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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 05/08/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to system without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “generate a customized testing scheme based on the selection the customized testing scheme specifying at least one of one or more application programming interface (API) calls or one or more SQL queries; wherein upon completion of at least one mandatory testing in the customized testing scheme, a deploy service option is activated that causes the telecommunication service to be deployed on a telecommunication network.” as drafted, are functions that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Where a human may mentally create a custom testing plan based on desired selection and specify API calls. Further, a human may make an evaluation that testing has completed and activate an option using a generic computer. Thus, this limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “memory storage” “processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. The limitations “present, to a user, information of one or more testing associated to a user information for a telecommunication service, wherein each of the at least one mandatory testing and/or the at least one optional testing are associated with at least one of (i) priority levels and (ii) urgency levels, and wherein the at least one of priority levels and urgency levels define a predetermined sequence that automatically executes the at least one mandatory testing and the at least one optional testing” and “output the collected testing information” add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely displaying data/information. The limitations “receive, from the user, a selection for the one or more testing” and “collect testing information associated with the selection” add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and transmitting data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “memory storage” “processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The limitations “present, to a user, information of one or more testing associated to a user information for a telecommunication service, wherein each of the at least one mandatory testing and/or the at least one optional testing are associated with at least one of (i) priority levels and (ii) urgency levels, and wherein the at least one of priority levels and urgency levels define a predetermined sequence that automatically executes the at least one mandatory testing and the at least one optional testing” and “output the collected testing information” were identified by the courts as mere displaying data/information on a display is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The limitations “receive, from the user, a selection for the one or more testing” and “collect testing information associated with the selection” were identified by the courts as mere data gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely displaying data do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, it recites an “apply it” step of generating GUI which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Further, claim 2 recites present the information which is mere data gathering and displaying data on a display which is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Regarding claims 3-4, it further recites presenting interactive element which is mere data gathering and displaying data on a display which is well-understood, routine and conventional activity, executing instructions which is mere “apply it” step and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and receiving user’s selection which is mere data gathering and transmitting data that are well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, they are similarly rejected to claim 1 for reciting receiving, generating and outputting limitations.
Regarding claim 6, it is similarly rejection to claims 3 for receiving data and executing the scheme, and storing information is has been identified by the courts as functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim set 8-14 and claim set 15-20, they are similarly rejected to claim set 1-7 for having similar limitations and with no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
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 1-4, 8-11, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 9,268,672 B1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0250074 A1) hereinafter Zhang and further in view of Tiwari et al. (US 11,102,081 B1) hereinafter Tiwari and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0110598 A1) hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 1,
A system comprising:
Gupta discloses
a first module comprising (Gupta Fig. 9 electronic device element 900):
a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions (Gupta [col. 11, lines 65-67] and [col. 12, lines 1-6] discloses computer-readable media element 904 storing computer-readable instructions illustrated in Fig. 9); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the first module to (Gupta [col. 11, lines 65-67] and [col. 12, lines 1-6] discloses processor 902 to fetch and execute instructions from computer-readable media element 904 as illustrated in Fig. 9. Where Gupta [claim 1] discloses the processor coupled to the computer-readable media):
present, to a user, information of one or more testing associated to user information for a telecommunication service (Gupta Fig. 4 illustrates information for testing application IMAGEFUNGAME v3.5, where the information includes Test Plan Name, different Device(s) for selection, different Feature(s) for selection, different Object(s) for selection. The Objects 410 may include user information selections of a Timer object 426 for instance for the ImageFunGame. Where the application image fun game may be similar to the service for performing a particular feature which includes selecting the Internet object element 428 of Fig. 4. Thus, the user information may be for a telecommunication service),
wherein each of the at least one [mandatory] testing and/or the at least one [optional] testing are associated with at least one of (i) priority levels (Gupta [col. 11, lines 8-17] discloses a user interface that allows a user to assign priority values for test cases as illustrated in Fig. 8 element 806 and “a priority value of P0 may represent a test case that a particular platform may specify as a test case that the application is to pass prior to launch of the application, while other priority values such as P1 or P2 may represent optional test cases that may improve a user experience but that represent a lower priority for testing purposes”) and (ii) urgency levels (Gupta [col. 9, lines 33-43] discloses test case number element 502 as illustrated in 502 which provides the order of tests. Where the first test case in the test plan is the test case with “1”), and wherein the at least one of priority levels and urgency levels define a predetermined sequence that automatically executes the at least one mandatory testing and the at least one optional testing (Fig. 6 illustrates the executed test plan/predetermined sequence based on the defined test case number 502 with different priorities 508 with “pass” and “fail” test results);
receive, from the user, a selection for the one or more testing (Gupta [col. 8, lines 49-67] and [col. 9, lines 1-10] discloses a user selecting one or more devices, features, and/or objects for the testing as illustrated in Fig. 4.);
generate a customized testing scheme based on the selection (Gupta [col. 9, lines 10-17] discloses generating test plan 400 in response to selecting option 412 illustrated in Fig. 4 and based on the selection illustrated in Fig. 4. Where the test plan is customized according to user selections illustrated in Fig. 4 and the generated Test plan is illustrated in Fig. 5),
collect testing information associated with the selection (Gupta [col. 8, lines 46-58] discloses identifying the selected devices, features, and/or objects to generate a test plan thus, being collected in order to perform the generation of the test plan); and
output the collected testing information (Gupta Fig. 7 outputs the collected testing information such as the selected device(s) element 708 in the Test Report 700).
Gupta lacks explicitly
wherein the one or more testing comprise at least one mandatory testing and at least one optional testing,
the customized testing scheme specifying at least one of one or more application programming interface (API) calls or one or more SQL queries;
wherein upon completion of at least one mandatory testing in the customized testing scheme, a deploy service option is activated that causes the telecommunication service to be deployed on a telecommunication network.
Zhang teaches
wherein the one or more testing comprise at least one mandatory testing and at least one optional testing (Zhang [0069] and [0078] teaches one or more support containers that perform test support operations may be mandatory and/or optional based on user configurations);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to “wherein the one or more testing comprise at least one mandatory testing and at least one optional testing” in order to give developer greater control testing by determining when tests need to be required and/or optional based on time constraints and/or computing resources. Therefore, this may speed up the overall testing time and prevent wasted computing resources on unneeded testing.
Tiwari teaches
the customized testing scheme specifying at least one of one or more application programming interface (API) calls (Tiwari [col. 9, lines 31-34] teaches the test plan may specify a first API which can seek and obtain data) or one or more SQL queries (Rejection not required due to “or” language);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Tiwari to “the customized testing scheme specifying at least one of one or more application programming interface (API) calls” in order to improve early defect detection and test coverage/depth, reduce cost, and enhance test automation and efficiency.
Liu teaches
wherein upon completion of at least one mandatory testing in the customized testing scheme, a deploy service option is activated that causes the telecommunication service to be deployed on a telecommunication network (Liu [0050] teaches “If the test was successful, the supplier service pipeline is unlocked (operation 440) and the supplier service is deployed to the production server 120 in operation 445. If the test was not successful, the developer of the supplier service is notified in operation 450. For example, a UI used to control the deployment pipeline of the supplier service may indicate that the test failed and deployment to the server is locked.” and [0061] teaches pipeline stage indicators 730 and 740 set initially to inoperable as illustrated in Fig. 7. Where “the user interface 700 allows for each step of the deployment pipeline to be performed by operating each of the pipeline stage indicators in succession. However, if a dependency lock on the next stage exists, operation of a pipeline stage indicator will cause the test associated with the dependency lock to be performed, and the pipeline will proceed to the next stage only if the test is successful.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Liu to “wherein upon completion of at least one mandatory testing in the customized testing scheme, a deploy service option is activated that causes the telecommunication service to be deployed on a telecommunication network” in order to increase confidence and reliability, efficiently and quickly deploy releases, improve workflow and communication, and reduce cost.
Regarding claim 2, The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
Gupta further discloses
the processor of the first module is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the first module to generate a graphical user interface (GUI) and to present the information of the one or more testing via the GUI (Gupta Figs. 5-7 illustrate the presented information of the testing via the user interface).
Regarding claim 3, The system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the GUI comprises one or more interactive elements which are associated with the one or more testing (Gupta [col. 8, lines 46-67] and Gupta [col. 9, lines 1-9] discloses selectable devices, features, and/or objects for generating a test plan as illustrated in Fig. 4. Gupta [col. 9, lines 23-32] discloses “Yes” and “No” selectable options for adding and/or removing test cases from a test plan as illustrated in Fig. 5); and wherein the processor of the first module is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the first module to receive the selection via the one or more interactive elements (Gupta [col. 9, lines 4-10] a test plan is generated based on the selected interactive elements including the devices, features, and/or objects selected. Thus, based on receiving the user selections, the user interactions are determined to generate the test plan).
Regarding claim 4, The system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the one or more interactive elements are associated with a testing profile ID (Gupta Fig. 5 illustrates Test Case ID element 504 associated with “Yes” and “No” selectable options for adding and/or removing test cases from a test plan); and wherein the processor of the first module is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the first module to collect the testing information associated with the selection by collecting testing profile ID of user's selected testing (Gupta Fig. 5 illustrates the user interface with association between the selectable options and Test Case ID which may later be used to save the test plan by clicking element 518 “Save Test Plan”. Thus, the information is collected to include the Test Case ID).
Regarding claim 8, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 11, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 15, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 17, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 18, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 9,268,672 B1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0250074 A1) hereinafter Zhang and further in view of Tiwari et al. (US 11,102,081 B1) hereinafter Tiwari and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0110598 A1) hereinafter Liu and further in view of Iyer et al. (US 2016/0044520 A1) hereinafter Iyer.
Regarding claim 5, Gupta in view of Zhang and further in view of Tiwari and further in view of Liu combination teach The system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
Gupta further discloses
receive, from the first module, the collected testing information (Gupta [col. 9, lines 15-18] discloses generating the test plan in response to selection of the “Generate Test Plan” option in Fig. 4 and selected devices, features, and/or objects. Thus, the collected data illustrated in Fig. 4 would need to be received in order to generate the test plan);
generate, based on the collected testing information, a testing scheme (Gupta [col. 9, lines 4-10] discloses generating a test plan with multiple test cases relevant on the selected devices, features, and/or objects as illustrated in Fig. 5); and
output the generated testing scheme (Gupta Fig. 5 illustrates the generated test plan 500).
the combination lacks explicitly
a second module comprising:
a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage of the second module, wherein the processor of the second module is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the second module to:
Iyer teaches
a second module comprising (Iyer [0029] teaches different modules including a scheduling module 205/second module as illustrated in Fig. 2):
a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions (Iyer [0029] further teaches each module can include a memory and performing specific functions. Iyer [0081] further teaches the memory of associate modules to provide storage for software programming); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage of the second module, wherein the processor of the second module is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the second module to (Iyer [0029] further teaches each module can include a processor and performing specific functions. Iyer [0081] further teaches the storage providing instructions to a processor for execution):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Iyer to “a second module comprising: a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the second module to” in order to permit parallel processing as needed and in certain circumstances by providing different modules for different tasks (Iyer [0088] thus, saving overall execution time and speeding up development time).
Regarding claim 6, Gupta in view of Zhang and further in view of Iyer combination teach The system as claimed in claim 5, further comprising:
execute, based on the testing scheme, the one or more testing selected by the user (Gupta [col. 9, lines 44-46] discloses identifying test results based on the test plan 500 and execution of the individual test cases. Gupta [claim 1] further discloses executing at least a portion of the test plan which is based on the selected devices, features, objects and test cases); and
store information associated with the one or more testing (Gupta [col. 9, lines 44-48] discloses outputting test result of the selected test cases as illustrated in Fig. 6. Further, Gupta [col. 9, lines 57-60] discloses a selectable option 610 to generate a test report including additional information associated with test case failure(s) as illustrated in Fig. 6-7 thus, saving test result information in the test report.)
Gupta lacks explicitly
a third module comprising:
a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage of the third module, wherein the processor of the third module is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the third module to:
receive, from the second module, the generated testing scheme;
Iyer teaches
a third module comprising (Iyer [0029] teaches different modules including an execution module 207 as illustrated in Fig. 2):
a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions (Iyer [0029] further teaches each module can include a memory and performing specific functions. Iyer [0081] further teaches the memory of associate modules to provide storage for software programming); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage of the third module, wherein the processor of the third module is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the third module to (Iyer [0029] further teaches each module can include a processor and performing specific functions. Iyer [0081] further teaches the storage providing instructions to a processor for execution):
receive, from the second module, the generated testing scheme (Iyer [0035] teaches the execution module 207/third module to execute the scheduled one or more test cases based on the schedule provided by the scheduling module/second module);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Iyer to “a third module comprising: a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the third module to: receive, from the second module, the generated testing scheme;” in order to permit parallel processing as needed and in certain circumstances by providing different modules for different tasks (Iyer [0088] thus, saving overall execution time and speeding up development time).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches The system as claimed in claim 6, further comprising:
the combination lacks explicitly
a fourth module comprising
a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage of the fourth module, wherein the processor of the fourth module is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the fourth module to:
receive, from the third module, the information associated with the one or more testing;
store the received information; and
provide the stored information to the first module.
Iyer teaches
a fourth module comprising (Iyer [0029] teaches different modules including an output module 209/fourth module as illustrated in Fig. 2)
a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions (Iyer [0029] further teaches each module can include a memory and performing specific functions. Iyer [0081] further teaches the memory of associate modules to provide storage for software programming); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage of the fourth module, wherein the processor of the fourth module is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the fourth module to (Iyer [0029] further teaches each module can include a processor and performing specific functions. Iyer [0081] further teaches the storage providing instructions to a processor for execution):
receive, from the third module, the information associated with the one or more testing (Iyer Fig.2 illustrates communication between output module 209/fourth module and execution module 207/third module. Where Iyer [0035] teaches the output module 209 to provide the execution results to a user and the execution module 207 would be providing the test results of the test cases run to the output module 209);
store the received information (Iyer [0039] teaches the output module/fourth module storing the report based on execution results in data store 211); and
provide the stored information to the first module (Iyer [0039] teaches the output module/fourth module may provide the report to the user, application developers, system administrators, test server 109, application server 25 or 31, etc. Where any of the modules the stored information is sent to is similar to the first module).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Iyer to “a fourth module comprising a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the fourth module to: receive, from the third module, the information associated with the testing; store the received information; and provide the stored information to the first module” in order to permit parallel processing as needed and in certain circumstances by providing different modules for different tasks (Iyer [0088] thus, saving overall execution time and speeding up development time).
Regarding claim 12, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 13, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 14, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 19, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 20, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Response to Arguments
Response to 101 remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding the generating a customized testing scheme…, specifying one or more APIs; and upon completion of at least one mandatory testing in the customized testing scheme, a deploy service option activated…, the examiner would like to point out that these limitations may be mentally performed with the aid of a generic computer. As illustrated in the updated 101 rejection above, a human may mentally specify API calls mentally in a testing scheme and further after evaluation that testing has completed, activate using a generic computer the deployment option. Further, the examiner would like to point out that mental steps are not analyzed under Prong two for integrating the judicial exception into a practical application because they are not additional steps. Rather, the mental steps are the judicial exception. For the above reasons, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to 103 remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is updated and relies on the primary reference to cure the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noor Alkhateeb whose telephone number is (313)446-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00AM ET to 5:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat do, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NOOR ALKHATEEB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193