DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 7/13/2024. Claims 1-7 are pending in the application of which Claim 1, is independent and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365 is acknowledged. The prior-filed application (Provisional application No. 63655133 Filed on 6/30/2024) is acknowledged.
Examiner Note
Applicant is advised to take advantage of assistance provided by the USPTO for the applicants who file on their own behalf. The Pro Se Assistance Program provides outreach and education to applicants (also known as "pro se" applicants) who file patent applications without the assistance of a registered patent attorney or agent. USPTO assistance program aims to increase the quality of pro se applications and assist pro se applicants with making informed decisions regarding their patent applications. The pro se assistance program can be reached by calling 866-767-3848 or visiting: www.USPTO.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/pro-se-assistance-program
Claim Objections
Listed claims are objected to for the informalities shown and may be addressed with suggested amendments:
Claim 3, line 1 recite: … that the voice translation software and its trained special …
Claim 7, line 1 recite: … The voice translation software as described …
Applicant is advised to review all claims for any potential claim objection issues.
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.
Claim 5, is 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 5, recites “… that it can understand the calls of animals through...”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which calls it is referring to.
Applicant is advised to review all claims for any potential antecedent basis issues.
7.45 Improper Multiple Dependent Claims
Claims 3-7 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
7.05.04 Utility Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), First Paragraph
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well established utility.
It is not plausible as how a system as claimed is trained so that it can understand animal calls and translate it to human language.
Claim 5 also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
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 1-7 are drawn to a "software platform" per se as recited in the specs (¶[0006]" This invention is a special voice translation software that has a completely different working principle from all the existing translation software on the market.) and as such is non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.1V.B.1 .a. Software not claimed as embodied in computer readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention, which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nonstatutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
A special voice translation software, characterized in that it can
recognize and translate personalized voice pronunciation into standard language (text or voice) and output it through artificial intelligence training model, using voice samples and text data provided by users for repeated training.
The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example,
“Recognize, and translate personalized voice pronunciation into standard language” in the context of this claim encompasses a person listening to a person talking and convert/translating it to other language.
“output it through artificial intelligence training model” in the context of this claim encompasses a person voicing the translated recitation.
“Using voice samples and text data provided by users for repeated training.” In the context of this claim encompasses person correcting himself by taking example into account.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
artificial intelligence training model
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not add limitations that would either integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or could help the claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites:
translate the standard language back into voice functions with user personality characteristics. In the context of this claim encompasses person take in a text or voice and convert it to a voice with accent/personality as required.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite an additional element.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
the software and its trained special voice recognition model are installed on mobile phones, computers, central translation tools, intelligent robots and other devices to achieve barrier-free communication between users in multiple scenarios.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. There are no additional mental steps.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
voice recognition model,
mobile phones,
computers,
central translation tools,
intelligent robots
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
it can be applied to future users and various intelligent devices and robots that require voice dialogue and realize barrier-free voice interaction between users and intelligent robots and all intelligent devices.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
various intelligent devices,
robots,
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
it can understand the calls of animals through training and learning and translate them into human standard language. In the context of this claim, it amounts to translating an animal call into a human voice text. Assuming as recited, then there is a fundamental issue of understanding an animal language which is an abstract on its own.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
it can recognize and translate sign language, body language, and micro-expressions. In the context of this claim, it amounts to recognize sign language, body language, and micro-expression, which a person can look at the other person while he is expressing such sign and writing the message down on a piece of paper.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
it can be further expanded to translate any language (including alien languages that do not require telepathy) and more advanced emotion and context understanding. In the context of this claim, it amounts to translate from any language to any other language, which a person can listen to the other person while he is noting down and translating what he hears to another target language.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
(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, 3/1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wen et al. (WO2021253779A1)(herein "Wen").
Regarding claim 1, Wen teaches A special voice translation software, characterized in that it can recognize and translate personalized voice pronunciation into standard language (text or voice) and (Wen, Par. 0050:”… the voice expression [pronunciation] methods of each user are also different and the same, (for example, some are used for dialects, some users' pronunciation is inaccurate, etc.), which makes the voice-to-text model often appear incomprehensible or misunderstood …”, and Par. 0051:“… acquiring the voice information to be recognized, the voiceprint information of the voice information is acquired; and the personalized speech-to-text model corresponding to the voiceprint information is used to determine the corresponding voice information text information.”)
output it through artificial intelligence training model, using voice samples and text data provided by users for repeated training. (Wen, Par. 0051:” The personalized voice-to-text model [artificial intelligence training model] is trained based on the voice data [samples] corresponding to the voiceprint information, and the voice expression [pronunciation] mode of the acquired voice information is the same as the voice expression mode of the voice data used by the personalized voice-to-text model, Therefore, the accuracy of the voice information recognition can be improved through the personalized voice conversion module, and the user's intention can be better understood, which brings convenience to the user.”)
Regarding claim 3/1, Wen further teaches the software and its trained special voice recognition model are installed on mobile phones, computers, central translation tools, intelligent robots and other devices to achieve barrier-free communication between users in multiple scenarios. (Wen, Par. 0062:” Further, the personalized speech-to-text model may be configured on a terminal device or a server connected to the terminal device, where the terminal device is a terminal device for executing the voice recognition method, for example, a smart phone, Tablet PC and so on. When the terminal device is configured with the personalized speech-to-text model, the terminal device can perform the operation of determining the personalized speech-to-text model corresponding to the voice information based on the voiceprint information; when the personalized speech-to-text model is configured on the server, …”).
Regarding claim 4, Wen further teaches it can be applied to future users and various intelligent devices and robots that require voice dialogue and realize barrier-free voice interaction between users and intelligent robots and all intelligent devices. (Wen, Par. 0050:” … However, the users facing each terminal device are different from each other, and the voice expression methods of each user are also different and the same, (for example, some are used for dialects, some users' pronunciation is inaccurate, etc.), …”). Note: Since the interaction are between two or more, therefore it reads on “it can be applied to further users”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 3/2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen, and in further view of Finkelstein et al. (US 20230018384 A1)(herein " Finkelstein").
Regarding claim 2, Wen teaches the voice translation software of claim 1.
Wen, does not teach, however, Finkelstein teaches translate the standard language back into voice functions with user personality characteristics. (Finkelstein, Par. 0043:” FIG. 2B illustrates an example trained voice cloning system 200, 200b configured to convert input training audio signal 102 corresponding to a reference utterance spoken [standard language] by a target speaker in a first accent/dialect into an output mel-spectrogram 502 representing the voice of the target speaker in a second accent/dialect. That is, the trained voice cloning system 200b includes a speech-to-speech (S2S) conversion model.”) Note: target speaker in a second accent/dialect represents voice functions with user personality characteristics.
Finkelstein is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. 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 Wen further in view of Finkelstein to translate the standard language back into voice functions with user personality characteristics. Motivation to do so would produce realistically sounding synthesized speech (Finkelstein, Par. 0025).
Regarding claim 3/2, Wen teaches the voice translation software of claim 2.
Wen further teaches the software and its trained special voice recognition model are installed on mobile phones, computers, central translation tools, intelligent robots and other devices to achieve barrier-free communication between users in multiple scenarios. (Wen, Par. 0062:” Further, the personalized speech-to-text model may be configured on a terminal device or a server connected to the terminal device, where the terminal device is a terminal device for executing the voice recognition method, for example, a smart phone, Tablet PC and so on. When the terminal device is configured with the personalized speech-to-text model, the terminal device can perform the operation of determining the personalized speech-to-text model corresponding to the voice information based on the voiceprint information; when the personalized speech-to-text model is configured on the server, …”).
Claim 5, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen, and in further view of Kuroki et al. (US 20230018384 A1)(herein " Kuroki ").
Regarding claim 5, Wen teaches the voice translation software of claim 1.
Wen, does not teach, however, Kuroki teaches characterized in that it can understand the calls of animals through training and learning and translate them into human standard language. (Kuroki, Par. 0005:” Recent advances in voice analysis technology, particularly voiceprint analysis, have made it possible to identify the emotions and intentions contained in animal sounds (hereinafter simply referred to as "emotions"). For example, the sounds made by pets, livestock, and other animals can be analyzed to obtain patterns (e.g., sonographs) that extract their characteristics. The animal's emotions can then be determined by comparing them with previously prepared standard voice patterns analyzed based on ethology.”, and Par. 0004:”Based on such voice analysis technology, a system has been proposed that, for example, inputs the sound of an animal's cry and a video of the animal's movements, compares the input with data on the sounds and movements previously analyzed ethologically, determines the animal's emotions, and displays the results as text or images that humans can understand (see, for example, Patent Document 1; corresponding to all claims).”, and Page2:”This provides a training effect of familiarizing the animal by having it listen to a human voice …”).
Kuroki is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. 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 Wen further in view of Kuroki to characterize in that it can understand the calls of animals through training and learning and translate them into human standard language. Motivation to do so would improve usability and enabling smoother communication with pets (Kuroki, Page 3).
Claim 6, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen, and in further view of Fu et al. (US 20250036889 A1)(herein "Fu").
Regarding claim 6, Wen teaches the voice translation software of claim 1.
Wen, does not teach, however, Fu teaches characterized in that it can recognize and translate sign language, body language, and micro-expressions. (Fu, Par. 0010:” … the translation of the sign language has to be able to translate any combination of body gestures, hand gestures, facial expressions, micro-expressions, head pose and movements, and lip movements. In some embodiments, the text could be multilingual. In some embodiments, the sign language may be configured to be performed by the visual assistant with artificial intelligence.”, and Par. 0039:”… The translation of the sign language may have to be able to translate any combination of body gestures, hand gestures, facial expressions, micro-expressions, head pose and movements, and lip movements. The text could be multilingual. … The visual assistant may be configured to switch between sign language and multilingual oral language anytime and anywhere.”)
Fu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. 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 Wen further in view of Fu to characterize in that it can recognize and translate sign language, body language, and micro-expressions. Motivation to do so would provide a smart sign language translation service with a visual assistant with artificial intelligence (Fu, Par. 0028).
Claim 7, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen, and in further view of Kahn et al. (US 20060149558 A1)(herein " Kahn ").
Regarding claim 7, Wen teaches the voice translation software of claim 1.
Wen, does not teach, however, Kahn teaches characterized in that it can be further expanded to translate any language (including alien languages that do not require telepathy) and more advanced emotion and context understanding. (Kahn, Par. 0021:” Speech input reflects speaker-specific differences, such as physical vocal-tract size, age, sex, dialect, health, education, emotion, and personal style, including word use and expression.”, and Par. 0647:” The language model may include text from one or more languages. Human translation session file (FIG. 3) 930 or machine translation session file (FIG. 3) 930, as illustrated in FIG. 9, may provide text in target foreign language. This translated text may be used to create a speaker-specific language model for speech-to-text decoding for a multilingual speaker who may dictate in several different languages and use a multilanguage language model 760 or lexicon 770, or a speaker who dictates in one language with output recognition in a foreign [alien] language.”, and Par. 0655:”In a commonly used approach, context dependent triphones may also be created for each phoneme where the central monophone is linked to the preceding left and following right monophone within the word. ... In this approach, the word "above" has four phonemes "ax" "b" "ah" "v". The phonemes may be written as a series of context dependent triphones: …”).
Kahn is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. 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 Wen further in view of Kahn to characterize in that it can be further expanded to translate any language (including alien languages that do not require telepathy) and more advanced emotion and context understanding. Motivation to do so would improving both accuracy and performance in day-to-day use of speech recognition (Kahn, Par. 0664).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Biadsy et al. (US 20230360632 A1) teaches in Par. 0056:” … receiving a speech conversion request that includes input audio data 102 corresponding to an utterance spoken 108 by the target speaker 104 associated with the atypical speech. At operation 408, the method 400 includes biasing, using the speaker embedding 350 generated for the target speaker 104 by the speaker embedding network 250, the speech conversion model 210 to convert the input audio data 102 corresponding to the utterance 108 spoken by the target speaker 104 associated with atypical speech into an output canonical representation 106, 120 of the utterance spoken by the target speaker.”
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIOUSH AGAHI whose telephone number is (408)918-7689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
DARIOUSH AGAHI, P.E.
Primary Examiner
/DARIOUSH AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656