DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
2. With respect to 101 Abstract idea rejection, Applicant argues on pages 1-2 of the Remarks that
“First, amended Claim 1 involves a series of steps and therefore constitutes a process.
Second, the features of claim 1 incorporate statutory exceptions into practical application.
The step of "receiving, from a first object, an input instruction of the first object" is not merely a psychological activity of humans, but is explicitly defined as occurring "in a voice communication interface between the first object and a second object," and involves receiving instructions through two specific technical means including "voice input control" or "triggering the control in the interactive interface." The "voice communication interface" here is an objectively existing technical medium, and the "voice input control" and the triggered control are specific interactive components. The entire process relies on technical operations such as interface presentation and control triggering; it constitutes a substantive interaction between a person, the interactive interface, and the technical system, rather than a mental process of information reception within the human brain.
Applicant's amendments are made without prejudice, waiver, disclaimer, or disavowal. Applicant does not concede that previously pending claims are not patentable over the cited references. Rather, any amendments or characterizations are being made to facilitate expeditious prosecution of this application. Applicant reserves the right to pursue any previously pending or other broader or narrower claims that capture any subject matter supported by the present disclosure, including subject matter found to be specifically disclaimed herein or by any prior prosecution.
The step of "determining, based on the input instruction, a target scene mode" is not a purely psychological process of judgment and selection by humans; its implementation relies on two prerequisites: First, the second object has been configured with one or more scene modes, and each scene mode has predefined "voice characteristics (including response speed characteristics)." These scene modes and voice features are objective data pre-stored in the technical system; Second, this judgment process must be based on the aforementioned "input instruction received through the interactive interface," which are objective signals obtained through technical means. The judgment process involves the technical system performing a matching operation between the input signals and the preset scenario patterns, rather than a subjective judgment by the human brain.
The step of “receiving, through the voice communication interface, a voice from the first object" relies on the technical implementation of the voice communication interface, rather than a purely human psychological activity. The step of "generating, by a generative model for outputting audio, a voice of the second object using the voice of the first object and the voice feature during the voice interaction" involves technical processes of algorithmic computation and audio synthesis, rather than the psychological or physiological processes of humans "organizing language and producing sound;" this falls under voice synthesis operations in human-computer interaction; The step of "keeping the second object to be silent and waiting for receiving a subsequent voice from the first object through the voice communication interface" is a typical human-computer interaction control process. It affects the behavior of the second object, such as muting or playing speech, by calculating time intervals. This step constitutes automated interaction process by a technical system and relies entirely on technical means for implementation, rather than psychological processes.
Therefore, the technical solution of this claim involves interaction with a voice communication interface and the automated control of voice interaction. These additional elements integrate abstract concepts into specific voice communication technology scenarios, thereby achieving technical improvements to the voice interaction process. Compared to traditional manual voice interaction, this solution uses technical means to achieve automatic matching of scenario modes, automatic generation of speech, and automatic control of interaction pacing. It resolves technical issues in manual interaction, such as inconsistent responses and low efficiency, and constitutes a specific technical improvement in the field of voice communication technology, rather than an application of abstract psychological processes.
Therefore, amended Claim 1 meets the requirements for patent eligibility. For similar reasons, claims 11, 16 and 20 are allowable. The remaining claims depend directly or indirectly from claims 1, 11 and 16, and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons as well as for the additional subject matter recited therein.”
In response, Examiner respectfully notes that listening to the user’s selection of a specific scene (e.g., controlling a device, chatting with a virtual agent), determine which scene mode based on the selected scene, staring the conversation with the user, waiting for the user’s response are mental processes.
The claims recite “a voice communication interface” and “a voice input control”. The claim uses the voice communication interface and the voice input control (e.g., a microphone for receiving the voice instruction and/or speaker for outputting the voice response) as a tool to implement an abstract mental process practically perform by a human.
The claim recites “a generative model”. The generative model is recited as high level of generality. The limitation only recites the outcome of “generating” and do not include any details how the “generating” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Resolving the issue where agents interrupt human speakers by determining a waiting duration as recited in Claims 1,16 and 20, or by playing a second voice after the pause duration elapses as recited in Claims 11 and 21 are part of the abstract idea mental process, it would not available to qualify as an improvement to technology in step 2A prong 2.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, thus for these reasons, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to 112(b) rejection, the amendment overcome the rejection, thus 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to 103 rejection, the Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites
“1. (Currently Amended) A communication method, comprising:
receiving, from a first object, an input instruction of the first object in an interaction interface between the first object and a second object, wherein the interaction interface is a voice communication interface, and the input instruction is received through a voice input control or by triggering a control in the interaction interface;
determining, based on the input instruction, a target scene mode from one or more scene modes configured for the second object, wherein the second object is an agent, each of the scene modes is configured with a voice feature, the voice feature comprises a response speed feature; and
controlling, during voice communication process, the second object to perform a voice interaction with the first object based on a voice feature of the target scene mode, comprising:
receiving, through the voice communication interface, a voice from the first object;
generating, by a generative model for outputting audio, a voice of the second object using the voice of the first object and the voice feature during the voice interaction;
determining a waiting duration for the second object based on the response speed feature;
keeping the second object to be silent and waiting for receiving a subsequent voice from the first object through the voice communication interface, in response to an interval between a time the first object last spoke and a current time not exceeding the waiting duration; and
playing the voice of the second object in response to an interval between a time the first object last spoke and the current time exceeding the waiting duration.”
The independent Claims1, 16 and 20 recite substantially the same concept but do so in the context of a method, a device and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
The limitations recited in the independent claims 1, 16 and 20 as drafted covers a mental process. More specifically, the underlying abstract idea revolved around what happen once a human is talking with a user. The human could listen to the user’s selection for a specific scene (e.g., controlling a device, chatting with a virtual agent), determine which scene mode based on the selected scene. Further, the human starts conversation with the user, the human also could determine a waiting time for the user response based on how fast the user’s talking.
Claim 11 recites
“11. (Currently Amended) A communication method, comprising:
receiving, from a first object, an input instruction of the first object in an interaction interface between the first object and a second object, wherein the interaction interface is a voice communication interface, and the input instruction is received through a voice input control or by triggering a control in the interaction interface;
determining, based on the input instruction, a target scene mode from one or more scene modes configured for the second object, wherein the second object is an agent, each of the scene modes is configured with a voice feature; and
controlling, during voice communication process, the second object to perform a voice interaction with the first object based on a voice feature of the target scene mode, wherein
in response to the target scene mode being a third mode, the voice feature of the third mode comprises a pause duration, and the controlling the second object to perform the voice interaction with the first object based on the voice feature of the target scene mode comprises:
receiving, through the voice communication interface, a voice from the first object;
generating, by a generative model for outputting audio, a first voice of the second object using the voice of the first object and the voice feature during the voice interaction;
playing the first voice generated for the second object;
keeping the second object to be silent and waiting for receiving a subsequent voice from the first object through the voice communication interface, in response to the pause duration being not elapsed after the first voice is played; and
playing, in response to the first object remaining silent and after the pause duration elapses after the first voice is played, a second voice generated for the second object.”
Claim 21 is a device claim. Claim 21 recites a memory, a processor to carry out the communication method of Claim 11.
The limitations recited in the independent claims 11 and 21 as drafted covers a mental process. More specifically, the underlying abstract idea revolved around what happen once a human is talking with a user. The human could listen to the user’s selection for a specific scene (e.g., controlling a device, chatting with a virtual agent), determine which scene mode based on the selected scene. Further, the human starts conversation with the user, the human also could verbally remind the user after a predetermined waiting time.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims recite the additional limitations of a memory, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a voice input control and a voice communication interface. The additional element(s) or combination of elements such as a memory, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a voice communication interface in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. There is further no improvement to the computing device other than response to the user’s input in the same mode of the user’s voice feature. The mere recitation of a memory and a processor and/or the like is akin of adding the word “apply it” and/or “use it” with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea. The paragraphs [0006-0008] of the specification disclose “According to the some embodiment of this disclosure, there is provided an electronic device, including: at least one memory; at least one processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to executed the communication method provided in any embodiment of the present disclosure based on instruction stored in the memory, [0007] According to the some embodiment of this disclosure, there is provided a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stored there on a computer program that, when executed by a processor, performed the communication method provided by any embodiment of the present disclosure, [0008] According to the some embodiment of this disclosure, there is provided a non-transitory computer program product that, when running on a computer, causes the computer to perform to perform the communication method provided by any embodiment of the present disclosure.”
As filed in the specification, the computer is listed as a general-purpose computer and are mainly used as an application thereof. 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 do 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 computer is noted as a general computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further do not remedy the issues noted above. More specifically, Claims 2 and 17 recites generating a text based on the input of the first object and an attribute of the second object, generating an playing a voice of the second object based on the voice feature of the target scene mode and the chat text. This reads on the human could write down what he would like to say to the first object on the paper and read the text in the target voice feature. There is no additional limitation presented. Claims 3 and 18 recites generating the voice of the second object corresponding to the chat text based on the sound feature of the target scene mode. This reads on the human could read the text in a specific voice characteristic, language style. There is no additional limitation presented. Claim 4 defines the sound feature. There is no additional limitation presented. Claims 5 and 19 recite adjusting the chat text and generating the voice based on the adjusted text. This reads on the human could change the chat text and read the adjusted text. There is no additional limitation presented. Claim 6 recites determining whether response to the first object. This reads on the human listen to the user and determine if it is question from the user, if so, response to the user’s question. There is no additional limitation presented. Claim 8 recites generating a chat text for the second object based on a voice of the first object, the content feature and an attribute of the second object, generating a voice of the second object based on the chat text, and playing the voice of the second object. This reads on the human could write down what he wants to say on the paper and reads the generated text. There is no additional presented. Claim 9 recites terminating a communication between the first object and the second object in response to an interval between a time the first object last spoke and a current time exceeding a first threshold. This reads on the human could end the conversation with the user because the waiting time exceeds the threshold. There is no additional limitation presented. Claim 10 recites the voice feature of the target scene mode comprises a language recognition instruction, recognizing a voice of the first object based on the language recognition instruction to determine a language used by the first object, generating a voice of the second object using the language used by the first object, playing the voice of the second object. This reads on the human could determine which language the user is speaking, response to the user in the determined language. There is no additional limitation presented. Claim 12 recites generating a voice feature for each scene mode of the scene modes based on an attribute of the scene mode and an attribute of the second object. This reads on the human responses to the user verbally. There is no additional limitation presented. Claim 13 recites displaying the one or more scene modes in the communication interface, and determining the target scene mode based on an operation for selecting a scene mode of the first object. This reads on the human could determine which mode is the best mode to talk with the user. There is no additional limitation presented. Claim 14 recites receiving the input of the first object, performing semantic understanding the input, and determining a scene mode. This reads on the human listens to the user, understands what the user just said and determining the target mode (e.g., topic of the conversation) to keep conversation with the user. There is no additional limitation presented. Claim 15 recites who is/are the first object and the second object. There is no additional limitation presented.
For at least the supra provided reasons, claims 1-6, 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segal et al. (US 2018/0322300 A1) in view of Hamre et al. (US 2020/0329358 A1.)
11. (Currently Amended) A communication method, comprising:
receiving, from a first object, an input instruction of the first object in an interaction interface between the first object and a second object, wherein the interaction interface is a voice communication interface, and the input instruction is received through a voice input control (Segal et al. [0008] describes the user’s selection to initiate a scene including a functionality of one or more devices within an environment to be performed using the assistant device. The user’s selection is performed by user’s speech or gesture) or by triggering a control in the interaction interface;
determining, based on the input instruction, a target scene mode from one or more scene modes configured for the second object, wherein the second object is an agent, each of the scene modes is configured with a voice feature (Segal et al. [0008] identifying the scene trigger in the instruction corresponding to the user intention to initiate the scene using a visual recognition algorithm and a speech recognition algorithm; determining the scene associated with the scene trigger in the instruction); and
controlling, during voice communication process, the second object to perform a voice interaction with the first object based on a voice feature of the target scene mode (Segal et al. [0020] describes the assistant device is set up in a home environment to provide speech-based responses to a user’s speech), wherein
Segal et al. fail to explicitly teach
in response to the target scene mode being a third mode, the voice feature of the third mode comprises a pause duration, and the controlling the second object to perform the voice interaction with the first object based on the voice feature of the target scene mode comprises:
receiving, through the voice communication interface, a voice from the first object;
generating, by a generative model for outputting audio, a first voice of the second object using the voice of the first object and the voice feature during the voice interaction;
playing the first voice generated for the second object;
keeping the second object to be silent and waiting for receiving a subsequent voice from the first object through the voice communication interface, in response to the pause duration being not elapsed after the first voice is played; and
playing, in response to the first object remaining silent and after the pause duration elapses after the first voice is played, a second voice generated for the second object.
However, Hamre et al. teach
in response to the target scene mode being a third mode, the voice feature of the third mode comprises a pause duration, and the controlling the second object to perform the voice interaction with the first object based on the voice feature of the target scene mode (Hamre [0031] describes a threshold period of time between the initial voice prompt and the second voice prompt in the emergency event detected scene)comprises:
receiving, through the voice communication interface, a voice from the first object (Hamre et al. [0019] describes detecting that an emergency event has occurred based on the receiving one or more spoken words from the user (e.g., “Help,” “Emergency,” “Ouch,” etc.);
generating, by a generative model for outputting audio, a first voice of the second object using the voice of the first object and the voice feature during the voice interaction (Hamre et al. [0031] describes generating and outputting the initial prompt in response to detecting that the emergency event has occurred (e.g., asking the user if she is ok));
playing the first voice generated for the second object (Hamre et al. [0031] describes generating and outputting the initial prompt in response to detecting that the emergency event has occurred (e.g., asking the user if she is ok));
keeping the second object to be silent and waiting for receiving a subsequent voice from the first object through the voice communication interface, in response to the pause duration being not elapsed after the first voice is played (Hamre et al. [0031] the emergency event detection and response system waits for a threshold period of time); and
playing, in response to the first object remaining silent and after the pause duration elapses after the first voice is played, a second voice generated for the second object (Hamre et al. [0031] the emergency event detection and response system waits for a threshold period of time, and playing a second voice prompt if the user has not response to the initial voice prompt.)
Segal et al. and Hamre et al. are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in the Signal processing algorithm and applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of initializing a curated scene as taught by Segal et al., using teaching of a threshold period of time pausing as taught by Hamre et al. to playing a second voice prompt after the user has not response for the threshold period of time (Hamre et al. [0031] the emergency event detection and response system waits for a threshold period of time, and playing a second voice prompt if the user has not response to the initial voice prompt.)
Claim 21 is an electronic device. Claim 21 recites “carry out the communication method of claim 11.” Thus, Claim 21 is rejected as the same ground as Claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12-20 are allowed in view of the prior art of record. The claims stand rejected under 101 Abstract idea, and for the application to pass to allowance this rejection need to be overcome. Any amendments to overcome the 101 Abstract idea rejection that results in any change in scope require further search and/or consideration in order to determine it allowability.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art(s) taken alone or in combination fail(s) to teach the following element(s) in combination with the other recited elements in the claim(s).
“determining a waiting duration for the second object based on the response speed feature;
keeping the second object to be silent and waiting for receiving a subsequent voice from the first object through the voice communication interface, in response to an interval between a time the first object last spoke and a current time not exceeding the waiting duration; and
playing the voice of the second object in response to an interval between a time the first object last spoke and the current time exceeding the waiting duration.” as recited in Claim 1.
Claims 16 and 20 recites the similar features as Claim 1.
The closest prior arts have found as following.
a. Aher et al. (US 2024/0153483 A1.) In this reference, Aher et al. disclose a method and a system for synthesizing a response to a user’s voice input based on the user’s voice characteristic (Aher et al. [0004] The system determines a response to the voice input, and then generates the synthesized speech response to the voice input for output. The synthesized speech response includes prosodic characteristics that the system determines based on the response itself and the prosodic character of the voice input. The prosodic character of a voice input or response includes pitch, note, duration, prominence, timbre, rate, rhythm, any other suitable metric, and any combination thereof that affect the sound of the utterance, [0009] The system receives a plurality of voice inputs, each associated with at least one respective voice input prosodic metric, and a plurality of responses, each associated with at least one respective response prosodic metric. The plurality of voice inputs and the plurality of responses are associated in a database, and the system may retrieve the voice inputs and responses from the database. To illustrate, in an embodiment, each voice input of the plurality of voice inputs is linked with a respective set of responses of the plurality of responses. The system trains the model based on the plurality of voice inputs, the plurality of responses, the voice input prosodic metrics, and the response prosodic metrics such that the model outputs information used to generate the synthesized speech response to the voice input. For example, the voice input and response prosodic metrics each include pitch, note, duration, prominence, timbre, rate, rhythm, any other suitable metrics, or any combination thereof, [0084] For example, based on user profile information, the voice application may determine that a spoken voice input associated with the user is faster and less verbose when that user is in a hurry, and accordingly, the voice application may provide a faster, less wordy response (e.g., altering both the word content and prosodic character thereof) In this reference, Aher et al. disclose that if the user is in a hurry, the synthesized response may provide a faster, less wordy response. Aher et al. disclose how to response to the user when the user is in a hurry. Aher et al. does not disclose determining a waiting duration based on the user’s speed feature and playing the synthesized response based on the determined waiting duration as recited in Claims 1, 16 and 20. Thus, Aher et al. fail to teach and/or disclose the allowable subject matter noted above.
a. Ghoche et al. (US 2024/0386214 A1.) In this reference, Ghoche et al. disclose a method and a system for generating a natural language workflow policy for a workflow for customer support of emails (Ghoche et al. [0176] FIG. 27 is a variation of the example of FIG. 2A with examples of different modules to automatically generate workflow template answers. In one implementation, the workflow builder 230 includes a workflow template answer engine 2730. In one implementation, the workflow template answer engine 2730 includes a workflow automation recommendations module 2702 to generate recommendations for workflows to be automated. For example, in one implementation this may include identifying topics for which a workflow has not yet been automated. This may include, for example, determining potential cost savings for automating the generation of workflows for one or more topics. In one implementation, a template answer text generation module 2706 generates suggested template text for responding to specific topics. For example, for a topic corresponding to a customer request for a refund, the template text may be generated based on the monitored text answers agents use to respond to the topic.) Ghoche et al. generates a template text may be generated based on the monitored text answers agents use to respond to the topic. Ghoche et al. does not disclose determining a waiting duration based on the user’s speed feature and playing the synthesized response based on the determined waiting duration as recited in Claims 1, 16 and 20. Thus, Ghoche et al. fail to teach and/or disclose the allowable subject matter noted above.
c. Kim et al. (US 2021/0383794 A1). In this reference, Kim et al. disclose determining the speech features of the user. The speech features of the user may include the gender of the user, the pitch of the user, the tone of the user, the subject to the user speech, the speed of the user’s speech, and the user’s volume. Kim et al. also considers the waiting time in order to ending the interaction mode or disabling the command recognition function (Kim et al. [0166] In this case, after recognizing the wakeup word, the speech agent changed the command recognition function from an inactive state to an active state and recognizes the command. Then, the speech agent processes the command and disables the command recognition function again if a short speech waiting period is ended after processing the command, [0143] The processor 180 may determine the speech feature of the user by using one or more of the text data or the power spectrum 430 transmitted from the audio processor 181, [0144] The speech feature of the user may include the gender of the user, the pitch of the user, the tone of the user, the subject of the user's speech, the speed of the user's speech, and the user's volume.) Kim et al. does not disclose determining a waiting duration based on the user’s speed feature and playing the synthesized response based on the determined waiting duration as recited in Claims 1, 16 and 20. Thus, Kim et al. fail to teach and/or disclose the allowable subject matter noted above.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO-892.
a. Muntasir et al. (US 2025/0118298 A1.) In this reference, Muntasir et al. disclose a method and a system for performing speech synthesis on the generated responses further comprises storing TTS models and TTS parameters such as, speaking rate, pitch, volume, intonation, and preferred responses corresponding to the user interaction session.
b. Lezzoum et al. (US 12,087,284 B1). In this reference, Lezzoum et al. disclose a method and a system for selecting a gender, an accent, and a language for the synthesized speech.
c. Mennicken et al. (US 2021/0104220 A1.) In this reference, Mennicken et al. disclose a method and a system for generating synthesized speech as a voice output.
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THUYKHANH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-6429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-5pm.
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, Andrew C. Flanders can be reached on 571-272-7516. 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.
/THUYKHANH LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights