored for later retrieval; claim 1 recites: performing voice recognition on the voice data to convert it into text data representing the telephone conversation).
Claim 7,
Cloran, Bhowmik and Ljolje teach all the limitations in claim 1. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Cloran, Bhowmik nor Ljolje explicitly teach storing voice-based communication data related to the voice-based communication; searching for voice-based communication data stored in the storage part based on search conditions specified by the terminal and; executing, when the searched voice-based communication data is displayed on the terminal and the speech recognition has not been completed with respect to the voice data corresponding to the searched voice-based communication data, the speech recognition on the voice data.
Bowater teaches storing voice-based communication data related to the voice-based communication ([col. 1 line 66 to col. 2 line 24] storing voice communication data: receiving voice data representing the telephone conversation and storing the first and second series of speech data as a single body of voice data for later retrieval; recording and storing the conversation: a memory controller attached to the data bus stores the voice data in the primary memory or the archive
memory);
searching for voice-based communication data stored in the storage part based on search conditions specified by the terminal ([col. 7 l line 66 to col. 8 line 16] terminal specified search criteria for stored conversation data: An agent or terminal user wishes to search the Archive storage for a previously stored voice and text data from a particular conversation using keywords or a customer reference as search criteria; see Fig. 3; that the search request is terminal originated: A request to search to the Archive storage is sent in the form of a message from the terminal over the network to the voice processing system) and
when the searched voice-based communication data is displayed on the terminal ([Fig. 3] [col. 7 line 66 to col. 8 line 16] retrieval of the located conversation data to the terminal after the search: The voice processing system receives the search message and extracts the search criteria using it to locate the text data from the Archive storage. The particular text data of a conversation which is located is retrieved in full from the archive storage and sent over the network to the agent terminal) and
the speech recognition has not been completed with respect to the voice data corresponding to the searched voice-based communication data ([col. 5 lines 46-59] stored voice data for which speech recognition is not performed immediately: the voice processing system 8 does not perform voice recognition on the voice data simultaneously or even immediately after the termination of recording the voice data; that because the conversation voice data is stored, the speech to text conversion may be performed at any time an preferably in off peak hours),
executing the speech recognition on the voice data ([col. 5 line 60 to col. 6 line 2] executing speech recognition on stored voice data when capacity exists: The voice processing system 8 monitors its own resource usage and determines if there is enough capacity to perform the speech recognition function on the stored voice data conversations; that when enough capacity is determined, the system fetches the voice data and creates a network message including instructions and the voice data for sending to the voice recognition system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Cloran, Bhowmik and Ljolje with teachings of Bowater by modifying the real-time transcription as taught by Cloran to include storing voice-based communication data related to the voice-based communication; searching for voice-based communication data stored in the storage part based on search conditions specified by the terminal and; executing, when the searched voice-based communication data is displayed on the terminal and the speech recognition has not been completed with respect to the voice data corresponding to the searched voice-based communication data, the speech recognition on the voice data as taught by Bowater for the benefit of performing voice recognition on the voice data and uses the text data to place the catalog order (Bowater [Summary of the Invention]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloran et al. (US 2010/0063815) in view of Bhowmik et al. (US 2020/0219515) in view of Ljolje et al. (US 2013/0090925) and further in view of Frankel et al. (US 2011/0112833).
Claim 8,
Cloran, Bhowmik and Ljolje teach all the limitations in claim 1. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Cloran, Bhowmik nor Ljolje explicitly teach wherein the set of operations further comprises dividing the voice data into predetermined voice activity units and executing the speech recognition, in parallel, per voice activity unit.
Frankel teaches wherein the set of operations further comprises dividing the voice data into predetermined voice activity units ([0007] [0034-0035] dividing speech into voice activity based snippets: employ voice activity detection, audio snippet capture, and multiple transcription instances; When any of them are speaking, their voice (isolated from the voices of other participants) is captured, one phrase or sentence at a time (called a "snippet"); that a snippet can be determined by a voice activity detector (VAD), which can use any of several techniques as described herein or as known to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine when the participant is speaking and to find breaks in the speech; predetermined thresholds and maximum snippet length for the voice activity units, that the audio snippet capture mechanism monitors the VAD and decides when it has collected a suitable snippet, preferably capturing speech up to a natural break, such as the end of a sentence or paragraph; a nominal not speaking interval of 400 ms, lowered to 200 ms and 50 ms in certain cases, and that a snippet can be considered complete at a maximum of 30 secs) and
executing the speech recognition, in parallel, per voice activity unit ([0008] [0031] [0043] [claim 6] parallel ASR processing per snippet: multiple instances of the transcription (ASR) engine allow the system to transcribe speech from multiple talkers at once. Even when only one person is talking, the system can dispatch their speech in snippets to separate ASR instances; that near real time results are produced by parsing the speech into snippets that are sent to a plurality of ASRs; claim 6 recites the plurality of speech recognition engines are implemented as multiple instances of a software algorithm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Cloran, Bhowmik and Ljolje with teachings of Frankel by modifying the real-time transcription as taught by Cloran to include wherein the set of operations further comprises dividing the voice data into predetermined voice activity units and executing the speech recognition, in parallel, per voice activity unit as taught by Frankel for the benefit of using real-time teleconference transcription for enabling those with hearing impairments to participate in a real-time teleconference (Frankel [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims AND overcome the 101 Abstract Idea set forth.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYANS A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PST.
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, Pierre can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
SHREYANS A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2653
/SHREYANS A PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights