DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Communication received on 07/11/2023 for application number 18/350,661.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1 and 13 are independent claims.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional Application No. 62/949,327 filed on 12/17/2019 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of parent Application No. 16/780,696 filed on 02/03/2020 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/31/2024, 8/9/2024, 9/18/2024, 4/18/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, in the final limitation “ receiving, by the first conversation bot from the second conversational bot” should be “ receiving, by the first conversational bot from the second conversational bot” to be consistent. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7, 11, and 13-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,741,140 B2.
In the table below, the left side contains claims in the instant application while the right side contains claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,741,140 B2:
18/350,661 (Instant application)
11,741,140 (Patent '140)
(Claim 1) A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by a first conversational bot, a natural language input in a conversational chat; identifying a skill for fulfilling one of a query or a command in the natural language input; determining that the skill is not executable by the first conversational bot and is executable by a second conversational bot; transmitting a request for the skill from the first conversational bot to the second conversational bot; receiving, by the first conversational bot from the second conversational bot, a request for information regarding the request for the skill; transmitting the information from the first conversational bot to the second conversational bot; providing, by the first conversational bot, control of the conversational chat to the second conversational bot for execution of the skill; and receiving, by the first conversation bot from the second conversational bot, the control of the conversational chat after execution of the skill.
(Claim 1) A computer-implemented method for enabling conversational bot communications, the method comprising:receiving, by a first conversational bot, a natural language input;identifying a skill needed to fulfill one of:a query included in the natural language input, anda command included in the natural language input;determining that a manifest of the first conversational bot does not include one or more activities needed to perform the skill by the first conversational bot;determining that the skill is executable by a second conversational bot;determining, by the first conversational bot, that the second conversational bot executes a personal identifiable information scrubbing skill and a data encryption skill on data the second conversational bot receives;sending, from the first conversational bot to the second conversational bot only upon determining that the second conversational bot executes the personal identifiable information scrubbing skill and the data encryption skill on data the second conversational bot receives, a request for execution of the skill;receiving, by the first conversational bot from the second conversational bot, a request for information needed for the second conversational bot to execute the skill;sending, by the first conversational bot to the second conversational bot, the information; andcausing, by the first conversational bot, an indication that the skill has been executed to be displayed or audibly produced.(Claim 7) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:causing control of a conversation to be provided from the first conversational bot to the second conversational bot;receiving an indication that the second conversational bot has executed the skill; andcausing the first conversational bot to retake control of the conversation.
(Claim 4) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the skill is associated with a manifest comprising an object that describes how to contact the second conversational bot.
(Claim 2) ... wherein determining that the skill is executable by the second conversational bot comprises identifying a manifest associated with the second conversational bot that includes at least one action corresponding to the skill.
(Claim 5) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining that the skill is not executable by the first conversational bot comprises: determining that the first conversational bot does not include a manifest that includes the skill.
(Claim 1) ... determining that a manifest of the first conversational bot does not include one or more activities needed to perform the skill by the first conversational bot
(Claim 6) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a plurality of conversational bots that can execute the skill, the plurality of conversational bots comprising the second conversational bot; and ranking the plurality of conversational bots for executing the skill.
(Claim 11) ... identifying, using the token, a plurality of conversational bots that the user account has an account for that can execute the identified skill, wherein the plurality of conversational bots includes the second conversational bot;ranking the plurality of conversational bots based on a popularity of each website corresponding to each of the plurality of conversational bots...
(Claim 9) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the request for the skill comprises a token describing a user account associated with the natural language input.
(Claim 11) ... sending a token associated with a user account to a skill marketplace to identify one or more conversational bots that the user account has an account for that can execute the identified skill
(Claim 11) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: requesting, by the first conversational bot via the conversational chat, the information.
(Claim 4) ... causing a request for the information to be surfaced by a device in communication with the first conversational bot; andreceiving, by the first conversational bot, a subsequent natural language input in response to the surfaced request, wherein the subsequent natural language input comprises the information
(Claim 12) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining the information from a user store associated with a user account associated with the natural language input.
(Claim 3) ... querying a data source associated with a user account the first conversational bot has been granted access to
Claims 13-15, 17, and 19-20 of the instant application are system claims similar to the method claims 1, 4-6, 9, and 11-12 of the instant application and recite similar limitations as claims 13-14, 2-4, 7, and 11 of Patent '140 and are likewise rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 2015/0186156 A1 hereinafter Brown) in view of Vishnoi et al. (US 2020/0342850 A1 hereinafter Vishnoi).
Regarding Claim 1, Brown teaches a computer-implemented method ([0024] techniques and architectures for implementing a team of virtual assistants), comprising:
receiving, by a first conversational bot, a natural language input in a conversational chat ([0035] the smart device output the virtual assistant team to the user via a conversation user interface; the virtual assistant team interact with the user in a conversational manner to perform tasks; the user and the virtual assistant team 102 communicate in a natural language format; [0181] a conversation user interface may be caused to be output along with a virtual assistant);
identifying a skill for fulfilling one of a query or a command in the natural language input ([0038] the virtual assistant team include virtual assistants that are configured with different functional and visual characteristics (i.e., skill); [0038] if the user is interacting with a mechanical virtual assistant through the conversation user interface and inputs “what's the score of the game,” the conversation user interface change to a sports virtual assistant to provide the score of the game - thus, identifying the functionality/ skill for fulfilling the query/ command; [0182] the virtual assistants may have different characteristics, such as being associated with different entities, include different functionality, thereby enabling different tasks to be performed);
determining that the skill is not executable by the first conversational bot and is executable by a second conversational bot ([0182] it may be determined that one or more conditions are satisfied to initiate communication between virtual assistants such as between the virtual assistant and another virtual assistant; the one or more conditions may generally be satisfied when it is determined that the virtual assistant that is currently being output lacks a characteristic that is needed to complete a task (i.e., skill is not executable by the first conversational bot) and/or determined that another virtual assistant has a more appropriate characteristic (i.e., executable by a second conversational bot) to perform a task faster or more efficiently);
transmitting a request for the skill from the first conversational bot to the second conversational bot ([0183] another virtual assistant may be identified to communicate with the virtual assistant that is currently output via the conversation user interface; if it is determined that a communication is needed with a virtual assistant that includes different functionality than a currently output virtual assistant, then it may be determined which virtual assistant is configured to perform the desired functionality; [0184] a request may be sent to the other virtual assistant that is identified at the operation 1706 for permission to communicate with the other virtual assistant (i.e., transmitting from the first conversational bot to the second conversational bot); [0187] the virtual assistant and the other virtual assistant may be caused to communicate, carry out a conversation);
receiving, by the first conversational bot from the second conversational bot, a request for information regarding the request for the skill ([0029] the virtual assistant service enable virtual assistants to communicate with each other to carry out tasks; a secretary virtual assistant of a user may communicate with a secretary virtual assistant of another user to schedule a meeting; the virtual assistants may share information with each other about availability of the users; a tax virtual assistant may communicate with a banking virtual assistant to obtain financial information; [0187] the virtual assistant and the other virtual assistant may be caused to communicate, carry out a conversation; the communication include exchanging information, providing responses and/or queries (i.e., request for information regarding the request for the skill));
transmitting the information from the first conversational bot to the second conversational bot ([0029] the virtual assistant service enable virtual assistants to communicate with each other to carry out tasks; a secretary virtual assistant of a user may communicate with a secretary virtual assistant of another user to schedule a meeting; the virtual assistants may share information with each other about availability of the users; a tax virtual assistant may communicate with a banking virtual assistant to obtain financial information; [0187] the virtual assistant and the other virtual assistant may be caused to communicate, carry out a conversation; the communication include exchanging information, providing responses and/or queries, and so on).
However, Brown fails to expressly teach wherein providing, by the first conversational bot, control of the conversational chat to the second conversational bot for execution of the skill; and receiving, by the first conversation bot from the second conversational bot, the control of the conversational chat after execution of the skill.
In the same field of endeavor, Vishnoi teaches wherein providing, by the first conversational bot, control of the conversational chat to the second conversational bot for execution of the skill ([0204] a determination is made that an utterance received from a user while the user is interacting with a first chatbot of a chatbot system is an invalid input to the first chatbot; [0205] a second chatbot is identified, in response to the determination in 502, for generating a response to the utterance received while the user is interacting with the first chatbot; [0206] the utterance received while the user is interacting with the first chatbot is routed to the second chatbot; the digital assistant output a message indicating that a switch to the second chatbot is occurring (i.e., control of the conversational chat provided to the second conversational bot for execution of the skill)); and receiving, by the first conversation bot from the second conversational bot, the control of the conversational chat after execution of the skill ([0207] upon conclusion of a dialog flow associated with the second chatbot, the digital assistant prompt the user to confirm whether the user wants to return to a dialog flow that is associated with the first chatbot; [0058] provide users the option to temporarily leave a first skill they are engaged with to do something in a second skill within the digital assistant; if a user is engaged in a conversation with a shopping skill, the user may want to jump to a banking skill, and then return to the shopping skill to complete the user's order (i.e., receiving control of the conversational chat after execution of the skill)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein providing, by the first conversational bot, control of the conversational chat to the second conversational bot for execution of the skill; and receiving, by the first conversation bot from the second conversational bot, the control of the conversational chat after execution of the skill, as taught by Vishnoi into Brown. Doing so would be desirable because it would enable to route user input to chatbots in an intelligent manner, so that the user input is sent to the chatbot that the user intends to interact with (Vishnoi [0003]).
As to dependent Claim 2, Brown and Vishnoi teach all the limitations of Claim 1. Brown further teaches wherein the natural language input is associated with a user account ([0035] the smart device output the virtual assistant team to the user via a conversation user interface; the virtual assistant team interact with the user in a conversational manner to perform tasks; the user and the virtual assistant team 102 communicate in a natural language format; [0041] the virtual assistant service 108 may configure characteristics of a virtual assistant based on input from a trainer, user, or otherwise; [0108] a virtual assistant have been generated by or for a particular user, application, company, service provider, device, etc., such as, personalized for a user, associated with a user's account, associated with a company, etc.).
As to dependent Claim 3, Brown and Vishnoi teach all the limitations of Claim 1. Brown further teaches wherein the natural language input is received via one of a chat interface in a website, a chat interface in an application, a real-time messaging application, a Short Message Service “SMS” message, an email, and an intermediary digital assistant ([0035] the smart device output the virtual assistant team to the user via a conversation user interface; the virtual assistant team interact with the user in a conversational manner to perform tasks; the user and the virtual assistant team 102 communicate in a natural language format; [0039]the conversation user interface 114 may be displayed through an online site of a service provider when the user navigates to the online site).
As to dependent Claim 4, Brown and Vishnoi teach all the limitations of Claim 1. Brown further teaches wherein the skill is associated with a manifest comprising an object that describes the second conversational bot ([0090] characteristics of virtual assistants may be stored in a virtual assistant data store 230; characteristics of a virtual assistant include: functionality - actions that a virtual assistant is configured to perform; task mapping—information that defines how tasks are mapped to concepts, actions, and/or object (i.e., manifest comprising object describing second conversational bot). Vishnoi further teaches wherein object that describes how to contact the second conversational bot ([0043] various settings may be configured for the skill bot; a skill bot designer can specify one or more invocation names for the skill bot being created; these invocation names, which serve as identifiers for the skill bot, can then be used by users of a digital assistant to explicitly invoke the skill bot (i.e., object describing how to contact the second conversational bot)).
As to dependent Claim 5, Brown and Vishnoi teach all the limitations of Claim 1. Brown further teaches wherein determining that the skill is not executable by the first conversational bot comprises: determining that the first conversational bot does not include a manifest that includes the skill ([0090] characteristics of virtual assistants may be stored in a virtual assistant data store 230; characteristics of a virtual assistant include: functionality - actions that a virtual assistant is configured to perform; [0182] it may be determined that one or more conditions are satisfied to initiate communication between virtual assistants such as between the virtual assistant and another virtual assistant; the one or more conditions may generally be satisfied when it is determined that the virtual assistant that is currently being output lacks a characteristic that is needed to complete a task).
As to dependent Claim 6, Brown and Vishnoi teach all the limitations of Claim 1. Vishnoi further teaches wherein identifying a plurality of conversational bots that can execute the skill, the plurality of conversational bots comprising the second conversational bot and ranking the plurality of conversational bots for executing the skill ([0063] the digital assistant evaluates the received user input utterance and computes confidence scores for the system intents and the skill bots associated with the digital assistant - thus, ranking plurality of bots for executing the skill; the score computed for a skill bot represents how likely the user input is representative of a task that the skill bot is configured to perform.; any skill bot with an associated computed confidence score exceeding a threshold value is selected as a candidate for further evaluation; the digital assistant then selects, from the identified candidates, a particular skill bot (i.e., second conversational bot) for further handling of the user input utterance).
As to dependent Claim 7, Brown and Vishnoi teach all the limitations of Claim 6. Vishnoi further teaches wherein the ranking is based on one or more factors including popularity of the respective conversational bot, popularity of a website associated with the respective conversational bot, and user preferences identified based on a user account associated with the natural language input ([0055] the skill bot designer can define variables that are used in a conversation flow in the context section, such as variables for error handling, variables for built-in or custom entities, user variables that enable the skill bot to recognize and persist user preferences, and the like; [0063] the digital assistant evaluates the received user input utterance and computes confidence scores for the system intents and the skill bots associated with the digital assistant; the score computed for a skill bot represents how likely the user input is representative of a task that the skill bot is configured to perform.; any skill bot with an associated computed confidence score exceeding a threshold value is selected as a candidate for further evaluation; the digital assistant then selects, from the identified candidates, a particular skill bot; [0148] the digital assistant or master bot can maintain a history of prior user interactions; the history can include the last skill or a certain number of most recent skills that the user engaged in conversation with (i.e., user preferences identified based on a user account associated with the natural language input); more recent or more used skills (in terms of frequency of use or total number of use instances) can be weighted more heavily than less recent or less used skills).
As to dependent Claim 8, Brown and Vishnoi teach all the limitations of Claim 1. Brown further teaches wherein the request for the skill comprises the natural language input ([0035] the smart device output the virtual assistant team to the user via a conversation user interface; the virtual assistant team interact with the user in a conversational manner to perform tasks; the user and the virtual assistant team 102 communicate in a natural language format; [0038] the virtual assistant team include virtual assistants that are configured with different functional and visual characteristics; [0038] if the user is interacting with a mechanical virtual assistant through the conversation user interface and inputs “what's the score of the game,” the conversation user interface change to a sports virtual assistant to provide the score of the game).
As to dependent Claim 9, Brown and Vishnoi teach all the limitations of Claim 1. Vishnoi further teaches wherein the request for the skill comprises a token describing a user account associated with the natural language input ([0020] user inputs 110 are generally in a natural language form and are referred to as utterance; [0021] digital assistant is configured to apply natural language understanding (NLU) techniques to the utterance to understand the meaning of the user input; [0027] digital assistant or chatbot system generally contains or is associated with one or more skills; [0058] provide users the option to temporarily leave a first skill they are engaged with to do something in a second skill within the digital assistant; if a user is engaged in a conversation with a shopping skill (e.g., the user has made some selections for purchase), the user may want to jump to a banking skill (e.g., the user may want to ensure that he/she has enough money for the purchase), and then return to the shopping skill to complete the user's order (i.e., user information associated with the session is transferred); [0235] a customer may place a subscription order for a chatbot-related service offered by cloud infrastructure system; as part of the order, the customer may provide information identifying a set of users who are authorized to access a particular skill or bot).
As to dependent Claim 10, Brown and Vishnoi teach all the limitations of Claim 1. Vishnoi further teaches wherein the information comprises one of payment information, time information, location information, or a combination thereof ([0058] provide users the option to temporarily leave a first skill they are engaged with to do something in a second skill within the digital assistant; if a user is engaged in a conversation with a shopping skill (e.g., the user has made some selections for purchase), the user may want to jump to a banking skill (e.g., the user may want to ensure that he/she has enough money for the purchase), and then return to the shopping skill to complete the user's order (i.e., payment information)).
As to dependent Claim 11, Brown and Vishnoi teach all the limitations of Claim 1. Brown further teaches wherein requesting, by the first conversational bot via the conversational chat, the information ([0035] the smart device output the virtual assistant team to the user via a conversation user interface; the virtual assistant team interact with the user in a conversational manner to perform tasks; the user and the virtual assistant team 102 communicate in a natural language format; [0038] if the user 106 is interacting with a mechanical virtual assistant through the conversation user interface 114 and inputs “what's the score of the game,” the conversation user interface 114 may change to a sports virtual assistant to provide the score of the game; [0187] the virtual assistant and the other virtual assistant may be caused to communicate, carry out a conversation; the communication include exchanging information, providing responses and/or queries).
As to dependent Claim 12, Brown and Vishnoi teach all the limitations of Claim 1. Vishnoi further teaches wherein obtaining the information from a user store associated with a user account associated with the natural language input ([0055] the skill bot designer can define variables that are used in a conversation flow in the context section, such as variables for error handling, variables for built-in or custom entities, user variables that enable the skill bot to recognize and persist user preferences, and the like; [0063] the digital assistant evaluates the received user input utterance and computes confidence scores for the system intents and the skill bots associated with the digital assistant; the score computed for a skill bot represents how likely the user input is representative of a task that the skill bot is configured to perform; any skill bot with an associated computed confidence score exceeding a threshold value is selected as a candidate for further evaluation; the digital assistant then selects, from the identified candidates, a particular skill bot; [0148] the digital assistant or master bot can maintain a history of prior user interactions (i.e., user store associated with a user account associated with the natural language input); the history can include the last skill or a certain number of most recent skills that the user engaged in conversation with; more recent or more used skills (in terms of frequency of use or total number of use instances) can be weighted more heavily than less recent or less used skills).
Claims 13 and 15-20 are system claims corresponding to the method claims 1, 6-7, and 9-12 respectively and therefore, rejected for the same reasons. Brown further teaches wherein a system, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory having stored thereon instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform method ([0048] the virtual assistant service implemented as one or more computing device; the one or more computing devices include one or more processors, memory; [0049] the memory include software functionality configured as one or more modules; functions described herein as being implemented as software modules configured for execution by a processor).
As to dependent Claim 14, Brown and Vishnoi teach all the limitations of Claim 13. Brown further teaches wherein determine that the skill is not executable by the first conversational bot comprises further instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine that the first conversational bot does not include a manifest that includes the skill ([0090] characteristics of virtual assistants may be stored in a virtual assistant data store 230; characteristics of a virtual assistant include: functionality - actions that a virtual assistant is configured to perform; [0182] it may be determined that one or more conditions are satisfied to initiate communication between virtual assistants such as between the virtual assistant and another virtual assistant; the one or more conditions may generally be satisfied when it is determined that the virtual assistant that is currently being output lacks a characteristic that is needed to complete a task), wherein a manifest comprises an object that associates a conversational bot with a skill and describes the conversational bot ([0090] characteristics of virtual assistants may be stored in a virtual assistant data store 230; characteristics of a virtual assistant include: functionality - actions that a virtual assistant is configured to perform; task mapping—information that defines how tasks are mapped to concepts, actions, and/or object (i.e., manifest comprising object describing second conversational bot associated with the skill/ functionality). Vishnoi further teaches wherein object that describes how to contact the second conversational bot ([0043] various settings may be configured for the skill bot; a skill bot designer can specify one or more invocation names for the skill bot being created; these invocation names, which serve as identifiers for the skill bot, can then be used by users of a digital assistant to explicitly invoke the skill bot (i.e., object describing how to contact the second conversational bot)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 CFR § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Emery et al. (US 2018/0181558 A1) teaches: fig. 5 illustrates an exemplary diagram of a conversational bot routing engine; the conversation bot recommender can determine one or more matching bots using one of the bot recommendation models; a bot recommendation model used to map the features of the query and/or the user to a corresponding bot, based on historical data; the matching bot ranker receive the matching bots with their confidence scores from the matching bot confidence score determiner and rank the matching bots based on their respective confidence scores (see [0052], [0062], [0091]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REJI KARTHOLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3432. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Welch, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7212. 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. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/REJI KARTHOLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2143
Prosecution Insights