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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on //2026, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-17, and 19-20 have been amended. No Claim has been cancelled. No Claim has been added. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
The double patenting rejections are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, and 15, and the dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments directed to amended limitation have been addressed in the detail rejection below with new reference by Olivieri et al.
The arguments regarding dependent claims for the virtue of their dependency are moot because the independent claims are not allowable.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: limitation “a user of the first participant” appears to be a typo of “a user of the first participant device”. 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 § 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 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 7-11, and 15 of co-pending Application No. 18/634,611 (reference application). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Table: 1
Mapping of contending claims in the co-pending application that contains double patenting issues.
Current Application (18/634,602)
Co-pending Application (18/634,611)
1
1
2
2
3
5
5
7
6
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
15
15
Table: 2
Current Application (18/634,602)
Co-pending Application (18/634,611)
Claim 1, A method, comprising:
obtaining, by generative artificial intelligence software during a video conference, input associated with a participant of the video conference;
generating, by the generative artificial intelligence software, a virtual background image for the participant based on the input; and
outputting the virtual background image for use within a video stream of the participant during the video conference.
Claim 1, A method, comprising:
obtaining, by generative artificial intelligence software, input associated with a video conference;
generating, by the generative artificial intelligence software, a virtual background image based on the input; and
outputting the virtual background image for use within multiple participant video streams during the video conference.
Claim 1 is rejected for obviousness type double patenting over claim 1 of the co-pending application for having similar limitations as described in Table 2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the inventions is the same. Claim 1 of current application is an obvious variant and anticipated by claim 1 of the co-pending application 18/634,611.
The same logic applies to Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-11, and 15. They are rejected for obviousness type double patenting under claims 2, 5, 7-11, and 15 of the co-pending application 18/634,611.
Claims 1, 11, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 15 of co-pending Application No. 18/634,606 (reference application) in view of Olivieri. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Table: 3
Mapping of contending claims in the co-pending application that contains double patenting issues.
Current Application (18/634,602)
Co-pending Application (18/634,606) in view of Olivieri
1
1
11
11
15
15
Table: 4
Current Application (18/634,602)
Co-pending Application (18/634,606) in view of Olivieri
Claim 1, A method, comprising:
obtaining, by generative artificial intelligence software during a video conference to which a first participant device and a second participant device are connected, input associated
with the first participant device;
generating, by the generative artificial intelligence software, a virtual background image for the participant based on the input; and
asserting the virtual background image against only the first participant device to cause a video stream of the first participant device to use the virtual background image during the video conference
while a video stream of the second participant device uses a background other than the virtual background image.
Claim 1, A method, comprising:
determining, by generative artificial intelligence software evaluating content of a video conference, one or more key points related to the video conference;
updating, by the generative artificial intelligence software, a virtual background image of a participant of the video conference to include one or more visual elements representing the one or more key points; and
outputting the updated virtual background image for use within a video stream of the participant during the video conference.
Olivieri: ¶158 reciting “At 1020, the one or more processors of 1018 generate a plurality of virtual backgrounds as a function of the contextual information for each videoconference feed received from the plurality if conferencing system terminal devices, wherein each virtual background is different from each other virtual background.”
Claim 1 is rejected for obviousness type double patenting over claim 1 of the co-pending application in view of Olivieri for having similar limitations as described in Table 4. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the inventions is the same. Claim 1 of current application is an obvious variant and anticipated by claim 1 of the co-pending application 18/634,606 in view of Olivieri.
The same logic applies to Claims 11 and 15. They are rejected for obviousness type double patenting under claims 11 and 15 of the co-pending application 18/634,606 in view of Olivieri.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-6, 8-9, 11-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kare et al. (US 20240056322 A1), and in view of Olivieri et al. (US 20230117301 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kare discloses A method (ABST reciting “Methods and systems disclosed herein describe generating virtual backgrounds for video communications. . . The virtual background generator may analyze the context of calendar invites and/or scheduled meetings to generate one or more virtual backgrounds for a video conference” ¶57), comprising:
obtaining, by generative artificial intelligence software during a video conference to which a first participant device and a second participant device are connected, input associated with the first participant device; ( FIG. 6 shows a flow chart of a process for updating a background during a meeting. Fig. 6, step 610. ¶58 reciting “In step 610, a computing device may receive one or more streams of data from one or more devices attending the meeting.” Further, ¶62 reciting “The machine learning model may analyze the inputs using a generative adversarial network, a bidirectional generative adversarial network, an adversarial autoencoder, or an equivalent thereof.” Fig. 1 showing a first user device 110 and a second user device 120 are connected to a video conference 132)
generating, by the generative artificial intelligence software, a virtual background image for the first participant device based on the input; (Fig. 6, step 650. ¶63 reciting “In step 650, the computing device, using the machine learning model, may use the word embeddings to generate a second background . . . In one example, a user's gesture may cause the generated second background to show a first object from the first background displayed in a different location in the second background.”) and
asserting the virtual background image against the first participant device to cause a video stream of the first participant device to use the virtual background image during the video conference. (Fig. 6, step 660. ¶64 reciting “In step 660, the computing device causes the second background to be displayed in place of the first background.”)
However, Kare does not explicitly disclose asserting the virtual background image against only the first participant device while a video stream of the second participant device uses a background other than the virtual background image.
Olivieri teaches “electronic devices capable of providing video conferencing features.” (¶1). Fig. 1 shows an explanatory conferencing system including multiple participant devices. More specifically, ¶158 recites “At 1019, one or more processors of 1018 generate the virtual background in real time as a videoconference associated with the video conferencing content is occurring. At 1020, the one or more processors of 1018 generate a plurality of virtual backgrounds as a function of the contextual information for each videoconference feed received from the plurality if conferencing system terminal devices, wherein each virtual background is different from each other virtual background.” In other words, Olivieri teaches generating a virtual background image based on contextual information for each participant device, wherein each virtual background is different from each other virtual background.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method (taught by Han) to obtain the size of the second state according to the switch process of the foldable display screen switching from the folded state to the unfolded state (taught by Yu). The suggestions/motivations would have been to “improve visual experience of a user” (¶9), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the input associated with the first participant device comprises:
determining, using a real-time transcription of the video conference, the input based on a conversational context of the video conference. (Kare, ¶60 reciting “The analysis of the one or more streams may comprise transcribing an audio stream. Transcribing the audio stream may include using a speech-to-text algorithm.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The method of claim 1, wherein generating the virtual background image for the first participant device based on the input comprises:
generating the virtual background image according to one or more contextual preferences that identify types of inputs. (Kare, ¶27 reciting “User-preferences may include information about the user's role, prior feedback ratings for generated backgrounds”; further, ¶50 reciting “The feedback score may represent a relevance of the one or more generated backgrounds for the video conference. The feedback score may be used to retrain the machine learning model.” ¶63 disclosing generating the virtual background image using the machine learning model, and thus according to the user preferences)
Regarding Claim 4, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The method of claim 1, wherein generating the virtual background image for the first participant device based on the input comprises:
generating multiple candidate virtual background images based on the input, (Kare, ¶67 reciting “generating, by the computing device and using the machine learning model, one or more backgrounds for the first meeting based on the set of word embeddings;”) and
wherein asserting the virtual background image against one the first participant device comprises:
enabling a selection, at the first participant device, of one of the multiple candidate virtual background images as the virtual background image.
(Kare, ¶73 reciting “sending, by the computing device and to a client device, a request for a selection from the one or more backgrounds; and receiving, by the computing device and from the client device, a selection of the first background, wherein the first background is displayed based on the selection.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The method of claim 1, wherein asserting the virtual background image against only the first participant device comprises:
asserting the virtual background image as a virtual background of the first participant device independent of manual user action. (Kare, ¶58 reciting “An example of an initial background is shown in FIG. 7A. The initial background may display a name of the meeting. As shown in FIG. 7A, the name of the meeting is “Quarterly Planning Meeting.” Additionally or alternatively, the initial background may display agenda items to be discussed or being discussed. As shown in FIG. 7A, two agenda items may be displayed (e.g., “Introductions,” “Set Goals for Upcoming Quarter”). It will be appreciated that the two agenda items are merely illustrative and that more, or less, information may be displayed. For example, the entire agenda may be displayed in the initial background. As the agenda items are discussed, bullet points may be changed to check marks to illustrate that those agenda items have been discussed.”)
Regarding Claim 6, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The method of claim 1, comprising:
enabling one of a user of the first participant device or a host of the video conference to select the virtual background image for use within the video stream of the first participant device. (Kare, ¶49 reciting “In step 360, the computing device may cause a first background, of the one or more backgrounds, to be displayed during the video conference. Causing the first background to be displayed may include transmitting (sending) the one or more backgrounds to one or more user devices associated with the meeting attendees. In response to transmitting the one or more backgrounds, the computing device may receive a selection of the first background from a first user device.”)
Regarding Claim 8, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The method of claim 1, comprising:
obtaining, by the generative artificial intelligence software during the video conference after the virtual background image is asserted against of the first participant device, second input; (Kare, FIG. 6 shows a flow chart of a process for updating a background during a meeting. ¶58 reciting “In step 610, a computing device may receive one or more streams of data from one or more devices attending the meeting. The meeting may be in progress and an initial background may have been selected, for example, using the techniques described above with respect to FIGS. 3 and 5.”)
generating, by the generative artificial intelligence software, a second virtual background image for the first participant device based on the second input; and
asserting the second virtual background image against the first participant device to replace the virtual background image within the video stream of the first participant device.
(Kare, ¶63 reciting “In step 650, the computing device, using the machine learning model, may use the word embeddings to generate a second background to update a first background currently being displayed during the virtual meeting.”)
Regarding Claim 9, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the input corresponds to a text or speech prompt obtained from the first participant device or the second participant device. (Kare, ¶59 reciting “The one or streams may comprise at least one of an audio stream, a video stream, or a text data stream”)
Claim 11, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 1. (Kare, ¶31 reciting “Software may be stored within memory 215 to provide instructions to processor 203 allowing computing device 200 to perform various actions”; further, ¶33 reciting “”Processor(s) 203 and associated components may allow the computing device 200 to execute a series of computer-readable instructions to perform some or all of the processes described herein.)
Regarding Claim 12, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the input corresponds to one or more of a location of the first participant device, a mood of the video conference, speech from one or more participants of the video conference, or content shared to the video conference from one of the first participant device or the second participant device. (Kare, ¶60 disclosing speech or shared text chat as input, and reciting “The analysis of the one or more streams may comprise transcribing an audio stream. Transcribing the audio stream may include using a speech-to-text algorithm. . . .. In another example, the analysis of the one or more streams may comprise using natural language processing on a text data stream from a text chat associated with the virtual meeting. It will be appreciated that different types of streams may be analyzed concurrently (simultaneously) to determine the topics being discussed during the meeting.”)
Regarding Claim 13, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the virtual background image is one of multiple candidate virtual background images generated by the generative artificial intelligence software for selection by a user of the first participant device or a host of the video conference. (Kare, ¶49 reciting “In step 360, the computing device may cause a first background, of the one or more backgrounds, to be displayed during the video conference. Causing the first background to be displayed may include transmitting (sending) the one or more backgrounds to one or more user devices associated with the meeting attendees. In response to transmitting the one or more backgrounds, the computing device may receive a selection of the first background from a first user device.”)
Regarding Claim 15, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses A system, comprising:
a memory subsystem; and
processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory subsystem to: (Kare, ¶75 reciting “A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer device to:”)
(See claim 1 rejections for detailed analysis)
Regarding Claim 16, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the input corresponds to speech of a user of the first participant and, to obtain the input, the processing circuitry is configured to execute the instructions to: obtain the speech using a transcription of the video conference. (Kare, ¶60 reciting “The analysis of the one or more streams may comprise transcribing an audio stream. Transcribing the audio stream may include using a speech-to-text algorithm.”)
Regarding Claim 17, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the virtual background image is generated according to one or more contextual preferences defined by a user of the participant device prior to or during the video conference. (Kare, ¶27 reciting “User-preferences may include information about the user's role, prior feedback ratings for generated backgrounds”; further, ¶50 reciting “The feedback score may represent a relevance of the one or more generated backgrounds for the video conference. The feedback score may be used to retrain the machine learning model.” ¶63 disclosing generating the virtual background image using the machine learning model, and thus according to the user preferences)
Regarding Claim 18, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the virtual background image is selected from amongst multiple candidate virtual background images generated during the video conference based on the input. (Kare, ¶49 reciting “In step 360, the computing device may cause a first background, of the one or more backgrounds, to be displayed during the video conference. Causing the first background to be displayed may include transmitting (sending) the one or more backgrounds to one or more user devices associated with the meeting attendees. In response to transmitting the one or more backgrounds, the computing device may receive a selection of the first background from a first user device.”)
Regarding Claim 19, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the virtual background image is replaced within the video stream of the first participant device during the video conference with a second virtual background image generated during the video conference. (Kare, FIG. 6 shows a flow chart of a process for updating a background during a meeting. ¶58 reciting “In step 610, a computing device may receive one or more streams of data from one or more devices attending the meeting. The meeting may be in progress and an initial background may have been selected, for example, using the techniques described above with respect to FIGS. 3 and 5.” ¶63 reciting “In step 650, the computing device, using the machine learning model, may use the word embeddings to generate a second background to update a first background currently being displayed during the virtual meeting.”)
Regarding Claim 20, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the instructions to:
update the generative artificial intelligence software based on feedback, obtained from the participant device, representing participant satisfaction for the virtual background image. (Kare, ¶50 reciting “After generating the one or more virtual backgrounds, the computing device may send a request for feedback to the one or more client devices. In response to the request, the computing device may receive a feedback score from one or more users. The feedback score may represent a relevance of the one or more generated backgrounds for the video conference. The feedback score may be used to retrain the machine learning model.”)
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) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kare in view of Olivieri, and in view of Gal et al. (US 20230085162 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The method of claim 1.
However, Kare in view of Olivieri does not explicitly disclose storing the virtual background image within a data store for use with one or more future video conferences.
Gal teaches “Methods and systems provide spatialized locations and groupings of chat participants within a messaging platform.” (ABST). More specifically, Gal recites “The optional repositories function to store and/or maintain, respectively, . . .; and virtual backgrounds to be used within chat sessions.” (¶32). Further, ¶80 recites “The virtual background may be, e.g., prespecified from an earlier section with some or all of the participants, may be prespecified in advance when an administrator, host, or other participant with managing permissions created the chat session, may be prespecified dynamically by the system based on context about the meeting and/or the participants, or may be prespecified as a default selection in the absence of other selections.”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method (taught by Kare in view of Olivieri) to save the virtual background image for use with future sessions (taught by Gal). The suggestions/motivations would have been to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 14, Kare in view of Olivieri and Gal discloses The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the virtual background image is saved to the first participant device as a default virtual background for the first participant device. (Gal, ¶80 reciting “The virtual background may be, e.g., prespecified from an earlier section with some or all of the participants, may be prespecified in advance when an administrator, host, or other participant with managing permissions created the chat session, may be prespecified dynamically by the system based on context about the meeting and/or the participants, or may be prespecified as a default selection in the absence of other selections.” The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 7 rejections.)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kare in view of Olivieri, and in view of Villavicencio et al. (US 20250211704 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kare in view of Olivieri discloses The method of claim 1.
Kare discloses “Server 130 may be any server capable of executing video conferencing application 132. . . , server 130 may be a . . . cloud-computer environment.” (¶25). However, Kare does not explicitly disclose wherein the video conference is implemented by a unified communications as a service software platform.
Villavicencio teaches “Systems and methods for optimal placement of overlay in video conferences” (ABST). More specifically, Villavicencio recites “In modern implementations, a remote meeting may employ several different technologies, including Unified Communication (UC) applications and services (e.g., ZOOM, TEAMS, SKYPE, FACETIME, etc.), . . ., to enable the exchange of streams of text messages, voice, video, and/or other electronic data (e.g., files, documents, etc.) in real-time among remote users in dispersed locations.” (¶38).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the video conference by a unified communications as a service platform, such as ZOOM, TEAMS, SKYPE, FACETIME, etc. (taught by Villavicencio) in the device (taught by Kare in view of Olivieri). The suggestions/motivations would have been “to enable the exchange of streams of text messages, voice, video, and/or other electronic data (e.g., files, documents, etc.) in real-time among remote users in dispersed locations.” (¶38), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6022. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 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, Jason Chan can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/YI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights