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 .
This office action is sent in response to Applicant’s communication received on 7/11/2024 for the application number 18770253. The office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following placed of record in the file: Specification, Abstract, Oath/Declaration and claims.
Status of the claims
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/11/2024, 4/7/2025 and 4/2/2026 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained below.
Claim 1 recites A system comprising: one or more computer readable storage media; one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media; an application comprising program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when executed by the one or more processors, direct a computing system to at least:
(a) receive, from a client device, an indication to start a debate exercise;
(b) determine, by a discourse engine, a first debate topic for the debate exercise;
(c) determine, by the discourse engine, first debate content from the client device;
(d). generating, by the discourse engine, first response content based on the first debate content and the first debate topic;
(e) determining, by the discourse engine, one or more qualitative aspects for providing debate feedback to the client device;
(f) generating, by the discourse engine, debate feedback based on the first debate content and the one or more qualitative aspects; and
(g) providing, by the discourse engine, the debate feedback to the client device.
Step (a) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person can receive, from another person, an indication to start a debate or discussion.
Step (b) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person can determine a topic for a debate or discussion.
Step (c) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person can determine content communicated from another person.
Step (d) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person can generate a response based on received content and a topic.
Step (e) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person can determine one or more qualitative aspects for evaluating another person’s content.
Step (g) comprises a mental process. This step can be performed by a human as a person can provide feedback to another person.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any
statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least system. Thus, the claim is a
machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES). Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of steps (a)-(g) recites a mental process.
Specifically, step (a) can be performed by a human as a person can receive, from another person, an indication to start a debate or discussion.
Step (b) can be performed by a human as a person can determine a topic for a debate or discussion.
Step (c) can be performed by a human as a person can determine content communicated from another person.
Step (d) can be performed by a human as a person can generate a response based on received content and a topic.
Step (e) can be performed by a human as a person can determine one or more qualitative aspects for evaluating another person’s content.
Step (f) can be performed by a human as a person can determine one or more qualitative aspects for evaluating another person’s content.
Step (g) can be performed by a human as a person can provide the feedback to another person.
Hence the claim encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind
by observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
(Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a
whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or
whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1)
identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recited additional elements including one or more processors, one or more computer readable storage media, and a discourse engine. However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions, such as receiving data, processing data, generating content, and providing output. The use of these elements to receive an indication to start a debate exercise, determine a debate topic, receive debate content, generate response content, determine qualitative aspects, generate feedback, and provide feedback merely automates the mental processes described above using generic computer components. Such implementation does not impose any meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES)
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole
amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or
combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. As discussed with
respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the one or more processors, the one or more computer readable storage media, and the discourse engine comprise additional elements that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field such as receiving data, processing data, generating content, and providing output. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As known in the art these elements are well understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computing device. Even when considered in combination these additional elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer components and perform insignificant extra-solutional activity, which does not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites a mental process as a human can generate a transcript of first debate content, formulate a first response prompt comprising the transcript, submit the prompt to a content generator, and receive first response content responsive to the prompt.
Claim 3 recites a mental process as a human can receive an audio signal of a user’s speech and generate a transcript of the audio signal, wherein the first debate content comprises the transcript.
Claim 4 recites a mental process as a human can determine a user profile associated with the client device and generate one or more debate topics based on the debate type and the client device, wherein the debate topics comprise the first debate topic.
Claim 5 recites a mental process as a human can receive second debate content responsive to first debate content and generate debate feedback based on the first debate content, the second debate feedback, and one or more qualitative aspects.
Claim 6 recites a mental process as a human can provide debate feedback to a second client device, receive input on the debate feedback from the second client device, and responsive to receiving the input from the second client device, transmit the debate feedback to the client device.
Claim 7 is directed to a notification method that recites substantially the same limitations
as claim 1, but in a different statutory category (method). Accordingly, claim 7 is directed to the
same abstract idea as claim 1.
Claim 8 recites a mental process as a human can determine a start time of a content stream from a client device, determine an end time of the content stream from the client device, and determine first debate content based on the start time and the end time of the content stream.
Claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Accordingly, it is directed to the same abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites a mental process as a human can generate qualitative feedback for each qualitative aspect in the one or more qualitative aspects based on the first debate content and generate a quality recommendation for each qualitative aspect in the one or more qualitative aspects based on the first debate content.
Claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Accordingly, it is directed to the same abstract idea.
Claims 12 & 20 recite substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Accordingly, it is directed to the same abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites a mental process as a human can generate a feedback prompt comprising the one or more qualitative aspects and the first debate content., provide the feedback prompt to a content generator, and receive debate feedback from the content generator responsive to the feedback prompt.
Claims 14 & 19 recite substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Accordingly, it is directed to the same abstract idea.
Claim 15 is directed to a notification method that recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, but in a different statutory category (computer readable storage medium). Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to the same abstract idea as claim 1.
Claim 16 recites a mental process as a human can determine a content stream from a client device and determine first debate content based on a break in the content stream.
Claim 17 recites a mental process as a human can receive a transcript of first debate content, generate a first response prompt comprising the transcript of the first debate content and instructions comprising the first debate topic, and submit the first response prompt to a content generator to receive first response content responsive to the first response prompt.
Claim 18 recites a mental process as a human can determine a user profile associated with the client device, generate a first response prompt based on the user profile, provide the first response prompt to a content generator, and receive first response content from the content generator responsive to the first response prompt.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sandrew et al. (US 12165655 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Sandrew teaches A system comprising: one or more computer readable storage media (Fig. 1); one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media (Fig. 1); an application comprising program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when executed by the one or more processors, direct a computing system to at least (Fig. 1): receive, from a client device, an indication to start a debate exercise (Col. 5 Row 29-31, “In this example, a user has a dialog with the AI system, for example in the format of a mock interview to simulate his upcoming television interview.”); determine, by a discourse engine, a first debate topic for the debate exercise (Col. 2 Ln 5-6, “the system may generate questions and topics to guide interaction”); determine, by the discourse engine, first debate content from the client device (Fig. 2C, Debate content is received by the microphone 222 which is then processed by the AI); generate, by the discourse engine, first response content based on the first debate content and the first debate topic (Col. 3 Ln 54-56, “The AI system may then generate follow-up questions to guide the student through a dialog and may receive and process responses to these follow-up questions.”; wherein Col 2, Ln 5-6 “the system may generate questions and topics to guide interaction); determine, by the discourse engine, one or more qualitative aspects for providing debate feedback to the client device (Col. 11 Ln 1 – 6, “The system may be configured to provide assessments in specific areas, such as: ability to summarize the main points and arguments of the reading and essay in a clear and concise manner; ability to explain the relevance and significance of the reading and essay to the course topic or theme; ability to critically analyze and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the reading and essay”); generate, by the discourse engine, debate feedback based on the first debate content and the one or more qualitative aspects (Col. 11 Ln 1 – 6); provide, by the discourse engine, the debate feedback to the client device. (Fig. 2D, The AI system provides feedback to the client device and user).
Regarding claim 3, Sandrew teaches receiving, by the discourse engine, an audio signal of a user’s speech (Col. 10 Ln. 2-5, The AI system may contain or be coupled to a speech-to-text module or alternatively converter that transforms the student's spoken response 132 to text.); and generate, by the discourse engine, a transcript of the audio signal, wherein the first debate content comprises the transcript (Col. 10 Ln. 2-5).
Regarding claim 5, Sandrew teaches receiving, by the discourse engine, second debate content from the client device responsive to the first response content (Col. 3 Ln 54-56, “The AI system may then generate follow-up questions to guide the student through a dialog and may receive and process responses to these follow-up questions.”); generate, by the discourse engine, the debate feedback based on the first debate content, the second debate content, and the one or more qualitative aspects (Col. 3 Ln 54-56, where Col. 11 Ln 1 – 6, “The system may be configured to provide assessments in specific areas, such as: ability to summarize the main points and arguments of the reading and essay in a clear and concise manner; ability to explain the relevance and significance of the reading and essay to the course topic or theme; ability to critically analyze and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the reading and essay”).
Claim 7 is analogous to claim 1 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim 9 is analogous to claim 3 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, Sandrew teaches generating, by the discourse engine, a quality feedback for each qualitative aspect in the one or more qualitative aspects based on the first debate content (Fig. 1F shows feedback for each qualitative aspect which was specified by the teacher. Col. 11 Ln 29-34, “The AI system 102 may generate this assessment 152 … any criteria the teacher or others have specified for evaluating the written assignment.”); and generating, by the discourse engine, a quality recommendation for each qualitative aspect in the one or more qualitative aspects based on the first debate content (Fig. 1F, the AI points out the causes of many of the stylistic issues, which would constitute a recommendation to remove these).
Claim 15 is analogous to claim 3 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
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 2, 12, 13, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandrew et al. (US 12165655 B1) as above in claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15 and further in view of Murphy et al. (US 20250225888 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sandrew teaches generating, by the discourse engine, a transcript of the first debate content (Col. 10 Ln. 2-5, “The AI system may contain or be coupled to a speech-to-text module or alternatively converter that transforms the student's spoken response 132 to text.”); generate, by the discourse engine, a first response prompt comprising the transcript of the first debate content (Col. 10 Ln 49-51, “Each spoken input from each participant may be converted to text, translated if necessary, tagged with the speaker's identity, and input into the AI system.”); receiving, by the discourse engine, the first response content from the content generator (Col. 3 Ln 54-56, “The AI system may then generate follow-up questions to guide the student through a dialog and may receive and process responses to these follow-up questions.”), wherein the content generator generates the first response content responsive to the first response prompt (Col. 10 Ln 49-51, “input into the AI system.”).
Sandrew does not teach submitting, by the discourse engine, the first response prompt to a content generator.
However, Murphy teaches submitting, by the discourse engine (Fig. 4B, where the Learn Platform corresponds to the discourse engine), the first response prompt to a content generator (Para 0007, “A large language model (LLM) prompt formulated based on the evaluation request and the evaluation rubric is provided to an LLM” where included in the evaluation request is the transcript).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sandrew before the effective filing date in such a way as to incorporate the teachings of Murphy in order to separate prompt generation from content generation in order to improved modularity, allowing independent components to handle prompt construction and response generation (See para 0007).
Claim 12 is analogous to claim 2 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, Sandrew does not teach generating, by the discourse engine, a feedback prompt comprising the one or more qualitative aspects and the first debate content; providing, by the discourse engine, the feedback prompt to a content generator, wherein the content generator generates the debate feedback responsive to receiving the feedback prompt; and receiving, by the discourse engine, the debate feedback from the content generator.
However, Murphy teaches generating, by the discourse engine, a feedback prompt comprising the one or more qualitative aspects and the first debate content (Para 0007, “A large language model (LLM) prompt formulated based on the evaluation request and the evaluation rubric is provided to an LLM.”); providing, by the discourse engine, the feedback prompt to a content generator, wherein the content generator generates the debate feedback responsive to receiving the feedback prompt (Para 0007); and receiving, by the discourse engine, the debate feedback from the content generator. (Para 0007, “The evaluation data structure is updated with the response from the LLM and converted to feedback text strings which are presented to the student in the context of the student text response.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sandrew before the effective filing date in such a way as to incorporate the teachings of Murphy in order to provide structured inputs to the language model and thereby improve the relevance and consistency of generated feedback. (See para 0007).
Regarding claim 17, Sandrew teaches receiving, by the discourse engine, a transcript of the first debate content (Col. 10 Ln. 2-5, The AI system may contain or be coupled to a speech-to-text module or alternatively converter that transforms the student's spoken response 132 to text).
Sandrew does not teach generating, by the discourse engine, a first response prompt comprising the transcript of the first debate content and instructions comprising the first debate topic; and submitting, by the discourse engine, the first response prompt to a content generator, wherein the content generator generates the first response content responsive to the first response prompt.
However, Murphy teaches generating, by the discourse engine, a first response prompt comprising the transcript of the first debate content and instructions comprising the first debate topic (Para 0007, “A large language model (LLM) prompt formulated based on the evaluation request and the evaluation rubric is provided to an LLM”); and submitting, by the discourse engine, the first response prompt to a content generator, wherein the content generator generates the first response content responsive to the first response prompt (Para 0007).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sandrew before the effective filing date in such a way as to incorporate the teachings of Murphy in order to separate prompt generation from content generation in order to improved modularity, allowing independent components to handle prompt construction and response generation (See para 0007).
Claim 20 is analogous to claim 2 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claims 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandrew et al. (US 12165655 B1) as above in claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15 and further in view of Sharma et al. (US 20230328021 A1) and Murphy et al. (US 20250225888 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Sandrew does not teach determining, by the discourse engine, a user profile associated with the client device; and generating, by the discourse engine, one or more debate topics based on the debate type and the client device, wherein the debate topics comprise the first debate topic.
However, Sharma teaches determining, by the discourse engine, a user profile associated with the client device (Para 0066, ““historical activity information may comprise a set of historical posts posted on one or more debate threads by one or more client devices associated with the first user account”); and generating, by the discourse engine, one or more debate topics based on the debate type and the client device, wherein the debate topics comprise the first debate topic. (Para 0070, “the first debate interface 502 may display a list of topics (not shown), such as a list of a top m most relevant topics to the first user account.”, where the debate type is a platform for users to participate in debates on topics (that they are passionate about, for example).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sandrew before the effective filing date in such a way as to incorporate the teachings of Sharma in order to personalize the various debate topics (Para 0055, “e.g., a list of debate threads personalized for the first user account”).
Claim 11 is analogous to claim 4 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, Sandrew does not teach determining, by the discourse engine, a user profile associated with the client device.
However, Sharma does teach determining, by the discourse engine, a user profile associated with the client device (Para 0066, “historical activity information may comprise a set of historical posts posted on one or more debate threads by one or more client devices associated with the first user account”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sandrew before the effective filing date in such a way as to incorporate the teachings of Sharma in order to add a greater degree of personalization (Para 0055, “e.g., a list of debate threads personalized for the first user account”).
Sandrew modified by Sharma does not teach generating, by the discourse engine, a first response prompt based on the user profile, wherein the first response prompt comprises the first debate content and the first debate topic; provide, by the discourse engine, the first response prompt to a content generator; and receive, by the discourse engine, the first response content from the content generator, wherein the content generator generates the first response content responsive to the first response prompt.
However, Murphy teaches generate, by the discourse engine, a first response prompt based on the user profile, wherein the first response prompt comprises the first debate content and the first debate topic (Para 0007, “A large language model (LLM) prompt formulated based on the evaluation request and the evaluation rubric is provided to an LLM”); provide, by the discourse engine, the first response prompt to a content generator (Para 0007); and receive, by the discourse engine, the first response content from the content generator, wherein the content generator generates the first response content responsive to the first response prompt. (Para 0007, “The evaluation data structure is updated with the response from the LLM and converted to feedback text strings which are presented to the student in the context of the student text response.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sandrew before the effective filing date in such a way as to incorporate the teachings of Murphy in order to separate prompt generation from content generation in order to improved modularity, allowing independent components to handle prompt construction and response generation (See para 0007).
Claims 6, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandrew et al. (US 12165655 B1) as above in claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15 and further in view of Hantz et al. (US 20250252863).
Regarding claim 6, Sandrew teaches providing, by the discourse engine, the debate feedback to a second client device (Col. 4 Ln 19-21, “the teacher may use an input control to ask the AI system to generate an assessment of the student's performance” and Fig. 1B which shows the students transmitting from their own devices, to 101 the teacher’s device).
Sandrew does not teach receiving, by the discourse engine, input on the debate feedback from the second client device; and responsive to receiving the input from the second client device, transmit, by the discourse engine, the debate feedback to the client device.
However, Hantz teaches receiving, by the discourse engine, input on the debate feedback from the second client device (Para 0005, “Input is received from the human tutor to accept, reject or edit the AI-generated suggested written corrective feedback”); and responsive to receiving the input from the second client device, transmit, by the discourse engine, the debate feedback to the client device (Para 0005, “which is then communicated to the student.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sandrew before the effective filing date in such a way as to incorporate the teachings of Hantz in order to preserve the benefits of human feedback (strikes the right tone, personalized) while still allowing the speed of AI generated feedback (Para 0003, “One challenge in tutoring students is to provide timely feedback. Another challenge is to ensure that the feedback strikes the right tone, is useful and constructive.”).
Claim 14 is analogous to claim 6 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim 19 is analogous to claim 6 in that it recites substantially the same limitations. It is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claims 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandrew et al. (US 12165655 B1) as above in claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15 and further in view of Castan Lavilla et al. (US11024291).
Regarding claim 8, Sandrew does not teach determining, by the discourse engine, a content stream from the client device, wherein the content stream comprises a start time; determining, by the discourse engine, an end time of the content stream from the client device; and determining, by the discourse engine, the first debate content based on the start time and the end time of the content stream.
However, Castan Lavilla teaches determining, by the discourse engine, a content stream from the client device, wherein the content stream comprises a start time (Col. 18 Ln 54-55, “sliding time window process includes: determining a time window having a start time”); determining, by the discourse engine, an end time of the content stream from the client device (Col. 4, Ln-47-48, “while the end time of the same segment may be the time at which speaker 1 finishes speaking”); and determining, by the discourse engine, the first debate content based on the start time and the end time of the content stream (Col. 4 Ln 40-42, “a start time of a segment may be defined by a start time or an end time of a particular class of speech content contained in the segment”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sandrew before the effective filing date in such a way as to incorporate the teachings of Castan Lavilla in order to identify boundaries of streamed speech content using start and end times, thereby enabling extraction of relevant portions (See Col. 4 Ln. 40-48).
Regarding claim 16, Sandrew does not teach determining, by the discourse engine, a content stream from the client device; and determine, by the discourse engine, the first debate content based on a break in the content stream.
However, Castan Lavilla teaches determining, by the discourse engine, a content stream from the client device (Abstract, “receiving, by an audio capture device, an audio stream”); and determine, by the discourse engine, the first debate content based on a break in the content stream (Col. 4 Ln 47-48, “while the end time of the same segment may be the time at which speaker 1 finishes speaking”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sandrew before the effective filing date in such a way as to incorporate the teachings of Castan Lavilla in order to identify boundaries of streamed speech content, thereby enabling extraction of relevant portions (See Col. 4 Ln. 40-48).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ALAN FOSTER JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8874. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8a - 6p.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at (571) 272-6338. 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.
/MICHAEL A FOSTER JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2654
/HAI PHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights