DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 6/26/2026. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending in the case.
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 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claims 1, 8-9 do belong to a statutory category, namely are a device, a method and a CRM claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception. Claim 1 recites:
calculate an index value of the response quality of a first person in accordance with data of a dialogue between the first person and one or more persons, wherein the response quality describes a trust between the first person and the one or more persons in the dialogue as the dialogue facilitates building the trust; and
present the index value on a terminal to describe the trust between the first person and the one or more persons with accuracy, and cause an increase of the index value of the response quality in a subsequent performance of the sales task.
Calculating a "trust" or "response quality" index value based on conversational data amounts to a mathematical calculation or evaluation. Even though a computer is doing the math, tracking and judging human behavioral qualities like "trust" is treated legally as a concept that could conceptually be evaluated as a mental process or standard human observation - Mental Processes & Mathematical Concepts.
The claim explicitly recites using the dialogue index value to “cause an increase... in a subsequent performance of the sales task.” Managing sales techniques, evaluating representative performance, and building buyer-seller relationships are fundamental economic and business practices that cannot be patented - Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (Business/Sales Concepts).
Under Step 2A, prong 2, of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claims 1 and 8-9, the claims recite additional elements including, display the index value on a terminal amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “at least one processor connected to the memory” and a “terminal” to “present” data—consists entirely of generic computer components (claims 1, 8-9) to perform calculate and display steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an invention concept. The claims are not eligible.
Under Step 2B, the claims do 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 including, “at least one processor connected to the memory” and a “terminal” to “present” data (in claims 1, 8 and 9), amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously Known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not qualify as patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-6 and 10-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 8-20 are ineligible.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pisczak et al. (US 20210280207 A1, hereinafter Pisczak)
As to independent claim 1, Pisczak discloses a response quality evaluation device configured to evaluate response quality of a sales task (“The system 100 includes a user 105 enrolled or registered for verbal language analysis. The user 105 enrolls for the service to monitor one or more conversations 110 with one or more third parties 115. It is appreciated that third party and recipient are synonymous […] The system 100 includes an intelligence device 120. The intelligence device 120 is associated with the user 105. […] The intelligence device 120 analyzes the conversation 110 to determine or calculate a verbal intelligence (VI) index.” Paragraph 0028-0033, “CallType—used to identify the type of call conducted—sales, collections, financial, insurance, etc.” paragraph 0087), the response quality evaluation device comprising:
a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory (“A system, comprising: one or more processors; a memory storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors,” paragraph 0191), wherein
the processor is configured to;
calculate an index value of the response quality of a first person in accordance with data of a dialogue between the first person and one or more persons (“FIG. 12 illustrates a method 1200 for verbal language analysis. At 1205, a conversation between a user and a third party is captured. For example, an intelligence device includes a microphone that records the conversation. At 1210, the conversation is analyzed according to verbal language analysis for the user. The conversation is analyzed for individual conversation data factors. At 1215, a verbal intelligence index is calculated from the analysis of the conversation factors. The verbal intelligence index is a score metric based on at least one of energy, words, inflection, tone (e.g. pitch and sentiment), or rate. In some embodiments, the verbal intelligence index can be normalized to a score out of 100.” paragraph 0189,0031-0033), wherein the response quality describes a trust between the first person and the one or more persons in the dialogue as the dialogue facilitates building the trust (“In an example embodiment, the VI index can be calculated using the below algorithm. It is appreciated that other algorithms may be used to calculate the VI index. In some embodiments, the algorithm used to calculate a user's VI Index is outlined below using a basic algebraic formula. The algorithm consists of three variables used to measure one's relative VI. x=the total number of words the user speaks during a conversation. y=total number of trust inducing phrases used during a conversation by the user of the software. z=the score of one's tone during a conversation. The score can range between 0-4, using the tone parameters defined below.” Paragraph 0050-0052, 0066,0071,0073,0080,0106); and
present the index value on a terminal to describe the trust between the first person and the one or more persons with accuracy, and cause an increase of the index value of the response quality in a subsequent performance of the sales task (“In some embodiments, the verbal intelligence index can be normalized to a score out of 100. At 1220, a dashboard that provides analytics to the user for review is generated. The dashboard conveys analytics, verbal intelligence index, recommendations for improvement, and/or the like. The dashboard can be interactive and provide playback of the conversation or highlights of parts of the conversation that could have been improved. At 1225, the dashboard is provided to the user. The dashboard can be provided to the user on the intelligence device via an interface. The dashboard may also be provided to the user via a notification, email, text, alert, and/or the like and viewed on any device by the user.” Paragraph 0189,0080).
As to dependent claim 3, Pisczak further discloses, wherein
the first person represents a person in charge (Caller user 105, Fig. 1, CallType—used to identify the type of call conducted—sales, collections, financial, insurance, etc..” paragraph 0087),
the one or more persons comprise a customer (third party user 115 – recipient/customer), and
the data of the dialogue comprises at least one of:
a duration of from a beginning to an end of the dialogue (“whole conversation, start of conversation versus end of conversation” paragraph 0031);
a speaking speed of the customer (“The Recipient's Speech Rate in words per minute,” paragraph 0168);
a speaking speed of the person in charge (“Rate measures the speed the words spoken, e.g. in sentences,” paragraph 0031, “The Caller's Speech Rate in words per minute,” paragraph 0168 );
an utterance percentage of the customer; or
an utterance percentage of the person in charge.
As to dependent claim 4, Pisczak further discloses wherein
the first person performs the sales task (Caller user 105, Fig. 1, CallType—used to identify the type of call conducted—sales, collections, financial, insurance, etc..” paragraph 0087),
the one or more persons comprise a customer (third party user 115 – recipient/customer) and
the sales task comprises an inside sales task using a telephone, a mail, a video call, or a text chat as a communication tool with the customer (“The conversation 110 may be conducted in person, digitally, electronically, telephonically, voice over internet protocol (VOIP), and/or the like. In some embodiments, the conversation 110 can be a speech, presentation, pitch, and/or the like directed at multiple third parties 115.” Paragraph 0027).
As to dependent claim 18, Pisczak further discloses wherein the presenting further comprises presenting the index value in response to receiving a request from the terminal that is connected to the response quality evaluation device via a communication network (“FIG. 10 depicts an exemplary embodiment of a wearable device 1010 as a capture component that is wirelessly (e.g. Bluetooth) connected to a user's mobile phone 1020. The mobile phone 1020 can utilize a cloud solution 1030 for analysis and generating a dashboard view(s) 1030. The dashboard views 1030 and analysis can be pushed to the mobile phone 1020 and/or a user's personal computing device 1040 for displaying to the user.” Paragraph 0184).
Claims 8-9 and 19-20 are substantially the same as claims 1 and 18 and are therefore rejected under similar rationale as above.
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.
Claims 2, 5-6, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisczak et al. in view of Dubey et al. (US 20190124202 A1, hereinafter Dubey).
As to dependent claim 2, Pisczak teaches the response quality evaluation device according to claim 1, Pisczak further teaches the first set of dialogues includes time durations of respective dialogues of the first set of dialogues are at least a predetermined length of time (“Rate measures whole conversation, start of conversation versus end of conversation,” paragraph 0031). Pisczak does not appear to expressly teach wherein the index value calculated by the processor is an open-heart capability that represents a percentage of a first set of dialogues between the first person and a second person or the one or more persons, among a plurality of dialogues between the first person and the second person, the first set of dialogues includes a word describing a customer, and time durations of respective dialogues of the first set of dialogues are at least a predetermined length of time.
Dubey (‘202) teaches wherein the index value calculated by the processor is an open-heart capability that represents a percentage of a first set of dialogues between the first person and the second person, among a plurality of dialogues between the first person and the second person, the first set of dialogues includes a word describing the customer (“The quality assistance AI module 300 may also attempt to determine an emotional component to the conversation to determine whether that agent expressed the right amount of empathy towards the customer.” Paragraph 0040).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pisczak to comprise the first set of dialogues includes time durations of respective dialogues of the first set of dialogues are at least a predetermined length of time. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve agent’s confidence and effectiveness.
As to dependent claim 5, Pisczak teaches the response quality evaluation device according to claim 1, Pisczak does not appear to expressly teach wherein the processor is configured to
calculate the index value of the response quality of the first person performing the sales task during one or more evaluation periods of predetermined evaluation periods of a plurality of evaluation periods.
Dubey (‘202) teaches wherein the processor is configured to
calculate the index value of the first person performing the sales task during one or more evaluation periods of predetermined evaluation periods of the plurality of evaluation periods (“The information described above may be provided weekly, monthly, etc. to the agent's supervisor so that the supervisor may asses the agent's strengths and weakness.” Paragraph 0042).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pisczak to comprise wherein the processor is configured to calculate the index value of the first person performing the sales task during one or more evaluation periods of predetermined evaluation periods of the plurality of evaluation periods. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve agent’s confidence and effectiveness.
As to dependent claim 6, Pisczak teaches the response quality evaluation device according to claim 5, Pisczak does not appear to expressly teach wherein the processor is configured to display, on the terminal, the index value of the first person during the plurality of evaluation periods for comparison between the plurality of evaluation periods.
Dubey (‘202) teaches wherein the processor is configured to display, on the terminal, the index value of the response quality of the first person during the plurality of evaluation periods for comparison between a plurality of evaluation periods (“As illustrated in FIG. 3D, the quality assistance AI module 300 may generate a graph that compares the metrics associated with the conversation by the agent to an average score associated with other agents and/or with an organization's standard for each metric…The information described above may be provided weekly, monthly, etc. to the agent's supervisor so that the supervisor may asses the agent's strengths and weakness.” Paragraph 0041-0042, it is possible to generate a graph that compares the metrics between the weekly, monthly periods).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pisczak to comprise wherein the processor is configured to display, on the terminal, the index value of the first person during the plurality of evaluation periods for comparison between the plurality of evaluation periods. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve agent’s confidence and effectiveness.
As to dependent claim 13, Pisczak teaches the response quality evaluation device according to claim 5, Pisczak does not appear to expressly teach wherein the processor is configured to display, on the terminal, the index value of a plurality of first persons, each being the first person, during the same evaluation period for comparison between the plurality of first persons.
Dubey (‘202) taches wherein the processor is configured to display, on the terminal, the index value of response quality of a plurality of first persons, each being the first person, during the same evaluation period for comparison between the plurality of first persons (“As illustrated in FIG. 3D, the quality assistance AI module 300 may generate a graph that compares the metrics associated with the conversation by the agent to an average score associated with other agents and/or with an organization's standard for each metric.” Paragraph 0041).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pisczak to comprise wherein the processor is configured to display, on the terminal, the index value of a plurality of first persons, each being the first person, during the same evaluation period for comparison between the plurality of first persons. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve agent’s confidence and effectiveness.
As to dependent claim 14, Pisczak teaches the response quality evaluation device according to claim 1, Pisczak does not appear to expressly teach wherein the index value calculated by the processor is an empathy capability that represents substantially an average of respective time durations of respective dialogues of a plurality of dialogues between the first person and the second person according to a dialogue duration distribution of the plurality of dialogues.
Dubey (‘202) teaches wherein the index value calculated by the processor is an empathy capability that represents substantially an average of respective time durations of respective dialogues of a plurality of dialogues between the first person and the one or more persons according to a dialogue duration distribution of the plurality of dialogues (“The quality assistance AI module 300 may also attempt to determine an emotional component to the conversation to determine whether that agent expressed the right amount of empathy towards the customer.” Paragraph 0040).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pisczak to comprise wherein the index value calculated by the processor is an empathy capability that represents substantially an average of respective time durations of respective dialogues of a plurality of dialogues between the first person and the second person according to a dialogue duration distribution of the plurality of dialogues. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve agent’s confidence and effectiveness.
Claims 10-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisczak et al. in view of Dubey et al. (US 20220230116 A1, hereinafter Dubey).
As to dependent claim 10, Pisczak teaches the response quality evaluation device according to claim 1, Pisczak does not appear to expressly teach wherein the first person receives a call from the one or more persons for starting the dialogue, the first person represents a salesperson performing an inbound sales task, and the one or more persons comprise a customer calling the salesperson.
Dubey teaches wherein the first person receives a call from the one or more persons for starting the dialogue, the first person represents a salesperson performing an inbound sales task, and the one or more persons comprise a customer calling the salesperson (“A “call interaction” as used herein means an oral communication between a customer and an employee of an organization or a company, irrespective of the mode of transmission (e.g., telephone, videoconference, web chat, or any other mode of voice exchange(s)). “Employee” is meant to encompass an individual hired by a company or organization to perform a set job. Examples of employees include customer service representatives, sales representatives, contractors, and consultants. Examples of call interactions include sales calls,” paragraph 0012).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pisczak to comprise wherein the first person receives a call from the one or more persons for starting the dialogue, the first person represents a salesperson performing an inbound sales task, and the one or more persons comprise a customer calling the salesperson. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve agent’s confidence and effectiveness.
As to dependent claim 16, Pisczak teaches the response quality evaluation device according to claim 1, Pisczak does not appear to expressly teach wherein the index value calculated by the processor is a dialogue capability that represents substantially an average of utterance percentages of the one or more persons in a plurality of dialogues between the first person and the one or more persons according to an utterance percentage distribution of the one or more persons in the plurality of dialogues.
Dubey teaches wherein the index value calculated by the processor is a dialogue capability that represents substantially an average of utterance percentages of the one or more persons in a plurality of dialogues between the first person and the one or more persons according to an utterance percentage distribution of the one or more persons in the plurality of dialogues (“Talk/Listen Ratio: This parameter looks at how much the employee was talking during the call interaction versus listening to the customer. A good trait of an employee in this model is that he/she maintains a good balance of listening and talking on the call. Too much of either listening or talking can be evaluated as requiring training, if desired.” Paragraph 0030, “The number of such interchanges between the employee and the customer are taken into consideration, and the parameter is determined. For scoring purposes, the number of interchanges is compared with predetermined standards or thresholds, and the resultant score is normalized on scale of 0 to 1.” Paragraph 0035).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pisczak to comprise wherein the index value calculated by the processor is a dialogue capability that represents substantially an average of utterance percentages of the one or more persons in a plurality of dialogues between the first person and the one or more persons according to an utterance percentage distribution of the one or more persons in the plurality of dialogues.. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve agent’s confidence and effectiveness.
Claims 11-12 are substantially the same as claim 10 and are therefore rejected under similar rationale as above.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisczak et al. in view of Matuala et al. (US 20150319305 A1, hereinafter Matuala).
As to dependent claim 15, Pisczak further discloses the response quality evaluation device according to claim 1, Pisczak does not appear to expressly teach wherein the index value calculated by the processor is a pace capability that represents a percentage of dialogues between the first person and the second person in a dialogue of a plurality of dialogues, and the first person speaks at a speaking speed in the dialogue according to a speaking speed of the second person in the dialogue.
Matuala teaches wherein the index value calculated by the processor is a pace capability that represents a percentage of dialogues between the first person and the one or more persons in a dialogue of a plurality of dialogues, and the first person speaks at a speaking speed in the dialogue according to a speaking speed of the one or more persons in the dialogue (“For communications with high delay, the agent might be perceived as being “attentive” if they begin speaking as they hear the customer complete a sentence—because the agent is hearing the customer after significant delay, and the path from the agent to the customer will add more delay. If the agent speaks before they hear the customer's last bit of speech, the customer may then perceive the conversation as proceeding in a normal pace.” Paragraph 0007).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pisczak to comprise wherein the index value calculated by the processor is a pace capability that represents a percentage of dialogues between the first person and the second person in a dialogue of a plurality of dialogues, and the first person speaks at a speaking speed in the dialogue according to a speaking speed of the second person in the dialogue. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve agent’s confidence and effectiveness.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisczak et al. in view of Nuta et al. (US 20160316059 A1, hereinafter Nuta).
As to dependent claim 17, Pisczak teaches the response quality evaluation device according to claim 1, Pisczak does not appear to expressly teach wherein the index value calculated by the processor is a commitment capability that represents a percentage of a second set of dialogues of a plurality of dialogues, among the plurality of dialogues between the first person and the one or more persons, and the second set of dialogues includes utterances describing the first person in agreement with the one or more persons.
Nuta teaches a conversation metric data for a respective conversation may include data indicative of one or more values of one or more metrics for evaluating conversation quality. The value of the rapport metric may indicate an extent of mutual understanding and/or agreement between two or more participants in a conversation. The value of the rapport metric for a conversation may be determined based, at least in part, on the rate of use of words indicating understanding and/or agreement in the communications of the conversation's participants. Other techniques for determining the value of the rapport metric may be used. The value of the rapport metric may further depend on a target value for the extent of mutual understanding and/or agreement between the participants (see paragraph 0116-0117).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pisczak to comprise wherein the index value calculated by the processor is a commitment capability that represents a percentage of a second set of dialogues of a plurality of dialogues, among the plurality of dialogues between the first person and the second person, and the second set of dialogues includes utterances describing the first person in agreement with the second person. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve agent’s confidence and effectiveness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Feast et al. US 20170078479 A1 Systems and methods are provided for managing and analyzing multi-party dialogs (e.g., call) between communication devices.
Zimmerman et al. US 20180124242 A1 Method, and apparatus for monitoring the emotional content call center dialogs.
Pande et al. US 20130208881 A1 teaches a system for conversation quality monitoring of call center conversation.
Lee et al. US 20220138770 A1 Method for analyzing sales conversation based on voice recognition.
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 MAHELET SHIBEROU whose telephone number is (571)270-7493. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/MAHELET SHIBEROU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights