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 .
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.
Claim 1 recites a device that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims limitations that cover performance of the limitations in the human mind with the assistance of physical aids (e.g., pen and paper), but for the recitation of generic or well-known or conventional computer components. That is, other than reciting “input module, output module, one processor, and memory storing instructions”, nothing in these claim limitations precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. As a whole, claim 1 pertains to analyzing what is said in context as it relates to time and/or being an assistant, which is a mental process and/or human gathering activity that a human can do. Individually, each of the limitations also pertains to a mental process and/or human gathering activity, and/or insignificant extra solution activity, for example:
in case that a user utterance related to a date and time acquired through the input module is identified as a user utterance for performing a function, based on a date and time when the user utterance is acquired, (e.g., listen to a user talk, as an example, remind me to attend the meeting at 9 tomorrow, and pay attention to the time when the user said that.)
identify whether the date and time detected in the user utterance are interpreted as a plurality of dates and times; (e.g., look at the time the user made the request, and determine that it can mean the same day because the request is made right after midnight, or that it could actually mean the following day, it could also mean 9 in the morning or 9 in the evening.)
in case that the date and time detected in the user utterance are interpreted as the plurality of dates and times, change the date detected in the user utterance if the date and time when the user utterance is acquired satisfy a first condition for changing the date, (e.g., analyze and change the date to same day, because the user is typically up past midnight.)
and change the time detected in the user utterance if user's activity record information satisfies a second condition for changing the time; (e.g., analyze change the meeting to same day at 9pm because the user have been having frequent meetings in different time zone with client from overseas late into the evening, and haven’t started working until past 10 am recently.)
and recommend, through the output module, to perform the function on the changed date or time. (e.g., set the reminder and remind the user an hour before the meeting at 9pm.)
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recites generic computing components. Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving, determining, or outputting information) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of using generic computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
The examiner further notes that the use of claimed generic computer components (“input module, output module, one processor, and memory storing instructions”) to obtain, extract, and/or generate data invokes such generic computer components “merely as a tool to perform an existing process”. MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) further explains:
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 1 recites generic computer components (“input module, output module, one processor, and memory storing instructions”), with respect to performing tasks. MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f) further provides examples of court decisions where the courts found generic computing components to be mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and further explains “increased speed” (e.g., using a computer to increase the speed of an otherwise mental process) does not provide an inventive concept. For example:
A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added).
Performing repetitive calculations. Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")
Claim 11 recites an method claim that corresponds to the device of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 1 above. Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10, and 12-20 depend from independent claims 1, and 11 respectively, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claims 1 and 16, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, and 11 from above.
Claim 2 further comprising: identify a user's sleep time, based on the user's activity record information and, in case that a difference between a sleep end time and a first reference time is smaller than a difference between a sleep start time and the first reference time, activate a function of changing the date and time; (e.g., determine what time the user usually sleep from user’s record information, if the user normally sleep from 1 am-9 am and the first reference time is 10 am, then change the date and time to same day.)
and in case that the function of changing the date and time is activated, identify whether the date and time detected in the user utterance are interpreted as the plurality of dates and times. (e.g., check if user’s request is still ambiguous.)
Claim 3 further recite: in case that the date and time when the user utterance is acquired are included in a range of the first reference time and a second reference time in a state where the date and time when the user utterance is acquired are identified as a time past the first reference time, identify that the first condition for changing the date is satisfied. (e.g., check the time when the user made the request against a first reference time (same day after midnight) and a second reference time (the next day), and when the request is made after the first reference time, note the condition for changing the date is satisfied, like if a request is made past midnight, it is possible the user mean later the same day)
Claim 4 further comprising: set the first reference time as midnight; and set the second reference time as a time after a predetermined time from the midnight or as the sleep start time. (e.g., note that the first reference time starts at midnight and set a second reference time as time after some time after midnight or as the sleep start time.)
Claim 5 further recites: in case that it is identified that the time detected in the user utterance is included in the user's sleep time and is not included in a user's activity time, based on the user's activity record information, identify that the second condition for changing the time is satisfied. (e.g., note that if the time mention by the user is during the user’s sleep time and not included in user’s activity time, then the threshold for change the time is satisfied.)
Claim 6 further recites: store at least one of sleep time information, alarm setting information, or scheduling information as the user's activity record information. (e.g., write down information such as sleep time information, alarm setting, or scheduling information for the user’s record keeping.)
Claim 7 further recites: in case that the date and time when the user utterance is acquired satisfy the first condition for changing the date, change the date detected in the user utterance to a date one day before. (e.g., determine if a condition is met, move the date of performing the task associated with the request one day before.)
Claim 8 further recites: in case that the user's activity record information satisfies the second condition for changing the time, change the time to a time obtained by adding 12 hours to the time detected in the user utterance. (e.g., determine if certain conditions are met, and add 12 hours to the time mentioned in the user’s request.)
Claim 9 further recites: output, through the output module, a message recommending to perform the function on the changed date and time. (e.g., tell the user what time the reminder will be made.)
Claim 10 further recites: output, through the output module, the message recommending to perform the function on the changed date and time and a message recommending to perform the function on the date and time detected in the user utterance. (e.g., tell the user what date and time precisely that the requested action should be performed on.)
The analysis of claims 12-20 is similar to claims 2-10 respectively as they recite similar elements, therefore similar rationale of rejection is applied to the claims respectively.
In sum, claims 2-10, and 12-20 depend from claims 1, and 11 respectively, and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 2-10, and 12-20 amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claims 1 and 11. Nor do any limitations in claims 2-10, and 12-20: (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations of using generic computer components amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claims 2-10, and 12-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 9-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlou (US 20220051662), in view of Brush (US 20230368151).
Regarding Claim 1, Pavlou discloses: 1. An electronic device comprising: an input module; ([0007] The computer system can further include a user interface configured to present the determined action request to the user, receive confirmation of the determined action request from the user, and/or resolve conflicts that arise from the determined action request based on input from the user.)an output module; ([0007] The at least one processor can be configured to execute a virtual assistant application, the virtual assistant application configured to execute the determined action request.)
and at least one processor connected to the input module and the output module; ([0007] The at least one processor can be configured to execute a virtual assistant application, the virtual assistant application configured to execute the determined action request.)
and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: ([0003] The computer system includes a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to:)
in case that a user utterance related to a date and time acquired through the input module is identified as a user utterance for performing a function, based on a date and time when the user utterance is acquired, identify whether the date and time detected in the user utterance are interpreted as a plurality of dates and times; ([0045] At operation 260, the data points are evaluated based on the workspace context. For example, a request to meet with the team can be evaluated using information about the team members obtained from the workspace context so that the appropriate participants are invited to the meeting. Similarly, a request for a meeting can select an available conference room from the workspace context based on a requested time (e.g., data point), or select an available time slot from the workspace context corresponding to when a specific conference room is requested (e.g., data point). As yet a further example, a request to setup a meeting at 4 o'clock may be interpreted based on the current time provided by the workspace context. That is to say, if the current time is earlier than 4:00 it may be assumed that the request is for a meeting today, while if the current time is later than 4:00, the meeting request is likely to be intended for tomorrow.) [4:00 could be 4am or 4pm or 4pm today or 4pm next day or 4 pm on another day]
in case that the date and time detected in the user utterance are interpreted as the plurality of dates and times, change the date detected in the user utterance if the date and time when the user utterance is acquired satisfy a first condition for changing the date, ([0045] As yet a further example, a request to setup a meeting at 4 o'clock may be interpreted based on the current time provided by the workspace context. That is to say, if the current time is earlier than 4:00 it may be assumed that the request is for a meeting today, while if the current time is later than 4:00, the meeting request is likely to be intended for tomorrow.)
and recommend, through the output module, to perform the function on the changed date or time. ([0047] In some examples, the determined action request may be provided to the user, for example through a user interface, for confirmation, to resolve conflicts, or to provide additional information.)
Pavlou is silent on and change the time detected in the user utterance if user's activity record information satisfies a second condition for changing the time;
Brush in the relate art discloses: change the time detected in the user utterance if user's activity record information satisfies a second condition for changing the time; ([0080] At determine user time-management conditions operation 508, user time-management conditions may be determined based on the personal information and/or the calendar information. In aspects, the user time-management conditions include a set of rules that define how, when, and with whom a user desires to schedule calendar events. In an example, a user action (e.g., calendar information) indicates that the user has been five (5) minutes late 80% of the time when joining a virtual meeting scheduled to start on the hour. Based on this user action, a user time-management condition may be determined that indicates, when the user is an organizer, a virtual meeting should be scheduled five (5) minutes past the hour. In another example, a user may have a preference (e.g., personal information) for scheduling preparation time prior to a meeting in which the user is presenting. Based on this user preference, a user time-management condition may be determined that indicates, when the user is a presenter, preparation time should be scheduled prior to a calendar event. In yet another example, a user may prioritize (e.g., personal information) one-on-one meetings over group meetings. Based on this user priority, a time-management condition may be determined that indicates, when a one-on-one meeting conflicts with a group meeting, the group meeting should be rescheduled. In this way, calendar information and/or personal information may be used to determine time-management conditions customized for a particular user.)
Pavlou and Brush are considered analogous art. 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 teachings of Pavlou to combine the teaching of Brush, because interactively receiving personal information about the user may improve accuracy in determining one or more time-management conditions based on the personal preferences of the user (Brush, [0046]).
Regarding Claim 9, Pavlou and Brush disclose all the element of claim 1,
Pavlou further discloses: wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: output, through the output module, a message recommending to perform the function on the changed date and time. ([0047] In some examples, the determined action request may be provided to the user, for example through a user interface, for confirmation, to resolve conflicts, or to provide additional information.)
Regarding Claim 10, Pavlou and Brush disclose all the element of claim 9,
Pavlou further discloses: wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: output, through the output module, the message recommending to perform the function on the changed date and time and a message recommending to perform the function on the date and time detected in the user utterance. ([0047] In some examples, the determined action request may be provided to the user, for example through a user interface, for confirmation, to resolve conflicts, or to provide additional information.)
Brush also further discloses: ([0036] Upon identifying a most relevant permutation for a given input, the digital assistant service may surface at least one temporal meeting block alternative corresponding to that permutation. In some examples, the temporal meeting block alternative corresponding to the most relevant permutation may be surfaced in an electronic message sent from the digital assistant to a meeting invitee. Thus, in the illustrated example, the digital assistant has sent email 119 displayed on computing device 118 to “Barun”. Email 119 states: “Hi Barun—Pamela would like to meet with you this week or next week. Are you available at any of the following times and dates?—[Date/Time 1—between May 20, 2019 and May 24, 2019]-[Date/Time 2—between May 27, 2019 and May 31, 2019]”. In some examples, the digital assistant service may have access to one or more users' calendars associated with a meeting invite and surface relevant times within identified time ranges corresponding to a natural language input and/or most relevant permutation. Other mechanisms for surfacing temporal meeting block alternatives corresponding to most relevant permutations are contemplated (e.g., pop-up window, notification, etc.).)
Where the rationale for the combination would be similar to the one already provided.
Regarding Claim 11, it is a method claim that corresponds to the electronic device of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 19, it is a method claim that corresponds to the electronic device of claim 9 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 20, it is a method claim that corresponds to the electronic device of claim 10 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 10 above.
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlou (US 20220051662), in view of Brush (US 20230368151), and further in view of Applicant supplied reference, Okawa (JP 2017068500) provided with the machine translated English version.
Regarding Claim 5, Pavlou and Brush disclose all the element of claim 1,
Pavlou and Brush are silent on wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: in case that it is identified that the time detected in the user utterance is included in the user's sleep time and is not included in a user's activity time, based on the user's activity record information, identify that the second condition for changing the time is satisfied.
Okawa in the related art discloses: wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: in case that it is identified that the time detected in the user utterance is included in the user's sleep time and is not included in a user's activity time, based on the user's activity record information, identify that the second condition for changing the time is satisfied. (pg. 24, lower portion, According to said structure, a date change time is determined based on the log | history of the time when the user took predetermined action. Thereby, according to a user's action, the time slot when a date is ambiguous for a user can be changed. The “time when the predetermined action is taken” includes, for example, a wake-up time and a bedtime.)
Pavlou/Brush/Okawa are considered analogous art. 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 teachings of Pavlou/Brush to combine the teaching of Okawa, because the method described is design to assist in disambiguating timeline into exact dates (Okawa, [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 6, Pavlou/Brush/Okawa disclose all the element of claim 5,
Okawa further discloses: wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: store at least one of sleep time information, alarm setting information, or scheduling information as the user's activity record information. (pg. 17, lower portion, the storage unit 13b newly stores a bedtime history 35. The details of the bedtime history 35 have already been described, and the description thereof is omitted here.)
The rationale for the combination would be similar to the one already provided earlier.
Regarding Claim 7, Pavlou and Brush disclose all the element of claim 1,
Pavlou and Brush are silent on wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: in case that the date and time when the user utterance is acquired satisfy the first condition for changing the date, change the date detected in the user utterance to a date one day before.
Okawa in the related art discloses: wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: in case that the date and time when the user utterance is acquired satisfy the first condition for changing the date, change the date detected in the user utterance to a date one day before. (pg. 3, middle portion, Specifically, as shown in FIG. 2A, when the date and time when the voice is input is 1: 4 AM on June 24, that is, the time when the voice is input is included in the above time zone. The user who has input the voice recognizes that the current date is June 23, and is likely to have input the voice. In this case, as shown in FIG. 2B, the mobile terminal 1 uses “6/25”, which is “tomorrow” based on the actual date, to “tomorrow” that is a relative date included in the voice. Rather, an audio with an absolute date “6/24” one day before is added.)
The rationale for the combination would be similar to the one already provided earlier.
Regarding Claim 15, it is a method claim that corresponds to the electronic device of claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 16, it is a method claim that corresponds to the electronic device of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 17, it is a method claim that corresponds to the electronic device of claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 7 above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlou (US 20220051662), in view of Brush (US 20230368151), and further in view of Applicant supplied reference, Maeda (US 20190122181).
Regarding Claim 8, Pavlou and Brush disclose all the element of claim 1,
Pavlou and Brush are silent on wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: in case that the user's activity record information satisfies the second condition for changing the time, change the time to a time obtained by adding 12 hours to the time detected in the user utterance.
Maeda in the related art discloses: wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: in case that the user's activity record information satisfies the second condition for changing the time, change the time to a time obtained by adding 12 hours to the time detected in the user utterance. ([0115] For example, assumption is made that the present date is Dec. 31, 2014 and a user utters “following day” when Jan. 10, 2015 of the New Year is selected on the calendar. In this case, the information processing terminal 1 is capable of outputting the result assumed by the user by performing processing of “advancing the date one day” with Jan. 10, 2015 as a reference and displaying information on Jan. 11, 2015. If in the case where processing of “advancing the date one day” with Dec. 31, 2014 that is the present date as a reference is performed and information on Jan. 1, 2015 is displayed, the result is not one assumed by the user and is not favorable.)
Pavlou/Brush/Maeda are considered analogous art. 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 teachings of Pavlou/Brush to combine the teaching of Maeda, because method described analyzes the content of utterance, calculation is performed on the basis of the input time and date expression, and conversion processing for acquiring other time and date expression is performed (Maeda, [Background]).
Regarding Claim 18, it is a method claim that corresponds to the electronic device of claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 8 above.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, and 12-14 would be potentially allowable if amended to overcome the pertinent rejections under section of the 101 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potentially allowable subject matter:
With respect to Claim 2, The closest prior arts found during the search are as follows:
Claim 2 discloses: … identify a user's sleep time, based on the user's activity record information and, in case that a difference between a sleep end time and a first reference time is smaller than a difference between a sleep start time and the first reference time, activate a function of changing the date and time; and in case that the function of changing the date and time is activated, identify whether the date and time detected in the user utterance are interpreted as the plurality of dates and times.
Okawa (already of record) discloses: “According to said structure, a date change time is determined based on the log | history of the time when the user took predetermined action. Thereby, according to a user's action, the time slot when a date is ambiguous for a user can be changed. The “time when the predetermined action is taken” includes, for example, a wake-up time and a bedtime.” – it other words, the device detects the correct date based on user sleep and wake up time. However, it silent on the math calculation and time difference portion of the claim.
Rong, X., Fourney, A., Brewer, R. N., Morris, M. R., & Bennett, P. N. (2017, May). Managing uncertainty in time expressions for virtual assistants. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 568-579). discloses: Leverage implicit knowledge. Our interview study indicates that users expect virtual assistants to possess more real-world knowledge than they currently do. Overall, we advocate making advances in the following three areas: (1) recognizing cultural or personal milestones, such as holidays and birthdays; (2) identifying natural constraints (e.g., packing a suitcase is likely done at home; baking a pie likely takes a few hours, etc.); and, (3) learning individual users’ behavior patterns, such as commute schedule or sleep patterns. – the reference leverages multiple factors, including learning users behavior pattern such as commute schedule and/or sleeping patterns to resolve imprecision regarding time or temporal information in virtual assistant applications. However, it is also silent in the math calculation and time difference portion of the claim.
Accordingly, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or fairly suggest the invention in a reasonable combination as set forth in claim 2. Claim 12, although different in statutory category, but contains similar limitations as claim 2, therefore also contains potentially allowable subject matter. Further, dependent claims 3-4, and 13-14 inherit the potentially allowable subject matter from claims 2, and 12 respectively, and thus, also contain potentially allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Fourney US 20180157958 – discloses system/method for interpreting and managing imprecise temporal expression. See Abstract and para 0030 and 0098 and fig. 11 for additional details.
Jain US 20120030194 – discloses disambiguating date or time reference when the content of the message does not provide sufficient context and apply rule to match the date or time referenced in the text string. See Abstract, para 0107, and figs 12A/B/C/D and fig. 13A/B/C/D for additional details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip H Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-1721. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3 PM Pacific 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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHILIP H LAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights