DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-27 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 19 recite(s) a system and series of steps for providing customer service regarding product returns, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, such as following rules or instructions. These concepts are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitation(s) of, ‘obtain a first message…’; ‘cause transmission of the first message…’; ‘obtain a second message…’; ‘cause transmission of the second message…’; ‘cause communication of a resolution message…’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘at least one non-transitory computer readable medium’, ‘at least one programmable circuit’, ‘interface circuitry’, ‘at least one processor circuit’, ‘a large language model’, ‘a first large language model’, ‘a second large language model’, ‘a mobile device’, ‘large language model circuitry’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (‘at least one non-transitory computer readable medium’, ‘at least one programmable circuit’, ‘interface circuitry’, ‘at least one processor circuit’, ‘a mobile device’, ‘large language model circuitry’). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (‘a large language model’, ‘a first large language model’, ‘a second large language model’, ‘large language model circuitry’).
Claim(s) 2-18 and 20-27 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for providing customer service regarding product returns, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, such as following rules or instructions. These concepts are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the recite(s) the additional elements of receiving and transmitting data over a communication network. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and transmitting data), and amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As detailed in MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the reception and transmission of data was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The generic functions of receiving and transmitting data are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is similar to how ‘using the Internet to gather data’ was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
As analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-27 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-16, and 18-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaseen (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180341396), in view of Ghoche (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20240386213).
In regards to claim 1, Although Yaseen teaches of a conversation model configured to implement a variety of language processing elements, such as natural language processing, and artificial intelligence-based technology and techniques, such as machine learning, the reference does not explicitly state that the model comprises a large language model.
However, Yaseen and Ghoche together teach:
At least one non-transitory computer readable medium comprising machine executable instructions to cause at least one programmable circuit (Yaseen: ¶13-14, ¶93-94, ¶97-98, ¶168-169 disclose a computing system may include at least one processor, as well as memory and program instructions and may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations) to at least:
obtain a first message from a large language model based on a return request provided by a consumer, the return request associated with a previously purchased product to be returned to an entity (Yaseen: ¶56-58, ¶104-107 disclose actions for the goal of “Return My Order” may include a user creating a ticket; Ghoche: ¶175, ¶221-230, ¶250-257 disclose Large language models (LLMs) can be used to aid in providing customer support and as an example consider an intent for “return request”);
cause transmission of the first message to the entity to request authorization of the return of the previously purchased product (Yaseen: ¶112-113, ¶131-136 disclose GUI 430 may enable the operator to provide a variety of metadata relating to each prompt and platform 602 may then transmit, to the enterprise instance third-party endpoint 604, the chat message as a string along with metadata that may include a verification token, a user's username, a name of the third-party application, and/or a name of a team to which the third-party application belongs, among other possible information; Ghoche: ¶185 disclose generative AI model is used to generate recommended template answer(s) to an administrator/supervisor);
obtain a second message from the large language model, the second message based on the first message and a first response, the first response from the entity in response to the first message (Yaseen: ¶42, ¶64-66, ¶106, ¶112-113 disclose the conversation model may be configured to look for a particular user input (e.g., a response to a prompt), and, in response to detecting the user input, the conversation model may responsively provide the user with a particular prompt or other information; Ghoche: ¶175, ¶221-230, ¶250-257 disclose Ask the customer to confirm order details);
cause transmission of the second message to the entity to continue the request to return the previously purchased product (Yaseen: ¶42, ¶64-66, ¶106, ¶112-113 disclose the conversation model may be configured to look for a particular user input (e.g., a response to a prompt), and, in response to detecting the user input, the conversation model may responsively provide the user with a particular prompt or other information; Ghoche: ¶175, ¶221-230, ¶250-257 disclose Ask the customer to confirm order details); and
cause communication of a resolution message to inform the consumer of the resolution of the request to return the previously purchased product (Yaseen: ¶44, ¶55, ¶122 disclose depending on the user's responses to the conversation model, the conversation model may invoke the assistance of a remote live human agent (e.g., a customer service representative of the enterprise) to complete the goal or service; Ghoche: ¶205-213 disclose initiating the API calls needed to resolve the ticket, confirming the API calls were acknowledged, and reporting to the customer that the necessary actions for the workflow has been taken (e.g., the ticket was changed, your refund has been issued, etc.)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the large language model, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “use the capabilities of a large language model to enhance the capabilities of the AI chatbot to act as an autonomous agent to solve customer tickets” (Ghoche: ¶221).
In regards to claim 3, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Ghoche further teaches wherein the resolution message includes an indication of a date by which a return activity is to occur (Ghoche: ¶205-213, ¶243-257).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the resolution message, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “enhance the capabilities of the AI chatbot to act as an autonomous agent to solve customer tickets” (Ghoche: ¶221).
In regards to claim 4, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Yaseen further teaches analyze a conversation log to determine whether an objective of the return request has been accomplished, the conversation log including the first message, the first response, the second message, and a second response; and generate the resolution message based on the conversation log (Yaseen: ¶44, ¶53-55, ¶109-112, ¶122).
In regards to claim 5, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 4. Yaseen and Ghoche further teach wherein the large language model is a first large language model, and to analyze the conversation log, at least one of the at least one programmable circuit is to obtain a third message from a second large language model based on the conversation log (Yaseen: ¶44, ¶53-55, ¶109-112, ¶122; Ghoche: ¶175, ¶221-230, ¶250-257).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the large language model analysis, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “use the capabilities of a large language model to enhance the capabilities of the AI chatbot to act as an autonomous agent to solve customer tickets” (Ghoche: ¶221).
In regards to claim 6, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 5. Ghoche further teaches wherein the first large language model is the same as the second large language model (Ghoche: ¶175, ¶221-230, ¶250-257).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the large language model, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “use the capabilities of a large language model to enhance the capabilities of the AI chatbot to act as an autonomous agent to solve customer tickets” (Ghoche: ¶221).
In regards to claim 7, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 4. Yaseen further teaches determine a level of success of completion of the objective of the return request, the level of success including at least one of partial success, divergent success, or complete success (Yaseen: ¶44, ¶53-55, ¶109-112, ¶122).
In regards to claim 10, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Ghoche further teaches access a plurality of statements from the entity to obtain the first response, a last one of the plurality of statements identified when a threshold amount of time has elapsed without receipt of a subsequent statement, the first response corresponding to a combination of the plurality of statements (Ghoche: ¶128, ¶157, ¶180-188).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the responses, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “reduce the labor required to automate generating an answer” (Ghoche: ¶179).
In regards to claim 11, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Ghoche further teaches analyze the first message to determine if the second message can be generated using a message template; and generate the second message with the message template (Ghoche: ¶128, ¶157, ¶180-185).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the message template, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “reduce the labor required to automate generating an answer” (Ghoche: ¶179).
In regards to claim 12, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11. Ghoche further teaches wherein the analysis of whether the second message can be generated using the message template is based on a list of patterns and corresponding message templates, the second message generated based on the message template corresponding to a pattern that matches the first response (Ghoche: ¶128, ¶157, ¶180-188).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the message template, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “reduce the labor required to automate generating an answer” (Ghoche: ¶179).
In regards to claim 13, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11. Ghoche further teaches wherein the large language model is a first large language model, and the instructions are to cause one or more of the programmable circuit to, after a determination that the second message cannot be generated using the message template: generate a second prompt based on the first response and the return request; and obtain the second message from the first large language model based on the second prompt (Ghoche: ¶128, ¶157, ¶180-188).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the message template, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “reduce the labor required to automate generating an answer” (Ghoche: ¶179).
In regards to claim 14, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Ghoche further teaches wherein the first message, the first response, the second message, and a second response are stored in a conversation log, and the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one programmable circuit to: analyze the conversation log to identify similar response messages and corresponding subsequent messages; generate a pattern representing similar response messages; generate a message template representing similar corresponding subsequent messages; and record the pattern and the message template (Ghoche: ¶80-81, ¶128, ¶157, ¶180-188).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the message template, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “reduce the labor required to automate generating an answer” (Ghoche: ¶179).
In regards to claim 15, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14. Ghoche further teaches wherein the conversation log includes conversations from other product return activities (Ghoche: ¶70-72, 80-81, ¶110, ¶128, ¶157, ¶180-188, ¶243, ¶250).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the conversation history, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “reduce the labor required to automate generating an answer” (Ghoche: ¶179).
In regards to claim 16, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15. Ghoche further teaches wherein to analyze the conversation log, the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one programmable circuit to filter the conversation log to conversations associated with the entity (Ghoche: ¶70-72, 80-81, ¶110, ¶128, ¶157-158, ¶180-188, ¶243, ¶250).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the conversation history, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “reduce the labor required to automate generating an answer” (Ghoche: ¶179).
In regards to claim 18, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Ghoche further teaches analyze an email communication from the entity to identify the previously purchased product (Ghoche: ¶92, ¶156, ¶198-203, ¶207, ¶215).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the conversation history, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “reduce the labor required to automate generating an answer” (Ghoche: ¶179).
In regards to claim 19, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1. Additionally, Yaseen further teaches An apparatus comprising: interface circuitry; machine-readable instructions; and at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions (Yaseen: ¶13-14, ¶93-94, ¶97-98, ¶168-169)… Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 1 applies to the rejection of claim 19.
In regards to claim 20, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the apparatus of claim 19. Ghoche further teaches access a purchase record of the previously purchased product from the entity; and generate a prompt based on the purchase record, the first message obtained based on the prompt (Ghoche: ¶243-257).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the purchase history, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “reduce the labor required to automate generating an answer” (Ghoche: ¶179).
In regards to claim 21, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the apparatus of claim 20. Ghoche further teaches identify a previous communication from the entity, and the prompt includes at least a portion of the previous communication (Ghoche: ¶70-72, 80-81, ¶110, ¶128, ¶157, ¶180-188, ¶243, ¶250).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the conversation history, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “reduce the labor required to automate generating an answer” (Ghoche: ¶179).
In regards to claim 22, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the apparatus of claim 21. Ghoche further teaches wherein the previous communication includes at least one of a policy, an answer to a frequently asked question, or an email message from the entity to the consumer (Ghoche: ¶70-72, 80-81, ¶110, ¶128, ¶157, ¶180-188, ¶232-250).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the conversation history, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “reduce the labor required to automate generating an answer” (Ghoche: ¶179).
In regards to claim 23, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the apparatus of claim 19. Yaseen further teaches wherein to transmit the first message to the entity, one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to enter the first message into a web browser (Yaseen: ¶99).
In regards to claim 24, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the apparatus of claim 19. Yaseen further teaches wherein to transmit the first message to the entity, one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to cause transmission of a communication using a web socket (Yaseen: ¶73-75, ¶99, ¶117).
In regards to claim 25, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the apparatus of claim 19. Yaseen further teaches wherein the return request is received via an interaction of the consumer with a mobile device (Yaseen: ¶46, ¶72, ¶138).
In regards to claim 26, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the apparatus of claim 19. Ghoche further teaches wherein the return request is received using a first natural language, and the first message is obtained in a second natural language different from the first natural language (Ghoche: ¶101).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the natural languages, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for “optimizations to be performed”, such as “be performed through multiple languages” (Ghoche: ¶101).
In regards to claim 27, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the apparatus of claim 19. Ghoche further teaches wherein the large language model is implemented at large language model circuitry that is separate from the apparatus (Ghoche: ¶175, ¶221-230, ¶250-257).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the large language model, as taught by Ghoche, into the system and method of Yaseen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “use the capabilities of a large language model to enhance the capabilities of the AI chatbot to act as an autonomous agent to solve customer tickets” (Ghoche: ¶221).
Claim(s) 2, 8, 9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaseen (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180341396), in view of Ghoche (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20240386213), in further view of Burris (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220230135).
In regards to claim 2, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Although the references teach resolving the consumers request, the references do not explicitly state instructing the consumer to deliver the product to a location.
However, Burris teaches wherein the resolution message is to instruct the consumer to deliver the previously purchased product to a location (Burris: ¶30-34).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the customer instructions, as taught by Burris, into the system and method of Yaseen and Ghoche. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide a complete 360-degree approach to an item return process that is data driven and customized for any given retailer” (Burris: ¶13).
In regards to claim 8, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 4. Although the references teach resolving the consumers request, the references do not explicitly state recording next tasks.
However, Burris teaches after the determination that the objective of the return request has been accomplished: record a consumer next task for resolution of the return of the previously purchased product; record an entity next task for resolution of the return of the previously purchased product (Burris: ¶23-25, ¶30-35, ¶65-66, ¶90, ¶95).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the customer and staff instructions, as taught by Burris, into the system and method of Yaseen and Ghoche. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide a complete 360-degree approach to an item return process that is data driven and customized for any given retailer” (Burris: ¶13).
In regards to claim 9, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8. Although the references teach resolving the consumers request, the references do not explicitly state instructing the consumer to ship the product.
However, Burris teaches wherein the consumer next task includes shipping the previously purchased product to a destination (Burris: ¶23-25, ¶30-35, ¶65-66, ¶90, ¶95).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the customer instructions, as taught by Burris, into the system and method of Yaseen and Ghoche. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide a complete 360-degree approach to an item return process that is data driven and customized for any given retailer” (Burris: ¶13).
In regards to claim 17, Yaseen and Ghoche teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Although the references teach resolving the consumers return request, the references do not explicitly state identifying the return product via an receipt image analysis.
However, Burris teaches analyze an image of a receipt captured to identify the previously purchased product (Burris: ¶40-42).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the receipt analysis, as taught by Burris, into the system and method of Yaseen and Ghoche. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “collect a variety of information about the item being returned and the customer” (Burris: ¶40).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE S MURRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628