DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 08/18/2025. Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-20 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “a mobile application mobile”. This is typo-graphical error. The claims must be amended to recite “a mobile application module” in order to overcome the objections. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
4. Regarding Step 1, claim 1 recites a machine (i.e., a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), claim 8 recites a manufacture, (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means.) and claim 15 recites a process (i.e., an act or step, or a series of acts or steps). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
5. Regarding Step 2A – [Prong One]:
6. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite:
“generating a syntax for commands as a command syntax to enable a user to communicate instructions, the command syntax including a valid keyword followed by a valid modifier, wherein each valid keyword comprises a subject upon which an operation is performed upon and has a functionality based upon the modifier, and each valid modifier comprises a type of operation to perform on or related to the keyword;”, “generating and storing a set of valid keywords and a set of valid modifiers for each keyword in the set of valid keywords;”, “receiving…a command syntax that includes a keyword and a modifier”, “deploying…to parse the syntax in the command syntax to identify the keyword and identify the modifier”, “determining the command syntax includes a valid keyword by mapping the identified keyword to the stored keyword”, “determining, in response to determining the command syntax includes the valid keyword, that the command syntax includes a valid modifier by mapping the identified modifier to the stored modifier”, “determining, by utilizing a set of procedures for each valid keyword/modifier combination, an operation based on the identified keyword and the identified modifier”
The limitations demonstrate the independent claims recite an abstract idea for allowing a user to customize command syntaxes for interacting with an agent encompasses a commercial interaction (i.e., marketing/sales activities or business relations) and managing personal behavior or interactions between people (i.e., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and mental processes (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) which is subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04 II
The Applicant’s Specification emphasizes in at least [0001] The present disclosure relates to a computing device, computer program product, and computer-implemented method for delivering digital financial services and, more particularly, for a chat support platform that supports keyword based functionality. [0002] Financial institutions that provide financial services are increasingly providing a greater number of client services. In order to alleviate call and chat density from customers over a network environment, such client services include automated virtual support agents (e.g., chatbots) who supplement human virtual support agents by directly interacting with customers via text chat, phone, instant messaging, etc.
The limitations of “generating”, “receiving”, “deploying”, “determining” in the context of the claim recite marketing/sales activities and business relation because they allow a customer to generate instructions for the agent to follow in response to the command syntaxes. The series of steps also cover managing personal behavior or interactions between people, i.e., rules or instructions a user may follow, to tailor or customize communications when interacting with an agent. The steps of “determining” in the context of the claim cover mental processes for collecting and analyzing information, i.e., keyword and modifier against the user’s command syntax which are acts that can be performed in the human mind with or without pen and paper. As such, the claims recite an abstract idea.
7. Regarding Step 2A [Prong Two], independent claims include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
“a server computing system”, “an authenticated client device”, “one or more server computers”, “a plurality of processor-implemented modules having circuitry, the processor-implemented modules including a mobile application module, an automated virtual support agent module, and a machine learning module”, “one or more processors”, “a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more processors, the non- transitory memory including a set of instructions of computer-executable program code, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations including:”, “a chatbot”, “a data structure”, “via the mobile application mobile”, “a graphical user interface (GUI) as a chat interface on a user interface (UI) of the authenticated client device”, “activating the chatbot via the automated virtual support agent module”, “via the chat interface by the chatbot from the authenticated client device”, “by the machine learning module”, “a trained machine learning model”, “in the stored data structure” – see claims 1, 8, and 15, are recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification. The applicant’s specification describes the additional elements generically such that they may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computers components being used to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements are merely adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f)
The other additional elements of: “displaying…an active virtual chat communication session” and “performing the operation contemporaneously with the active virtual chat communication session” adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., data gathering/output, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (g)
The other additional element of: “for conducting wireless communications” is/are merely an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
8. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a server computing system”, “an authenticated client device”, “one or more server computers”, “a plurality of processor-implemented modules having circuitry, the processor-implemented modules including a mobile application module, an automated virtual support agent module, and a machine learning module”, “one or more processors”, “a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more processors, the non- transitory memory including a set of instructions of computer-executable program code, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations including:”, “a chatbot”, “a data structure”, “via the mobile application mobile”, “a graphical user interface (GUI) as a chat interface on a user interface (UI) of the authenticated client device”, “activating the chatbot via the automated virtual support agent module”, “via the chat interface by the chatbot from the authenticated client device”, “by the machine learning module”, “a trained machine learning model”, “in the stored data structure” – see claims 1, 8, and 15 are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
The other additional elements of: “displaying…an active virtual chat communication session” and “performing the operation contemporaneously with the active virtual chat communication session” were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and thus re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The Symantec, TLI Communications LLC, OIP Techs, buySAFE, Apple Inc. v. Ameranth court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicated that: “storing and retrieving information over a network”, “recording a customer’s order”, and “presenting offers and gathering statistics” is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a generic manner. Thus, at Step 2B the claim(s) are ineligible.
8. Dependent claims 3, 5-7, 10, 12-14, 17, and 19-20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15. Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including transmitting, in response to determining the command syntax does not include the valid keyword due to the stored data structure not containing the identified keyword, an error message for visual display on the UI of the authenticated client device.” which narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. In the instant case, the “one or more processors”, “stored data structure”, “visual display on the UI of the authenticated client device” are computer components being used in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Claims 5, 12, and 19 recites “wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including transmitting in response to determining the command syntax does not include the valid modifier due to the stored data structure not containing the identified modifier, an error message for visual display on the UI of the authenticated client device” which narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. In the instant case, the “one or more processors”, “stored data structure”, “visual display on the UI of the authenticated client device” are computer components being used in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite “wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including receiving, via the chat interface by the chatbot from the authenticated client device, a help request command for a particular keyword” which narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. In the instant case, the “one or more processors”, “via the chat interface by the chatbot from the authenticated client device” are computer components being used in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 7 and 14 recite “wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including displaying, on the UI of the authenticated client device in response to receiving the help request command a list of all valid modifiers in the set of valid modifiers for the particular keyword” which narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. In the instant case, the “one or more processors”, “the UI of the authenticated client device” are computer components being used in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) The dependent claims do not add any meaningful limits on integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cappetta (US 2020/0387550 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, Cappetta discloses
a server computing system (¶ 0038: discloses the information handling system can represent a server device.), a computer program product (abstract), a computer implemented method (abstract) for conducting wireless communications with an authenticated client device (¶ 0023, 0038: discloses the chat bot integration system may provide a customized chat bot to allow a user to create customized data by modeling a process flow with an interface with chat bot artificial intelligence as well as fulfillment and responses using a visual user interface.),
the server computer system (¶ 0038) comprising:
one or more server computers (¶ 0038) including:
a plurality of processor-implemented modules having circuitry (¶ 0033),
the processor-implemented modules (¶ 0033) including a mobile application module (¶ 0033, 0050: user device 207 used by a customer or other person interfacing with a deployed customized chat bot integration.), an automated virtual support agent module (¶ 0050: discloses a customized chat bot software), and a machine learning module (¶ 0129: discloses a trained chat bot integrator.);
one or more processors (¶ 0034); and
a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more processors (¶ 0039-0040), the non- transitory memory including a set of instructions of computer-executable program code, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations including:
generating a syntax for commands as a command syntax to enable a user to communicate instructions to a chatbot (¶ 0023, 0026, 0053: discloses the customized chat bot integration software system defines a specific syntax. Once a user has chosen what she wants to achieve for the customized chat bot integration software, the code instructions capable of achieving such a task may be generated.),
the command syntax including a valid keyword followed by a valid modifier (¶ 0026: discloses syntax is used to determine intents and associate slots), wherein each valid keyword comprises a subject upon which an operation is performed upon and has a functionality based upon the modifier (¶ 0026), and each valid modifier comprises a type of operation to perform on or related to the keyword (¶ 0026, 0129);
generating and storing a data structure that includes a set of valid keywords and a set of valid modifiers for each keyword in the set of valid keywords (¶ 0026-0027: discloses once a subset of code instructions and its purpose has been identified, the subset of code instructions may be stored in a memory and associated with the memory with an identification of its purpose.);
displaying, via the mobile application mobile, a graphical user interface (GUI) as a chat interface on a user interface (UI) of the authenticated client device for an active virtual chat communication session (¶ 0037, 0050, 0121: discloses a chat bot user interface may receive identification of an initiation of a chat bot session.), and activating the chatbot via the automated virtual support agent module (¶ 0068: discloses a new chat bot is created such that it conforms to an enterprise’s requirements for a chat bot.);
receiving, via the chat interface by the chatbot from the authenticated client device, a command syntax that includes a keyword and a modifier (¶ 0122: discloses the customized chat bot integration system may receive a chat bot question or query.);
deploying, by the machine learning module, a trained machine learning model to parse the syntax in the command syntax to identify the keyword and identify the modifier (¶ 0026-0027, 0058-0060, 0069, 0081, 0123-0124, 0129: discloses the chat bot queries may be parsed such that the query may be categorized as one or more intents as well as a variety of slots. A trained chat bot integrator may be used to access custom responses, locations where slot fulfilling data may be found, or some combination.);
determining the command syntax includes a valid keyword by mapping the identified keyword to the stored keyword in the stored data structure (¶ 0026, 0124, 0127, 0129-0130 : discloses matching data responsive to the identified intent stored in a memory);
determining, in response to determining the command syntax includes the valid keyword, that the command syntax includes a valid modifier by mapping the identified modifier to the stored modifier in the stored data structure (¶ 0026, 0124, 0127, 0129: discloses matching data responsive to the identified slot stored in a memory) ;
determining, by utilizing a set of procedures for each valid keyword/modifier combination, an operation based on the identified keyword and the identified modifier (¶ 0026, 0124, 0127, 0129-0130: discloses a specific subset of code instructions operating to invoke the “get” action in respect to customized responses to identified intents and slots associated with a chat bot query are stored in memory along with an association between the intents identified, the slots determined, the stored subset of code instructions, and an identification of the “get” action.); and
performing the operation contemporaneously with the active virtual chat communication session. (¶ 0121, 0131: discloses the customized chat bot integration software system may receive identification of an initiation of a chat bot session…the dynamic response from the system is generated in response to the identified intent and slot or slot combination is presented to a chat bot user or customer via a user interface.)
With respect to claims 3, 10, 17, Cappetta discloses the server computing system of claim 1,
wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including transmitting, in response to determining the command syntax does not include the valid keyword due to the stored data structure not containing the identified keyword, an error message for visual display on the UI of the authenticated client device. (¶ 0082, 0111, 0124-0125: discloses the system may have been unable to parse or discern the chat bot query such that a default no answer found response may be provided. In other embodiments, no response may be found and an error message or message seeking further intent clarification may be generated.)
With respect to claims 5, 12, 19, Cappetta discloses the server computing system of claim 1,
wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including transmitting in response to determining the command syntax does not include the valid modifier due to the stored data structure not containing the identified modifier, an error message for visual display on the UI of the authenticated client device. (¶ 0082, 0111, 0124-0125: discloses the system may have been unable to parse or discern the chat bot query such that a default no answer found response may be provided. In other embodiments, no response may be found and an error message or message seeking further intent clarification may be generated.)
With respect to claims 6, 13, and 20, Cappetta discloses the server computing system of claim 1,
wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors,
causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including receiving, via the chat interface by the chatbot from the authenticated client device, a help request command for a particular keyword.(¶ 0059, 0086, 0122: discloses the customized chat bot integration software system may receive a chat bot question or query. Example intents may include intents such as “what is”, “please find”. Intents may have one or more slots which may invoke simple responses. For example, if a recognized intent is “how much is” intent and a slot identifies a potential product or service.)
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Cappetta discloses the server computing system of claim 6,
wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations further including displaying, on the UI of the authenticated client device in response to receiving the help request command a list of all valid modifiers in the set of valid modifiers for the particular keyword. (¶ 0089, 0117, 0129: discloses a slot list associated with learned values that correspond to intent slot pairs or correspond with slots that have been identified.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully contends that the disputed claims (e.g., representative independent claim 1) as presently presented are consistent with this standard in presenting non-generic hardware and software components to perform an ordered combination of operations. Indeed, humans are incapable of performing the following ordered combination of operations”
“As such, representative independent claim 1 is directed to a server computing system that operates in an unconventional manner using non-generic hardware and software components to perform an ordered combination of operations for performing an operation (in response to receiving a command syntax from a client device) during an active chat. Such ordered combination of operations should eliminate the asserted broad interpretation by the Office that the claimed invention "can be performed in the human mind with or without pen and paper." Indeed, the ordered combination of operations goes well beyond simple human decision-making and involves specific technological steps that enhance server-client device communications. Here, the eligibility of representative independent claim 1 is self-evident insofar as it clearly does not seek to tie up all forms of chat operations.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two the two-part analysis. The specificity of the presently recited techniques does not automatically lead towards eligibility. Performing an abstract idea on generic computers and components does not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application. See MPEP 2106.05(b) (“[Mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”) (“[C]laims are not saved from abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than a generic computer.”); Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC vs. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claimed features of network streaming and a customized user interface do not convert the abstract idea of delivering media content to an electronic device into a concrete solution to a technical problem where the features are described and claimed generically).
In the instant case, the additional elements of “a server computing system”, “an authenticated client device”, “one or more server computers”, “a plurality of processor-implemented modules having circuitry, the processor-implemented modules including a mobile application module, an automated virtual support agent module, and a machine learning module”, “one or more processors”, “a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more processors, the non- transitory memory including a set of instructions of computer-executable program code, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations including:”, “a data structure”, “via the mobile application mobile”, “a graphical user interface (GUI) as a chat interface on a user interface (UI) of the authenticated client device”, “activating the chatbot via the automated virtual support agent module”, “via the chat interface by the chatbot from the authenticated client device”, “by the machine learning module”, “a trained machine learning model”, “in the stored data structure” are computers and computing components used as tools to perform data processing that implements the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) The remarks describe the ordered combination of additional elements at a high-level of generality. Each of the additional elements recited by the ordered combination are being used in their ordinary or normal capacity to carry out the abstract idea. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015) The Applicant does not provide any findings or discussion from Specification related to technical details of the additional elements or their functionality. Therefore, the claims are directed to achieving a result for performing the data processing operations during an active virtual chat session, rather than a technological solution to a technological problem as purported by Applicant. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Applicant respectfully maintains that the technical features recited in the disputed claims as presently presented qualify as "significantly more" inasmuch as they provide for an improvement to the functioning of computing technology. For example, as noted supra, the specification at [0104] recites "[t]he ML module 250 may analyze the received data and/or information, and transform the data and/or information in a manner which provides enhanced communication between the client device 100 and the one or more financial institution servers 200, while also enhancing user access and management of the one or more financial accounts. The data and/or information may also be up-linked to other systems and modules in the one or more financial institution servers 200 for further processing to discover additional information that may be used to enhance the understanding of the information."
Moreover, by generating a syntax for commands as a command syntax, a user can more efficiently communicate instructions to a chatbot. Indeed, a user no longer has to communicate in long sentences and phrases when transmitting a command to a chatbot, and instead may use a two-word command syntax to accomplish the same. In this way, computer resources for processing the command are significantly reduced.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, merely reciting a particular technological module or piece of equipment in a claim such as the ML module does not confer eligibility. Although a ML module is used, using the ML module in the claim to parse the syntax in the command to identify keyword and the modifier does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Also, it is important to note "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). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejected claims reside firmly outside the scope of what the USPTO considers organizing human activity. Indeed, the disputed claims as presently presented incorporate specific, non-generic hardware and software components other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as well as other meaningful technical features beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claims include technical features that encompasses significantly more than the alleged judicial exception itself, and thus, include patent-eligible subject matter.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the previous analysis properly identified the limitations in the claim that recite an abstract idea and explained why the limitations fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). As explained, the specificity of the presently recited techniques or features does not automatically make the claim a patent eligible invention. The focus of the claim is for allowing a user to customize a syntax for commands for interacting with a chatbot and the series to steps cover tasks that are to be performed with the command syntax during an active chat session. Thus, the improvements to the claim are within the abstract idea itself and not the generic computing equipment being used to perform the abstract idea. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 102/103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights