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
Status of the Claims
1. This Non-Final action is in reply to the amendment/arguments filed 3/26/2026.
2. Claims 1-3, 5, 14, 16 and 17 have been amended; claims 1-17 are pending.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
With respect to the Double Patenting rejection, applicant failed to provide the requisite terminal disclaimer, therefore the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the 35USC 101 rejection, applicant generally states that (amended) independent claim 1 adds concrete technical limitations that demonstrate the system performs specific technological functions that enable remote troubleshooting capabilities not previously possible and provides specific improvements to computer-based customer support technology. Applicant then states that the integrated system (streaming UI state information, machine learning/AI processing, and differential state monitoring) enables automated context-aware responses in addition to live support, using information derived from the streamed terminal state. Applicant avers that the components work together in a specific manner to solve the technical problem of providing real-time context-aware support with automated learning and provides a specific technical solution that improves remote support technology. Applicant subsequently states that like Desjardins, the present specification identifies concrete improvements to how the customer support system operates: the system expands automated response capabilities based on prior support interactions. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive. Examiner points out that the amended claim limitations are directed to the abstract idea for receiving an inquiry from a user, streaming the inquiry and a state of the user terminals, determining whether an automated response to the inquiry is available, providing the automated response, in response to a lack of the automated response, determining the automated response based on previous inquiries and previous responses and providing the response; receiving a differential state of the user terminal with updates, determining progress toward resolution of the inquiry, providing prompts to guide the user through the resolution of the inquiry in a computing environment. Although applicant argues that, the integrated system enables automated context-aware responses in addition to live support, to solve the problem of providing real-time context-aware support and provides a specific technical solution that improves remote support technology, Examiner notes that the steps for “receiving an inquiry from a user, streaming the inquiry and a state of the user terminals, determining whether an automated response to the inquiry is available, providing the automated response, in response to a lack of the automated response, determining the automated response based on previous inquiries and previous responses and providing the response; receiving a differential state of the user terminal, determining progress toward resolution of the inquiry, providing and guiding the user through the resolution of the inquiry” pertains to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and directed to the organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas. The claimed “processor, non-transitory memory”, user terminal”, support terminals, “database, “machine learning”, “artificial intelligence”, “screen” are recited at a high level of generality and merely used as a tool for data gathering/analysis and manipulation to perform and automate the abstract idea with standard computer technology and hardware/software components performing well-known, routine and conventional activity; and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The dependent claims recite additional gathering and processing steps without imposing any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea Hence, the dependent claims fail to cure the deficiencies of the independent claim from which they depend and are rejected under the same grounds.
As it relates to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention is similar to Desjardins, and that, “the present specification identifies concrete improvements to how the customer support system operates: the system expands automated response capabilities based on prior support interactions”, applicant’s arguments have been considered however they are not persuasive. Unlike Desjardins, applicant’s claimed invention is not directed to training a machine learning model on a series of tasks, nor specific improvements in the functioning of a machine learning model including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements. Desjardins reflected improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Further when evaluating the claims as a whole specifically the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” provided the improvements identified in the specification and therefore integrated the abstract idea into a practical application, hence deemed patentable. As noted previously and in the Non-Final rejection, applicant’s “processor, non-transitory memory”, user terminal”, support terminals, “database, “machine learning”, “artificial intelligence”, “screen” are recited at a high level of generality and merely used as a tool for data gathering/analysis and manipulation to perform and automate the abstract idea with standard computer technology and hardware/software components performing well-known, routine and conventional activity; and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Applicant’s machine learning algorithms or artificial intelligence is simply used to generate and store automatic responses for inquires for future use-see ¶46, and using that knowledge and learning the AI functionality may identify and navigate the support interaction using the most appropriate methos of resolution (see ¶47). The system may also use at least one of machine learning algorithms or artificial intelligence to develop or provide resources to support staff to help the support staff provide solutions to the inquiries (see ¶48). There is no evidence in the disclosure to suggest achieving an actual improvement in the machine learning itself, computer functionality itself, or improvement in any specific computer technology. Accordingly, even when considering the claims both individually and as an ordered combination they fail to add subject matter beyond the judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, applicant has not shown an improvement in the computer functionality itself, or any specific computer technology; nor do the claims integrate the abstract idea into any practical application under the guidance of MPEP. In view of the above, Examiner maintains that the claimed invention is direct to an abstract idea.
Examiner has modified the rejection based on applicant’s amendments to further explain how the claim limitations are being interpreted and addressed each of applicant’s claims in this Final action as noted below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 16 and 17 recite in part, “providing the determined automated response to the user terminal, providing to the user terminal, the automated response:” Examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation. The limitation(s) is/are ambiguous. Is the “determined” ‘automated response, different than the “automated response”? It appears as though an automated response (being available in the database of responses) is provided to the user terminal. While a “determined” automated response is also provided (in response to a lack of the automated response being in the database of responses); and the next limitation recites, “providing to the user terminal, the automated response”. The respective dependent claims do not remedy this flaw; therefore, they are also rejected. Appropriate clarification is request.
Claims 1, 16 and 17 recite in part, “providing the determined automated response to the user terminal, providing to the user terminal, the automated response:” The underlined limitation appears to be a typographical error whereby an automated response has been provided to the user terminal (based on whether an automated response is available in a database of responses); and a “determined” automated response is also provided to the user terminal (in response to a lack of the automated response being in the database of responses) as recited in the preceding claim limitations. Appropriate clarification is requested. The respective dependent claims do not remedy this flaw; therefore, they are also rejected.
Claims 1, 16 and 17 recite in part, “a database of responses”, “the database”. The use of “database” and “a database of responses” is unclear since applicant’s disclosure references various databases. Examiner interprets “the database” and “database of responses” as recited in the claims to be the same (i.e. “database of responses”). Appropriate clarification is requested.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No.11,810,125 B1, in view of Barak et. al., US Patent Application Publication No US 2016/0360466 A1. Patent No 11,810,125 B1 discloses all of the limitations of claims 1-17 except a processing algorithm, machine learning or artificial intelligence as required in claims 1, 13 and 15-17. Barak discloses, a network interaction method/system for facilitating dynamic communication whereby a communication retrieved from a queue position is parsed, analyzed and routed to a terminal device. Barak further discloses that the one or more rules can be automatically learned using machine learning techniques. Barak also teaches a neural network can be trained using supervised machine learning techniques based on content included in previous messages received at the communication processing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to modify US Patent No 11,810,125 B1 to include the communication processing system and machine learning techniques as taught by Barak since it allows for the analysis of textual and/or non-textual attributes associated with a message, training a neural network based on content included in messages, and generating one or more rules/conditions for various clients. Hence, facilitating efficient routing and thorough communication of messages leading to complete resolution of user issues which promotes client objectives and/or positive user sentiment via the network interaction system (Fig 1, Fig 9, ¶94-¶103, ¶107, ¶162, ¶187-¶193, ¶251, ¶265).
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-15 are directed to a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), claim 16 is directed to a method (an act, or series of acts or steps), and claim 17 is directed to an article of manufacture including a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium. Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Representative independent claim 1 recites in part, “a processor; and a tangible, non-transitory memory configured to communicate with the processor, the tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: receiving an inquiry from a user via a user terminal; streaming the inquiry and a state of the user terminal to one or more support terminals, wherein the state of the user terminal includes a state of an inquiry application on the user terminal, a state of a web browser currently displayed on the user terminal, user activity on the inquiry application, and textual context being typed into at least one of the inquiry application or the web browser; determining whether an automated response to the inquiry is available in a database of responses based on the inquiry and the state of the user terminal and, in response to the automated response being available in the database, providing the automated response from the database to the user terminal, in response to a lack of the automated response being in the database of responses, determining, using at least one of machine learning or artificial intelligence, trained on historical inquiry-response pairs, the automated response to the inquiry based on previous inquiries and previous responses, and providing the determined automated response to the user terminal providing, to the user terminal the automated response receiving, from the user terminal, a differential state of the user terminal with updates to the state of the user terminal ;determining progress toward resolution of the inquiry based on the differential state of the user terminal; and providing, to the user terminal in real-time based on the state of the user terminal and the inquiry, at least one of prompts, commands, or highlights on a screen of the user terminal to guide the user through the resolution of the inquiry.
The underlined limitations above demonstrate independent claim 1 is directed toward the abstract idea for receiving an inquiry from a user, streaming the inquiry and a state of the user terminals, determining whether an automated response to the inquiry is available, providing the automated response, in response to a lack of the automated response, determining the automated response based on previous inquiries and previous responses and providing the response; receiving a differential state of the user terminal with updates, determining progress toward resolution of the inquiry, providing prompts to guide the user through the resolution of the inquiry in a computing environment. Applicant’s specification emphasizes a method/system for receiving an inquiry from a user terminal, determining if an automated response is available and providing the automated response or a live response based on whether the automated response is available a database of previous inquiries ¶7-¶11). The disclosure also discusses streaming an inquiry and a state of an application or web browser accessed at the user terminal to the one or more support terminals, and the live support including guiding a user through the inquiry through at least one or more commands based on the inquiry and the state of the application or the web browser (¶15, ¶16).
Representative Claim 1 is considered an abstract idea because the steps for receiving an inquiry from a user …transmitting the inquiry to one or more support terminals; transmitting …a state of the user terminal; determining an automated response to the inquiry …determining … the automated response to the inquiry based on previous inquiries and previous responses, in response to a lack of the automated response being in the database of responses; and providing …the automated response” pertains to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Such data input and data gathering steps are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas; hence, the claim recites an abstract idea--see MPEP 2106.04(II). Independent claims 16 and 17 recite essentially the same abstract idea as independent claim 1, therefore, they are also abstract based on the same rationale as independent claim 1.
Step 2A-Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements “processor”, “tangible, non-transitory memory”, “user terminal”, “one or more support terminals”, “database”, “machine learning”, “artificial intelligence” [claim 1, claim 16], “article or manufacture”, “non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium” [claim 17] merely provide an abstract-idea based solution using data gathering and analysis and merely provide instructions for organizing human activity, and implementing the abstract idea recited above utilizing the “processor”, “tangible, non-transitory memory”, “user terminal”, “one or more support terminals”, “database”, “machine learning”, “artificial intelligence” [claim 1, claim 16], “article or manufacture”, “non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium” [claim 17] as tools to perform the abstract idea, and generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05 (f-h). Further, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea—see MPEP 2106.05(g). Independent claim 1 fails to operate the recited “processor”, “tangible, non-transitory memory”, “user terminal”, “one or more support terminals”, “database”, “machine learning”, “artificial intelligence” [claim 1, claim 16], “article or manufacture”, “non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium” [claim 17]” (which are merely standard computer technology and hardware/software components- see applicant’s disclosure ¶44: “one or more end user terminals 102 can be any type of known or to be developed device capable of establishing a wired and/or wireless communication session with communication processing center 104. Examples of end user terminals 102 include, but are not limited to, a mobile device, a laptop, a desktop computer, a tablet, etc. Each of the one or more end user terminals 102 may be operated by a user such as a human being. Furthermore, two or more of the end user terminals 102 may be operated by a single user. While FIG. 1 illustrates two end user terminals 102, the present disclosure is not limited thereto and setting 100 can include any number of end user terminals 102 that may access communication processing center 104 for a response to an inquiry”; ¶48: “The system may also use at least one of machine learning algorithms or artificial intelligence to develop or provide resources to support staff to help the support staff provide solutions to the inquiries”; ¶103: “processor 504 can include any general purpose processor and a service component”; ¶110: “according to the above-described examples can be implemented using computer-executable instructions that are stored or otherwise available from computer readable media. Such instructions can comprise, for example, instructions and data. which cause or otherwise configure a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or special purpose processing device to perform a certain Function or group of functions, Portions of computer resources used can be accessible over a network”) in any exceptional manner, and there is no evidence in the disclosure to suggest achieving an actual improvement in the computer functionality itself, or improvement in any specific computer technology other than utilizing ordinary computational tools to automate and perform the abstract idea for receiving an inquiry from a user, transmitting the inquiry and a state of a user terminal to one or more support terminals, determining and providing an automated response to the user terminal i in a computing environment—see MPEP 2106.05(a). Moreover, applicant’s machine learning algorithms or artificial intelligence is simply used to generate and store automatic responses for inquires for future use-see ¶46, and using that knowledge and learning the AI functionality may identify and navigate the support interaction using the most appropriate methos of resolution (see ¶47). The system may also use at least one of machine learning algorithms or artificial intelligence to develop or provide resources to support staff to help the support staff provide solutions to the inquiries (see ¶48). The use of applicant’s computing components is performing well-known, routine, and conventional activity. The court describes the use of a computer to create electronic records, track information/data and issue simultaneous instructions as purely conventional computer functions and notes that nearly every computer has a data processing system with a communications controller and a data storage unit. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, applicant has not shown an improvement or practical application under the guidance of MPEP section 2106.04(d) or 2106.05(a).
Dependent claims 2-15 fail to cure the deficiencies of the above noted independent claim from which they depend and are therefore rejected under the same grounds. The dependent claims further recite the abstract idea without imposing any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-15 recite additional data gathering and processing steps. For example dependent claim 2 recites in part, “wherein streaming the inquiry includes”; claim 3 recites in part, “wherein the state of the user terminal further includes”; claim 4 recites in part, “receiving information from the one or more support terminals regarding”; claim 5 recites in part, “ transmitting the differential state of the user terminal to”; claim 6 recites in part, “receiving, after providing the automated response”; claim 7 recites in part, “further comprising resolving remaining issues with the user using at least”; claim 8 recites in part, “further comprising: performing natural language processing”; claim 9 recites in part, “providing, to the user terminal,”; claim 10 recites in part, “further comprising: receiving an automation request from the one or more support terminals”; claim 11 recites in part, “wherein the user terminal includes”; claim 12 recites in part, “wherein the one or more support terminals”; claim 13 recites in part, “further comprising determining the state of the user terminal”; claim 14 recites in part, “wherein the providing further comprising ”; claim 15 recites in part, “further comprising determining, using at least one of machine learning algorithms or artificial intelligence, resources”, which are still directed toward the abstract idea identified previously and are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. The additional elements in the dependent claims “natural language processing” [claim 8], amounts to no more than applying the judicial exception using generic computing components, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a computing environment. In this case, the “natural language processing” is generically used and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is merely used to further process (analyze) received data using rules logic and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see applicant’s disclosure, ¶19: “performing natural language processing on the inquiry to yield a result, and comparing the results to the previous inquiries stored in the database in order to determine whether the automated response to the inquiry is available”; ¶68: “natural language processing that would analyze and determine content of the inquiry”). Hence is nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as their respective independent claim since they fail to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the abstract idea fails to integrate into any practical application. Thus, under Step 2A-Prong Two the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 “processor”, “tangible, non-transitory memory”, “user terminal”, “one or more support terminals”, “database”, “machine learning”, “artificial intelligence” [claim 1, claim 16], “article or manufacture”, “non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium” [claim 17]” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea).
Further, the additional elements including applicant’s “natural language processing” “streaming” also amounts to no more than applying the judicial exception using generic computing components, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a computing environment. In this case, the “natural language processing” and “streaming are generically used further process information via common computing components; further, “streaming” is recited generically in the disclosure ¶9: “computer-readable instructions to stream”; ¶16: “the streaming comprises streaming, in addition to the inquiry, a state of an application”; ¶23: “the state of the computer-readable instructions by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to stream”. Applicant’s “natural language processing” is merely used to analyze and communicate information, “streaming” is merely used to communicate information-and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even when considered as a whole, the claims do not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since the claim limitations do not amount to a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea for receiving an inquiry from a user, streaming the inquiry and a state of the user terminals, determining whether an automated response to the inquiry is available, providing the automated response, in response to a lack of the automated response, determining the automated response based on previous inquiries and previous responses and providing the response; receiving a differential state of the user terminal with updates, determining progress toward resolution of the inquiry, providing prompts to guide the user through the resolution of the inquiry in a computing environment. Hence, claims 1-17 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Riahi, US Patent Application Publication No US 2014/0314225 A1, “Intelligent Automated Agent for a Contact Center”, relating to an intelligent automated agent for a contact center.
Indyk et al, US Patent Application Publication No US 2018/0341685 A1, “Integrating Virtual and Human Agents in a Multi-Channel Support System for Complex Software Applications”, relating to integrating and dynamically selecting support systems used to process support requests (queries) received from a user of the software applications (e.g., text search queries, voice input, textual input, and other input requesting information about a software application).
Mitzlaff et al., US Patent Application Publication No US 2014/0317193 A1, “System and Method of Using Conversational Agent to Collect Information and Trigger Actions” relating to a method/system for project-based and matrix organizations to create custom project teams whereby a platform for organizations to represent goals and progress by allowing the organizations to share ownership of the goals to custom teams is provided.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KIMBERLY L EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-3929. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730a-5p. 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.
/KIMBERLY L EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626