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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Krishnan: 20220093094 hereinafter Kri.
Regarding claim 1
Kri teaches:
A computer-implemented method executed on data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware (Kri: Abstract; Fig 23, 24; Fig 1C: an audio data system for processing dialog using devices operative of processors based on instructions instantiated from memory) to perform operations comprising:
outputting, from an assistant-enabled device, a first text-to-speech (TTS) utterance generated from a first output transcription comprising a sequence of terms (Kri: ¶ 58, 362; Fig 1C, 13: system performs TTS generation of output comprising sequences of entries suitable to generate an audible output comprising a sequence of terms);
while outputting the first TTS utterance from the assistant-enabled device for each respective term of the sequence of terms, determining a corresponding playback status of the respective term, wherein the corresponding playback status indicates whether the respective term has been audibly output from the assistant-enabled device as synthesized speech (Kri: ¶ 357-359, 365-376, 385: system tracks timing of each term in the TTS output along time ranges effectively indicating, determining, etc. a set of terms which have been playback and a particular playback time for each such as for determining which term was being played back during a user barge inl the system thus maintains a subset set of terms in the TTS set which have been played and a subset of terms which have not);
receiving a barge-in utterance spoken by a user (Kri: ¶ 58, 357, 385: while engaged in playback of the generated TTS system detects occurrences of users speech input during the playback such as a barge in utterance); and
identifying, based on the corresponding playback status of each respective term of the sequence of terms, a subset of terms audibly output as synthesized speech from the assistant- enabled device before the user spoke the barge-in utterance (Kri: ¶ 358, 364: Fig 13: system uses offset time data to determine the portion of the TTS played before the user barge in);
determining, based on the identified subset of terms, a context of the barge-in utterance, wherein the barge-in utterance refers to, without explicitly identifying, one of multiple possible options conveyed in the first TTS utterance (Kri: ¶ 358-363, 384-387; Fig 13, 14: system detects a barge in anaphoric reference to particular choices presented as a TTS output to a user, such as “that one,” and based on maintenance of offset time data disambiguates the anaphor and separates the terms in the TTS set into terms which have and have not been played);
determining, based on the identified subset of terms and the context, a second output transcription responsive to the barge-in utterance spoken by the user wherein determining the second output transcription comprises disambiguating which of the multiple possible options the barge-in utterance refers to based on the context; (Kri: ¶ 41, 59, 77, 358-363, 384-389; Fig 13, 14: system resolves specific entity, TTS item, etc. corresponding to the users barge in anaphoric reference based on the TTS transcript, list, etc. and the offset time of the barge in from which an action selector, natural language generator selects and generates text for output to a user such as using TTS),
and
outputting, from the assistant-enabled device, a second TTS utterance generated from the second output transcription (Kri: ¶ 74, 337, 398: a user barge in resolves a match in the list of TTS terms being output from said match the system determines an appropriate response which is sent to a TTS component for output to a user). Thus the only portion of the claim not explicitly discussed with respect to the single embodiment of figures 13, 14 as discussed supra is the generation of the “second TTS utterance” from the “second output transcription.” This is considered supplied based on the generalized dialog architecture of Kri (Kri: ¶ 74-77, 337) and the underlying dialog flow resultant therein such as depicted in Figs 15E, 15F.
Regarding claim 2
Kri teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an initial utterance spoken by the user; and determining the first output transcription based on the initial utterance (Kri: .¶ 58, 362, etc.; Fig 15E, 15F: first TTS response generated based on a user request).
Regarding claim 3
Kri teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprising determining the first output transcription without receiving an initial utterance spoken by the user (Kri: ¶ 39, 330: system additionally behaves in a proactive manner to interject without prompting by a user, such as in response to external events, sensors, etc.).
Regarding claim 5
Kri teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein, while outputting the first TTS utterance from the assistant-enabled device, the operations further comprise: identifying, based on the corresponding playback status of each respective term of the of the sequence of terms, a second subset terms from the sequence of terms not audibly output by the assistant-enabled device as synthesized speech before the user spoke the barge-in utterance; and in response to receiving the barge-in utterance, terminating output of the second subset of terms (Kri: ¶ 350, 358-363, 366-376, 384-387; Fig 13, 14, 15F: system identifies unplayed subject matter with respect to the occurrence of a user barge in and terminates output thereof based on the barge in).
Regarding claim 6
Kri teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein, while outputting the first TTS utterance from the assistant-enabled device, the operations further comprise: wherein receiving the barge-in utterance spoken by the user occurs: after the assistant-enabled device begins audibly outputting the first TTS utterance as synthesized speech; and before the assistant-enabled device finishes audibly outputting the first TTS utterance as synthesized speech (Kri: ¶ 58, 350, 358-363, 366-376, 384-387; Fig 13, 14, 15F: system identifies unplayed subject matter with respect to the occurrence of a user barge in maintaining a subset of played and unplayed terms with respect to the timing of the barge in).
Regarding claim 7
Kri teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on the subset of terms, a context of the barge-in utterance, wherein determining the second output transcription is further based on the context of the barge-in utterance (Kri: ¶ 58, 77, 350, 358-363, 366-376, 384-387; Fig 13, 14, 15F: such as by determining a particular item in the TTS referenced by an anaphoric utterance of the barge in).
Regarding claim 8
Kri teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: assigning a corresponding playback timestamp to each respective term of the sequence of terms as the respective term is audibly output from the assistant-enabled device as synthesized speech; and determining a barge-in timestamp of the barge-in utterance as the assistant-enabled device receives the barge-in utterance (Kri: ¶ 58, 77, 356, 357, 364-376, 384-387; Fig 13, 14, 15F: such as by determining a particular timing, offset, etc. of the barge in with respect to the TTS output such as to determine an item in the TTS output referenced by an anaphoric utterance of the barge in).
Regarding claim 9
Kri teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the subset of terms is further based on the corresponding playback timestamp of each respective term of the sequence of terms and the barge-in timestamp (id.).
Regarding claim 10
Kri teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the barge-in utterance comprises a hotword-free utterance (Kri: ¶ 45, 53, 109, 362; Fig 13, 15f such as by disabling a wake-word, not requiring a wake word or other command from the barge in utterance, etc., such as “that one sounds good,”).
Regarding claim 11—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 13—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 17—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 19—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 9 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 10 and is similarly rejected.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan: 20220093094 hereinafter Kri further in view of Torok: 20140180697 hereinafter Tor and further in view of Selfridge: “Continuously Predicting and Processing Barge-in During a Live Spoken Dialogue Task,” (copy provided by Examiner, copyright 2013 and hereinafter Sel).
Regarding claim 1
Kri teaches:
A computer-implemented method executed on data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware (Kri: Abstract; Fig 23, 24; Fig 1C: an audio data system for processing dialog using devices operative of processors based on instructions instantiated from memory) to perform operations comprising:
outputting, from an assistant-enabled device, a first text-to-speech (TTS) utterance generated from a first output transcription comprising a sequence of terms (Kri: ¶ 58, 362; Fig 1C, 13: system performs TTS generation of output comprising sequences of entries suitable to generate an audible output comprising a sequence of terms);
while outputting the first TTS utterance from the assistant-enabled device for each respective term of the sequence of terms, determining a corresponding playback status of the respective term, wherein the corresponding playback status indicates whether the respective term has been audibly output from the assistant-enabled device as synthesized speech (Kri: ¶ 357-359, 365-376, 385: system tracks timing of each term in the TTS output along time ranges effectively indicating, determining, etc. a set of terms which have been playback and a particular playback time for each such as for determining which term was being played back during a user barge in the system thus maintains a subset set of terms in the TTS set which have been played and a subset of terms which have not);
receiving a barge-in utterance spoken by a user (Kri: ¶ 58, 357, 385: while engaged in playback of the generated TTS system detects occurrences of users speech input during the playback such as a barge in utterance); and
identifying, based on the corresponding playback status of each respective term of the sequence of terms, a subset of terms audibly output as synthesized speech from the assistant- enabled device before the user spoke the barge-in utterance (Kri: ¶ 358, 364: Fig 13: system uses offset time data to determine the portion of the TTS played before the user barge in);
determining, based on the identified subset of terms, a context of the barge-in utterance, wherein the barge-in utterance refers to, without explicitly identifying, one of multiple possible options conveyed in the first TTS utterance (Kri: ¶ 358-363, 384-387; Fig 13, 14: system detects a barge in anaphoric reference to particular choices presented as a TTS output to a user, such as “that one,” and based on maintenance of offset time data disambiguates the anaphor and separates the terms in the TTS set into terms which have and have not been played);
determining, based on the identified subset of terms and the context, a second output transcription responsive to the barge-in utterance spoken by the user wherein determining the second output transcription comprises disambiguating which of the multiple possible options the barge-in utterance refers to based on the context; (Kri: ¶ 41, 59, 77, 358-363, 384-389; Fig 13, 14: system resolves specific entity, TTS item, etc. corresponding to the users barge in anaphoric reference based on the TTS transcript, list, etc. and the offset time of the barge in from which an action selector, natural language generator selects and generates text for output to a user such as using TTS),
and
outputting, from the assistant-enabled device, a second TTS utterance generated from the second output transcription (Kri: ¶ 74, 337, 398: a user barge in resolves a match in the list of TTS terms being output from said match the system determines an appropriate response which is sent to a TTS component for output to a user).
It may be that Kri does not explicitly teach the broadest reasonable construal of the claimed “corresponding playback status of the respective term,” in a manner sufficient for “identifying a subset of terms audibly output,” as Kri reasonably but arguably addresses this subject matter but not in a strict “term-wise” manner as a per term recorded value rather than one derived from comparison sufficient to generate an enumerated subset rather than merely transcript position boundaries and resulting in a word level sequence of terms output/yet to be output such as within a running TTS transcript such as by utilizing a sequence of terms for the first TTS utterance from wherein the system determines playback status for each term of the sequence of terms.
In a related field of endeavor Tor teaches a system and method for generating a TTS presentation of a user text for audible presentation to a user (Tor: Abstract; ¶ 28, etc.; Fig 1: system generates a TTS presentation of a set of user tasks); comprising a sequence of terms, elements, etc. with corresponding indicators (Tor: ¶ 20-24, 28, 48; system generates text for audio presentation based on a user request and further generates data regarding the output of the presentation such as beginning and end points for items in the set of tasks);
such that for the sequence of terms, the system operates for determining a corresponding playback status of the respective term, wherein the corresponding playback status indicates whether the respective term has been audibly output from the assistant-enabled device as synthesized speech(Tor: ¶ 12, 20-24, 28, 31, 62: while audibly outputting the system maintains an identifier tracking the element of the presentation currently being output “As each element is presented and an identifier is encountered, the identifier may be stored such that the identifier may be transmitted to the speech service,” wherein the identifier is stored temporarily “until an utterance is received or another identifier is encountered,” such that during or subsequent to output of audio the system remains operative to receive user voice input, such as a barge-in or response input to the output audio by determining markers for particular portions of the output audio to which the user response input refers such as in concert with a last received marker indicating an element which was presented during or prior to the user voice input;) and thereby identifying, based on the corresponding playback status of each respective term of the sequence of terms, a subset of terms audibly output as synthesized speech from the assistant- enabled device before the user spoke the barge-in utterance (Tor: 20-24, 33, 45, 52, 57: system identifies already output terms based on stored per portion status records indicating prior presentation and thereby constructs a subset(s) from the per term output status and utilizes the subset(s) to condition the disambiguation of an anaphoric user bare in utterance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to improve the Kri system and method to include tracking identifiers of per item playback states as taught or suggested by Tor for at least the purpose of flagging particular output words, phrases, sentences, etc. of a voice output to a user such as for maintaining the option to return to an appropriate place in a barged in upon output after responding appropriately to an anaphoric user barge in; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Kri in view of Tor does not explicitly discuss maintaining “a first output transcription comprising a sequence of terms,” sufficient for determining a corresponding playback status “for each respective term of the sequence of terms.”
In a related field of endeavor Sel teaches a system and method for predicting and processing user barge in utterances (Sel: Abstract) wherein the operative units of a running TTS prompt are individual words of a word sequence to be output identified by word boundaries (Sel: § 3, 3.2 Fig 1, 2: system determines percentage of playout of a prompt by finding the word closes to but not beyond a barge in utterance of a user based on word boundaries, alignments, etc. determined with respect to the utterance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adopt the boundary segmentation of a prompt as taught or suggested by Sel to thereby improve the granularity at which the Kri in view of Tor per term status and played/unplayed subsets are maintained for at least the purpose of extending the contextual capabilities of anaphora disambiguation beyond selection from merely an enumerated list or group of items to determination of options from the terms, words, etc. of a routine utterance; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Kri in view of Tor in view of Sel teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an initial utterance spoken by the user; and determining the first output transcription based on the initial utterance (Kri: .¶ 58, 362, etc.; Fig 15E, 15F: first TTS response generated based on a user request); (Tor: ¶ 18, 28, 48; system generates text for audio presentation based on a user request and further generates data regarding the output of the presentation such as beginning and end points for items in the set of tasks). The claim is considered obvious over Kri as modified by Tor, and Sel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Kri, Tor, and/or Sel to the modified device of Kri, Tor, and Sel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Kri in view of Tor in view of Sel teaches teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprising determining the first output transcription without receiving an initial utterance spoken by the user (Kri: ¶ 39, 330: system additionally behaves in a proactive manner to interject without prompting by a user, such as in response to external events, sensors, etc.); (Tor: ¶ 60: content provided without a spoken user request such as generative of a first output transcription). The claim is considered obvious over Kri as modified by Tor, and Sel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Kri, Tor, and/or Sel to the modified device of Kri, Tor, and Sel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Kri in view of Tor in view of Sel teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein, while outputting the first TTS utterance from the assistant-enabled device, the operations further comprise: identifying, based on the corresponding playback status of each respective term of the of the sequence of terms, a second subset terms from the sequence of terms not audibly output by the assistant-enabled device as synthesized speech before the user spoke the barge-in utterance; and in response to receiving the barge-in utterance, terminating output of the second subset of terms (Kri: ¶ 350, 358-363, 366-376, 384-387; Fig 13, 14, 15F: system identifies unplayed subject matter with respect to the occurrence of a user barge in and terminates output thereof based on the barge in); (Tor: ¶ 7, 52), etc.); (Sel: § 3.2; Fig 1, 2). The claim is considered obvious over Kri as modified by Tor, and Sel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Kri, Tor, and/or Sel to the modified device of Kri, Tor, and Sel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Kri in view of Tor in view of Sel teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein, while outputting the first TTS utterance from the assistant-enabled device, the operations further comprise: wherein receiving the barge-in utterance spoken by the user occurs: after the assistant-enabled device begins audibly outputting the first TTS utterance as synthesized speech; and before the assistant-enabled device finishes audibly outputting the first TTS utterance as synthesized speech (Kri: ¶ 58, 350, 358-363, 366-376, 384-387; Fig 13, 14, 15F: system identifies unplayed subject matter with respect to the occurrence of a user barge in maintaining a subset of played and unplayed terms with respect to the timing of the barge in); (Tor: ¶ 20-24: barge in received during TTS output but before completion thereof); (Sel: § 3.2; Fig 1, 2). The claim is considered obvious over Kri as modified by Tor, and Sel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Kri, Tor, and/or Sel to the modified device of Kri, Tor, and Sel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Kri in view of Tor in view of Sel teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on the subset of terms, a context of the barge-in utterance, wherein determining the second output transcription is further based on the context of the barge-in utterance (Kri: ¶ 58, 77, 350, 358-363, 366-376, 384-387; Fig 13, 14, 15F: such as by determining a particular item in the TTS referenced by an anaphoric utterance of the barge in); (Tor: ¶ 28, 41, 45, 48; system determines intent of the user voice input and responds by executing a particular application, generating a relevant response, etc. such as by generating text for audio presentation based on a user request, intent thereof and with respect to data regarding an output of the system with respect to the user voice input such as by maintaining beginning and end points for items in the system output). The claim is considered obvious over Kri as modified by Tor, and Sel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Kri, Tor, and/or Sel to the modified device of Kri, Tor, and Sel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Kri in view of Tor in view of Sel teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: assigning a corresponding playback timestamp to each respective term of the sequence of terms as the respective term is audibly output from the assistant-enabled device as synthesized speech; and determining a barge-in timestamp of the barge-in utterance as the assistant-enabled device receives the barge-in utterance (Kri: ¶ 58, 77, 356, 357, 364-376, 384-387; Fig 13, 14, 15F: such as by determining a particular timing, offset, etc. of the barge in with respect to the TTS output such as to determine an item in the TTS output referenced by an anaphoric utterance of the barge in). The claim is considered obvious over Kri as modified by Tor, and Sel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Kri, Tor, and/or Sel to the modified device of Kri, Tor, and Sel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Kri in view of Tor in view of Sel teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein identifying the subset of terms is further based on the corresponding playback timestamp of each respective term of the sequence of terms and the barge-in timestamp. Please see claim 1, 8 supra and additionally: Kri: ¶ 58, 77, 356, 357, 364-376, 384-387; Fig 13, 14, 15F; Tor: ¶ 28, 41, 45, 48; Tor: ¶ 20-24, 52; Sel: § 3.2; Fig 1, 2). The claim is considered obvious over Kri as modified by Tor, and Sel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Kri, Tor, and/or Sel to the modified device of Kri, Tor, and Sel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Kri in view of Tor in view of Sel teaches or suggests:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the barge-in utterance comprises a hotword-free utterance (Kri: ¶ 45, 53, 109, 362; Fig 13, 15f such as by disabling a wake-word, not requiring a wake word or other command from the barge in utterance, etc., such as “that one sounds good,”); (Tor: 20-24, 43); (Sel: § 2.2; Fig 1, 2). The claim is considered obvious over Kri as modified by Tor, and Sel as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Kri, Tor, and/or Sel to the modified device of Kri, Tor, and Sel; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 13—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 17—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 19—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 9 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 10 and is similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in concert with claim amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 4/21/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 under 35 USC 103 over Pi in view of Kulis in view of Torok have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Krishnan, Torok, and Selfridge.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights