Detailed Action
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 10/25/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Apparent priority: 10/25/2024.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on and 12/12/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-8, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5-8, 13-15 recite the limitation " the associated party". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Claim 1 recites,
“1. A method for identifying that a user in a multi-party conversation is speaking in a way that is likely to be misunderstood by one or more of the parties to the multi-party conversation, the method comprising:
receiving a user corpus associated with the user, wherein the user corpus comprises one or more of writings created by the user and user utterances spoken by the user; [This relates to a human process of receiving a corpus using pen and paper.]
determining that a multi-party conversation has begun; [This relates to a a human determining that a conversation has begun using auditory processes and language understanding.]
identifying one or more parties participating in the multi-party conversation; [This relates to a a human identifying one or more parties using memory and reasoning.]
translating one or more utterances from the multi-party conversation into text in real time; [This relates to a human translating utterances using natural language understanding and using pen and paper.]
identifying a speaking party of the one or more parties in real time as each utterance is spoken; [This relates to a human identifying a speaking party using memory and language understanding and logic in the human mind.]
generating a party corpus for each of the one or more parties; [This relates to a human generating a corpus using pen and paper.]
for each of the one or more parties, computing, by a large language model (LLM), a conversational concordance between the user and each party based on the user corpus and a respective associated party corpus, wherein the concordance comprises a probability that a given utterance would have been the next utterance in the multi-party conversation between the user and the party; [This relates to information processing/mental like steps a human can perform using pen and paper.]
providing feedback to the user based on the concordance. [This relates to a human providing feedback using logic and reasoning and pen and paper.]
Regarding Independent Claim 9, claim 9 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Independent Claim 17, claim 17 is a computer program product claim with limitations similar to that of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
The Dependent Claim does not include additional limitations that could incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application or cause the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 9 and 17 recites additional elements of “memory” “processing device” “processor” For example, in [0020] there is the description of
… computing environment 100 includes, for example, computer 101, wide area network (WAN) 102, end user device (EUD) 103, remote server 104, public cloud 105, and private cloud 106. In this embodiment, computer 101 includes processor set 110 (including processing circuitry 120 and cache 121), communication fabric 111, volatile memory 112, persistent storage 113
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and memory is noted as a general computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional limitation in the claims noted above are directed towards insignificant solution activity. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites,
“2. The method of claim 1, further comprising dynamically estimating a technical depth of the multi-party conversation based on a technical vocabulary associated with the one or more utterances. [this relates to a humans natural ability to dynamically estimate technical depth using natural language understanding and logic and reasoning.] No additional limitations present.
Dependent claim 3 recites,
“3. The method of claim 2, wherein the feedback comprises a graph tracking the concordance against what is expected for the multi-party conversation based on the technical depth. [this relates to human providing feedback in the form of a graph using pen and paper.] No additional limitations present.
Dependent claim 4 recites,
“4. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversational concordance between the user and each party is further based on one or more of a convergence of a pace of speech of the user and each party. [This relates to a human determining conversational concordance using logic and reasoning.] No additional limitations present.
Dependent claim 5 recites,
“5. The method of claim 1, wherein the party corpus comprises all utterances spoken by the associated party within the multi-party conversation. [this relates to a human creating a concordance using pen and paper.] No additional limitations present.
Dependent claim 6 recites,
“6. The method of claim 1, wherein the party corpus comprises utterances spoken by the associated party within one or more previous conversations. [this relates to a human creating a concordance using pen and paper.] No additional limitations present.
Dependent claim 7 recites,
“7. The method of claim 1, wherein the party corpus comprises one or more writings created by the associated party. [this relates to a human creating a concordance using pen and paper.] No additional limitations present.
Dependent claim 8 recites,
“8. The method of claim 2, wherein the party corpus comprises a recent conversation between the user and the associated party with a vocabulary exceeding a threshold similarity to the technical vocabulary. [this relates to a computational process a human can perform using pen and paper.] No additional limitations present.
As to dependent claim 10, Claim 10 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 11, Claim 11 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 3 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 12, Claim 12 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 13, Claim 13 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 5 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 14, Claim 14 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 6 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 15, Claim 15 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 7 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 16, Claim 16 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 8 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 18, Claim 18 is a computer program product claim with limitations similar to that of claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 19, Claim 19 is a computer program product claim with limitations similar to that of claim 3 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 20, Claim 20 is a computer program product claim with limitations similar to that of claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (U.S. Patent Number US 10210860 B1), in view of Ullrich (U.S. Patent Number US 20240419246 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Ward teaches
1. A method for identifying that a user in a multi-party conversation is speaking in a way that is likely to be misunderstood by one or more of the parties to the multi-party conversation, the method comprising: (see Ward (34:7-13) “ (155) The types of tasks that may use this stored internal state representation include classification and search tasks. For example, a classification task may be to determine when speakers in an audio segment change, sometimes referred to as speaker diarization. Another example of speech classification may be, for example, to determine a mood, sentiment, accent, or any other quality or feature of the speech audio. “) receiving a user corpus associated with the user, (see Ward (34:14-21) “(155)…A search task may be, for example, to search a corpus of speech audio based on an input segment of speech audio or an input text string. One search task may be, for example, to find segments of audio in the corpus that discuss similar topics as the input speech segment. Another search task may be, for example, to find segments of audio in the corpus that are spoken by the same speaker as the input speech segment, or for speakers with similar speech patterns as the input.”) identifying one or more parties participating in the multi-party conversation; (see Ward (12:60-13:4) “ (70) FIG. 7 illustrates an end-to-end speech classification system 700 according to an embodiment. The example end-to-end speech classification system … may classify a spoken word or set of words into classes such as semantic topic (e.g., sports, politics, news), gender (e.g., male/female), emotion or sentiment (e.g., angry, sad, happy, etc.), speaker identification (i.e., which user is speaking), speaker age, speaker stress or strain, or other such classifications.”) translating one or more utterances from the multi-party conversation into text in real time; (see Ward (4:30-34) “ (33) FIG. 2 illustrates an end-to-end speech recognition system 200 according to an embodiment. The example end-to-end speech recognition system 200 illustrated in FIG. 2 is configured to transcribe spoken word into written text identifying a speaking party of the one or more parties in real time as each utterance is spoken; (see Ward (13:2) “(70) …speaker identification (i.e., which user is speaking)”) generating a party corpus for each of the one or more parties; (see Ward(34:18-20) “(155)…Another search task may be, for example, to find segments of audio in the corpus that are spoken by the same speaker as the input speech segment
Ward does not specifically teach wherein the user corpus comprises one or more of writings created by the user and user utterances spoken by the user; (However, Ullrich teaches a system to interpret and predict emotional data between conversational partners, see Ullrich [0189], and does teach this limitation (see Ullrich [0067] “This embodiment may finally provide the user 102 capability augmentation or agency support by utilizing direct user 102 input in the form of a user input prompt 140, such as mouse, keyboard, or biosignal-based selections, typed or spoken language, or other form of direct interaction the user 102 may have with a computational device that is part of or supports the user agency and capability augmentation system 100 disclosed. In one embodiment, the user 102 may provide an additional token sequence in one or more sensory modes, which may include a sequence of typed or spoken words, an image or sequence of images, and a sound or sequence of sounds. The biometric and optional multimodal prompt input from the user may be tokenized using equivalent techniques as for the context data.”) (see Ullrich [0074-0077] “[0074] This is the current context: [0075] Conversation history: Recent discussions about books with family and friends, including favorite authors, genres, and specific titles [0076] Personal preferences: Fondness for mystery novels, historical fiction, and biographies; appreciation for strong character development and engaging plots [0077] Language corpus and demographics: 60-year-old, retired school teacher, well-versed in literary terms and expressions.”) determining that a multi-party conversation has begun; (see Ullrich [0118] “The biosignals subsystem 200 may utilize brain sensing to capture and tokenize EEG or similar biosignals 506 indicating that the user 102 has detected or is anticipating a question or declination in speech which they are expected to respond to...”) ”) for each of the one or more parties, computing, by a large language model (LLM), a conversational concordance between the user and each party based on the user corpus and a respective associated party corpus, (see Ullrich [0230] “… In this manner, the system may automatically translate language between the user and their conversation partner(s) or written text in the environment and may adapt translations to the user's knowledge and state. In some embodiments, the multimodal output may be automatically translated into a local language or into a precise utterance 124 that is easier for the conversation partner to understand. The GenAI 118, in one embodiment an LLM, may utilize additional cloud-based resources to facilitate this translation function, ...”) wherein the concordance comprises a probability that a given utterance would have been the next utterance in the multi-party conversation between the user and the party; (see Ullrich[0319] “According to some examples, the method includes receiving the string of tokens from the prompt composer and generating agency outputs to express the user's likely responses to the conversation partner at block 2814. For example, the GenAI 118 illustrated in FIG. 1 may receive the string of tokens from the prompt composer and generate agency outputs to express the user's likely responses to the conversation partner.”) providing feedback to the user based on the concordance. (see Ullrich [0230] “According to some examples, the method includes providing the user with multimodal output such as visual, auditory, or haptic transformations of the generative AI recommendations at block 1816.”)
Ward and Ullrich are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Ward to incorporate wherein the user corpus comprises one or more of writings created by the user and user utterances spoken by the user; .”) determining that a multi-party conversation has begun for each of the one or more parties, computing, by a large language model (LLM), a conversational concordance between the user and each party based on the user corpus and a respective associated party corpus, wherein the concordance comprises a probability that a given utterance would have been the next utterance in the multi-party conversation between the user and the party; providing feedback to the user based on the concordance of Ullrich. This allows improved accuracy as recognized by Ullrich [0089].
As to Independent Claim 9, claim 9 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. Additionally, Ward teaches 9. A system comprising: a memory comprising computer readable instructions; (see Ward (3:58-60) “Furthermore, the use of memory, database, information base, data store, tables, hardware, and the like may be used herein”) and a processing device for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the processing device to perform operations comprising: (see Ward (4:23-29) “(32) The apparatuses and methods described in this application may be partially or fully implemented by one or more computer programs executed by one or more processors. The computer programs include processor-executable instructions that are stored on at least one non-transitory tangible computer readable medium. The computer programs may also include and/or rely on stored data.”)
As to Independent Claim 17, claim 17 is a computer program product claim with limitations similar to that of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. Additionally, Ward teaches 17. A computer program product for identifying that a user in a multi-party conversation is speaking in a way that is likely to be misunderstood by one or more of the parties to the multi-party conversation, the computer program product comprising: a set of one or more computer-readable storage media; program instructions, collectively stored in the set of one or more storage media, for causing a processor set to perform the following computer operations: (see Ward (4:23-29) “(32) The apparatuses and methods described in this application may be partially or fully implemented by one or more computer programs executed by one or more processors. The computer programs include processor-executable instructions that are stored on at least one non-transitory tangible computer readable medium. The computer programs may also include and/or rely on stored data.”)
As to Claim 2, Ward in view of Ullrich teaches. 2. The method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Ullrich teaches further comprising dynamically estimating a technical depth of the multi-party conversation based on a technical vocabulary associated with the one or more utterances. (see Ullrich [0119] “The GenAI 118 may take this input and generate multimodal outputs that may be used to produce responses that are tonally, semantically, modally, and temporally appropriate to the context provided, including but not limited to the new anticipatory brain sensing data, the speech to text from the conversation partner 502 microphone data 512, and the rest of the conversation history and user knowledge of a topic 508.”)
Ward and Ullrich are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of combination of Ward and Ullrich to incorporate further comprising dynamically estimating a technical depth of the multi-party conversation based on a technical vocabulary associated with the one or more utterances of Ullrich. This allows improved accuracy as recognized by Ullrich [0089].
As to Claim 3, Ward in view of Ullrich teaches 3. The method of claim 2,
Furthermore Ullrich teaches wherein the feedback comprises a graph tracking the concordance against what is expected for the multi-party conversation based on the technical depth. (see Ullrich [0429] “In the case illustrated in FIG. 43, the user is looking at a display that may include characters, symbols, pictures, colors, videos, live camera footage or other visual, oral or interactive content. In this example, the user is looking at a group of concentric circles, arranged in a radial layout, with characters on each circle. The user has been presented a set of words to choose from 4308 based on typical functional communication with suggested fringe words and access to predictive keyboard and may rapidly compose a phrase by selecting the next desired word presented in the outer ring of circles or adding a new word manually. The user progressively chooses the next word until they're satisfied with the phrase they've composed 4310 and may determine how to actuate the phrase. GenAI may be used to predict the next character, word, or phrase, and may rearrange or alter the expression depending on its intended output...”)
Ward and Ullrich are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of combination of Ward and Ullrich to incorporate wherein the feedback comprises a graph tracking the concordance against what is expected for the multi-party conversation based on the technical depth of Ullrich. This allows improved accuracy as recognized by Ullrich [0089].
As to Claim 4, Ward in view of Ullrich teaches 4. The method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Ullrich teaches wherein the conversational concordance between the user and each party is further based on one or more of a convergence of a pace of speech of the user and each party. (see Ullrich [0119] “The GenAI 118 may take this input and generate multimodal outputs that may be used to produce responses that are tonally, semantically, modally, and temporally appropriate to the context provided, including but not limited to the new anticipatory brain sensing data, the speech to text from the conversation partner 502 microphone data 512, and the rest of the conversation history and user knowledge of a topic 508.”)
Ward and Ullrich are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of combination of Ward and Ullrich to incorporate teaches wherein the conversational concordance between the user and each party is further based on one or more of a convergence of a pace of speech of the user and each party of Ullrich. This allows improved accuracy as recognized by Ullrich [0089].
As to Claim 5, Ward in view of Ullrich teaches 5. The method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Ullrich teaches wherein the party corpus comprises all utterances spoken by the associated party within the multi-party conversation. (see Ullrich [0085] “If I send an emoji, use it to topically or thematically improve prediction and alter tone. Use all contextual information and prior conversation history to modulate your responses. After each input, review the prior inputs and modify your subsequent predictions based on the context of the thread. Taking into account the current context, with spartan language, return a JSON string called ‘suggestions’ with three different and unique phrases without quotes. They should be complete sentences longer than two words. Do not include explanations. The phrases you respond with will be spoken by my speech generating device.”)
Ward and Ullrich are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of combination of Ward and Ullrich to incorporate teaches wherein the party corpus comprises all utterances spoken by the associated party within the multi-party conversation of Ullrich. This allows improved accuracy as recognized by Ullrich [0089].
As to Claim 6, Ward in view of Ullrich teaches 6. The method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Ullrich teaches wherein the party corpus comprises utterances spoken by the associated party within one or more previous conversations (see Ullrich [0085] “If I send an emoji, use it to topically or thematically improve prediction and alter tone. Use all contextual information and prior conversation history to modulate your responses. After each input, review the prior inputs and modify your subsequent predictions based on the context of the thread. Taking into account the current context, with spartan language, return a JSON string called ‘suggestions’ with three different and unique phrases without quotes. They should be complete sentences longer than two words. Do not include explanations. The phrases you respond with will be spoken by my speech generating device.”)
Ward and Ullrich are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of combination of Ward and Ullrich to incorporate teaches wherein the party corpus comprises utterances spoken by the associated party within one or more previous conversations of Ullrich. This allows improved accuracy as recognized by Ullrich [0089].
As to Claim 7, Ward in view of Ullrich teaches 7. The method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Ullrich teaches wherein the party corpus comprises one or more writings created by the associated party. (However, Ullrich teaches a system to interpret and predict emotional data between conversational partners, see Ullrich [0189], and does teach this limitation (see Ullrich [0067] “This embodiment may finally provide the user 102 capability augmentation or agency support by utilizing direct user 102 input in the form of a user input prompt 140, such as mouse, keyboard, or biosignal-based selections, typed or spoken language, or other form of direct interaction the user 102 may have with a computational device that is part of or supports the user agency and capability augmentation system 100 disclosed. In one embodiment, the user 102 may provide an additional token sequence in one or more sensory modes, which may include a sequence of typed or spoken words, an image or sequence of images, and a sound or sequence of sounds. The biometric and optional multimodal prompt input from the user may be tokenized using equivalent techniques as for the context data.”)
Ward and Ullrich are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of combination of Ward and Ullrich to incorporate teaches wherein the party corpus comprises one or more writings created by the associated party of Ullrich. This allows improved accuracy as recognized by Ullrich [0089].
As to Claim 8, Ward in view of Ullrich teaches 8. The method of claim 2,
Furthermore, Ullrich teaches wherein the party corpus comprises a recent conversation between the user and the associated party with a vocabulary exceeding a threshold similarity to the technical vocabulary. (see Ullrich [0118] “At an experimentally determined threshold level of brain sensing anticipation and microphone data 512 silence, the conversation partner 502 speech 504 may be converted to text and tokenized by the context subsystem 300, along with conversation history and user knowledge of a topic 508.”)
Ward and Ullrich are in the same field of endeavor of signal processing, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of combination of Ward and Ullrich to incorporate teaches wherein the party corpus comprises a recent conversation between the user and the associated party with a vocabulary exceeding a threshold similarity to the technical vocabulary of Ullrich. This allows improved accuracy as recognized by Ullrich [0089].
As to dependent claim 10, Claim 10 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 11, Claim 11 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 3 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 12, Claim 12 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 13, Claim 13 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 5 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 14, Claim 14 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 6 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 15, Claim 15 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 7 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 16, Claim 16 is a system claim with limitations similar to that of claim 8 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 18, Claim 18 is a computer program product claim with limitations similar to that of claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 19, Claim 19 is a computer program product claim with limitations similar to that of claim 3 and is rejected under the same rationale.
As to dependent claim 20, Claim 20 is a computer program product claim with limitations similar to that of claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN MICHELLE MASTERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1274. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTEN MICHELLE MASTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS /Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights