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
This action is in response to the application filed on 01/23/2026.
Claims 1, 3-17, 19-23 are pending.
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 1, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a system claim under Step 1.
However, the limitations to “adding, to a visual programming region of an interface, a first event building block corresponding to a virtual object in response to selection of the first event building block from an event building block set, the first event building block including a first begin block and a first end block; unfolding the first event building block in response to detecting an unfolding instruction, and wherein the first begin block and the first end block are arranged vertically at different vertical positions, and a position to which a first function building block is to be added is arranged between the first begin block and the first end block; and adding, in response to detecting a selection of the first function building block, the first function building block corresponding to the virtual object to the visual programming region based on the position” , as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements. The “interface” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. The additional elements “displaying the first event building block in the visual programming region in a folded state, wherein the first begin block and the first end block are arranged horizontally at a same vertical position; displaying, in the visual programming region, the first event building block in an unfolded state,” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely displaying data/information. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the “interface” are merely a generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitations “displaying the first event building block in the visual programming region in a folded state, wherein the first begin block and the first end block are arranged horizontally at a same vertical position; displaying, in the visual programming region, the first event building block in an unfolded state,” the courts have identified merely displaying data/information on a display is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 3-6, 9, 21-22 recites non-functional descriptive language that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 7-8, 23 further recite mental steps. Claims 10, 12, 14, 16 recite displaying data which is insignificant extra solution activity and WURC. Claims 11, 13, 15 recites an “apply it” step which is mere instruction to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim set 17-19 and claim 20 are also rejected under the same rationale of the first claim set for having similar limitations.
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, 6-9, 11-13, 15, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong et al. (US 10,276,061 B2) hereinafter Chong in view of Zaydman et al. (US 2016/0026439 A1) hereinafter Zaydman and further in view of Bennett et al. (US 2017/0052767 A1) hereinafter Bennett.
Regarding claim 1, A method for performing visual programming, comprising:
adding, to a visual programming region of an interface, a first event building block corresponding to a virtual object in response to selection of the first event building block from an event building block set (Chong [col. 7, lines 11-24] discloses dragging and dropping the event code blocks from code block area 97 into work area 96 that correspond to the parrot target/virtual object as illustrated in Fig. 3 and Fig. 6. Where the “on start” event code block is specifically illustrated in Fig. 3 and Fig. 6), the first event building block including a first begin block and a first end block (Chong illustrates in Fig. 3 the “on start” code block to be the first begin block and the “forever” code block to the first end block);
wherein the first begin block and the first end block are arranged vertically at different vertical positions (Chong Fig. 3 illustrates the “on start”/first begin block and the “forever”/first end block arranged vertically at different vertical positions as shown in work area 96), and a position to which a first function building block is to be added is arranged between the first begin block and the first end block (Chong Fig. 3 illustrates the position where the puzzle like blocks connect between the “on start”/first begin block and the “forever”/first end block within the work area 96); and
adding, in response to detecting selection of the first function building block, the first function building block corresponding to the virtual object to the visual programming region based on the position (Chong Fig. 3 illustrates the added “move x steps”/function block arranged between the “on start”/first begin block and the “forever”/first end block within the work area 96).
Chong lacks explicitly
displaying the first event building block in the visual programming region in a folded state, wherein the first begin block and the first end block are arranged horizontally at a same vertical position;
unfolding the first event building block in response to detecting an unfolding instruction, and displaying, in the visual programming region, the first event building block in an unfolded state,
Zaydman teaches
displaying the first event building block in the visual programming region in a folded state (Zaydman [0065] teaches the marker operable to receive an input to unfold the block thus once the marker is clicked on, the hidden block is unfolded and displayed. Where the different markers are clicked on for hiding/unfolding within the virtual programming region displayed in Fig. 4. Further the primary reference explicitly taught the event building block),
unfolding the first event building block in response to detecting an unfolding instruction, and displaying, in the visual programming region, the first event building block in an unfolded state (Zaydman [0065] teaches the marker operable to receive an input to unfold the block thus once the marker is clicked on, the hidden block is unfolded and displayed. Where the different markers are clicked on for hiding/unfolding within the virtual programming region displayed in Fig. 4. Further the primary reference explicitly taught the event building block),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chong to incorporate the teachings of Zaydman to add the following features to Chong and specifically to “displaying the first event building block in the visual programming region in a folded state and unfolding the first event building block in response to detecting an unfolding instruction, and displaying, in the visual programming region, the first event building block in an unfolded state” in order to efficiently permit developers control and focus on code of concern and declutter the programming region as needed. Further, “interactive editing can offer code folding that keeps comments from being hidden, allowing a programmer to read and understand the code more quickly. The resulting code can be easy to read, because the code may be visually indistinguishable from code a user typed directly” (Zaydman [0004]).
Bennett teaches
wherein the first begin block and the first end block are arranged horizontally at a same vertical position (Bennett illustrates in Fig. 5 Function/start block arranged horizontally with return/end block arranged horizontally at a same vertical position);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Bennett to “wherein the first begin block and the first end block are arranged horizontally at a same vertical position” in order to efficiently display the flow of program to ease development, understanding and testing of software.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches The method according to claim 1,
Chong lacks explicitly
wherein, in the unfolded state, the first event building block includes a folding identifier indicating that the first event building block may be folded by a folding instruction
Zaydman further teaches
wherein, in the unfolded state, the first event building block includes a folding identifier indicating that the first event building block may be folded by a folding instruction (Zaydman [0020], [0041] teach folding widgets 106A-106D used to collapse the respective blocks as illustrated in Fig. 1. Zaydman Fig. 4 illustrates the folding widgets 106A-B in a case where the blocks are in an unfolded state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chong to incorporate the teachings of Zaydman to add the following features to Chong and specifically to “wherein, in the unfolded state, the first event building block includes a folding identifier indicating that the first event building block may be folded by a folding instruction” in order to efficiently permit developers control and focus on code of concern and declutter the programming region as needed. Further, “interactive editing can offer code folding that keeps comments from being hidden, allowing a programmer to read and understand the code more quickly. The resulting code can be easy to read, because the code may be visually indistinguishable from code a user typed directly” (Zaydman [0004]).
Regarding claim 7, The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
Chong further discloses
adding, in response to detecting a selection of a second event building block, the second event building block to the visual programming region of the interface, the second event building block and the first event building block being arranged in a vertically aligned manner in the visual programming region (Chong Fig. 14 illustrates adding the event building blocks vertically for instance “repeat until x” event is placed below “on start” event).
Regarding claim 8, The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
adding, in response to detecting selection of a second function building block corresponding to the first event building block, the second function building block to the visual programming region (Chong illustrates Fig. 14 adding a first function code block “reset timer” and a second function code block “point in direction 90 degrees”.), the first function building block and the second function building block being displayed in (i) combination (Chong illustrates the function code blocks to be in combination) or (ii) side by side in a first event region of the first event building block (No rejection required due to “or” language).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches The method according to claim 1,
Chong further discloses
wherein the first function building block is any one of a function building block of a logic type (Chong illustrates in Fig. 6 function code block “if on edge, bounce”), a function building block of a basic building block type (Chong illustrates in Fig. 14 function code block “reset timer” which would set timer to zero), a function building block of a fillable type (Chong illustrates in Fig. 6 function code block “move 6 steps” where the value 6 is fillable), a function building block of a minimum building block unit type (Chong illustrates in Fig. 3 function code block “wait .2 secs” which would require waiting a minimum .2 secs before the next block is executed), and a function building block of an advanced function building block type (Chong illustrates in Fig. 3 function code block “say hello for 2 secs” where hello and value 2 are both fillable making it advanced).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
Chong further discloses
controlling, in response to detecting a drag operation on the first event building block, the first event building block to move in the visual programming region, to adjust an order in which the first event building block and other event building blocks are arranged in the visual programming region (Chong [col. 30, lines 45-59] discloses organizing and positioning the code blocks correctly to avoid overlap of the code blocks in response to user input which may be dragging the code blocks).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches The method according to claim 1,
Chong lacks explicitly
wherein the method further comprises: displaying an operation option menu for the first event building block in the visual programming region in response to detecting an edit operation on the first event building block
Bennett further teaches
wherein the method further comprises: displaying an operation option menu for the first event building block in the visual programming region in response to detecting an edit operation on the first event building block (Bennett illustrates in Fig. 12 a displayed option menu which permits copying the json for the selected block).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chong to incorporate the teachings of Bennett to “wherein the method further comprises: displaying an operation option menu for the first event building block in the visual programming region in response to detecting an edit operation on the first event building block” in order to improve software development through permitting different options to be performed on the selected blocks such as copying the selected blocks and decrease wasted developer time.
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the adding the first event building block comprises:
Chong further discloses
detecting a selection operation on the first event building block corresponding to a selected event selection button (Chong [col. 7, lines 11-24] discloses dragging and dropping the event code blocks from code block area 97 into work area 96 that correspond to the parrot target as illustrated in Fig. 3 and Fig. 6. Where the “on start” event code block is specifically illustrated in Fig. 3 and Fig. 6 therefore, the “on start” event code block being selected and added into work area 96); or
detecting the selection operation on the first event building block corresponding to a touched preset touch position (No rejection required due to the “or” language).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein
in response to detecting that the first event building block is moved horizontally and released, automatically resetting the first event building block in the visual programming region (No rejection required due to “or” language); or
Chong further discloses
in response to detecting that the first function building block is moved horizontally and released, automatically resetting the first function building block in the visual programming region (Chong [col. 6, lines 65-67] disclose “The user acts by dragging and dropping visual blocks into code areas. The visual blocks snap into place to form logic sequences.” Where Fig. 14 illustrates in element 141 when a user drags and drops the block “correctly complete with score X %” it resets and snaps to the “if” block horizontally).
Regarding claim 17, it’s directed to an apparatus having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 3-5, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong et al. (US 10,276,061 B2) hereinafter Chong in view of Zaydman et al. (US 2016/0026439 A1) hereinafter Zaydman and further in view of Bennett et al. (US 2017/0052767 A1) hereinafter Bennett and further in view of Mimlitch, III et al. (US 2018/0285084 A1) hereinafter Mimlitch.
Regarding claim 3, Chong in view of Zaydman and further in view of Bennett teach The method according to claim 1, wherein
the combination lacks explicitly
in the folded state, the first begin block is associated with the first end block by using a first connector at the same vertical position; and
in the unfolded state, the first begin block is associated with the first end block by using a second connector, and left sides of the first begin block and the first end block are vertically aligned.
Mimlitch teaches
in the folded state, the first begin block is associated with the first end block by using a first connector at the same vertical position (Mimlitch Fig. 22B illustrates in the folded state the components are connected with a connector that has “+” icon 556 which is at the same vertical position of 552’); and
in the unfolded state, the first begin block is associated with the first end block by using a second connector, and left sides of the first begin block and the first end block are vertically aligned (Mimlitch Fig. 22B illustrates in the unfolded state the components are connected with a connector that has “-” icon 556 which are vertically aligned by their left sides).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Mimlitch to “in the folded state, the first begin block is associated with the first end block by using a first connector at the same vertical position; and in the unfolded state, the first begin block is associated with the first end block by using a second connector, and left sides of the first begin block and the first end block are vertically aligned” in order to efficiently give the user a better understanding of the overall flow of the program based on his/her needs of unfolding or folding.
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches The method according to claim 3, wherein the first connector comprises:
Zaydman further teaches
an omitting identifier indicating that the first event building block may be unfolded by the unfolding instruction (Zaydman [0065] teaches a second marker for receiving an input to unfold the block).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Zaydman to “an omitting identifier indicating that the first event building block may be unfolded by the unfolding instruction” in order to efficiently give the developer an overall preview of the software being developed as needed.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches The method according to claim 3,
the combination lacks explicitly
wherein the second connector comprises a vertical connector arranged between the first begin block and the first end block.
Mimlitch further teaches
wherein the second connector comprises a vertical connector arranged between the first begin block and the first end block (Mimlitch Fig. 22A illustrates a vertical connector element 552 between the components as the code is in an unfolded state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Mimlitch to “wherein the second connector comprises is a vertical connector arranged between the first begin block and the first end block” in order to accurately present data in the unfolded state and provide the user with a full understanding of the overall program.
Regarding claim 19, it’s directed to an apparatus having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overChong et al. (US 10,276,061 B2) hereinafter Chong in view of Zaydman et al. (US 2016/0026439 A1) hereinafter Zaydman and further in view of Bennett et al. (US 2017/0052767 A1) hereinafter Bennett and further in view of NPL (“Playing with Colored Blocks is a Fun Way for Kids to Learn Programming”, Nov 20, 2018) hereinafter NPL1.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches The method according to claim 9,
the combination lacks explicitly
wherein the function building block of a logic type, the function building block of a basic building block type, the function building block of a fillable type, the function building block of a minimum building block unit type, and the function building block of an advanced function building block type are displayed in different colors
NPL1 teaches
wherein the function building block of the logic type, the function building block of the basic building block type, the function building block of the fillable type, the function building block of the minimum building block unit type, and the function building block of the advanced function building block type are displayed in different colors (NPL1 teaches the concept of displaying different types of code blocks in different colors as illustrated below
PNG
media_image1.png
448
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of NPL1 to “wherein the function building block of a logic type, the function building block of a basic building block type, the function building block of a fillable type, the function building block of a minimum building block unit type, and the function building block of an advanced function building block type are displayed in different colors” in order to efficiently and quickly ease developer understanding to the program through the use of different colors for the different types of code blocks.
Claims 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong et al. (US 10,276,061 B2) hereinafter Chong in view of Zaydman et al. (US 2016/0026439 A1) hereinafter Zaydman and further in view of Bennett et al. (US 2017/0052767 A1) hereinafter Bennett and in view of Kathpalia et al. (US 10,853,100 B1) hereinafter Kathpalia.
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches The method according to claim 1,
the combination lacks explicitly
further comprising displaying an event building block triggering region including a plurality of event building blocks that are automatically sorted according to an application type to which the virtual object belongs (No rejection required due to “or” language), or automatically sorted according to frequencies of addition of the plurality of event building blocks.
Kathpalia teaches
further comprising displaying an event building block triggering region including a plurality of event building blocks that are automatically sorted according to frequencies of addition of the plurality of event building blocks (Kathpalia [col. 5, lines 42-55] displaying panel 250 and teaches positioning elements based on frequency, patterns of usage, and frequency of usage with clustering in order to personalize the experience for the user. Where Chong explicitly taught the event building blocks and Kathpalia is only being used to teach the concept of sorting and positioning elements in different panels based on frequency of usage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Kathpalia to “further comprising displaying an event building block triggering region including a plurality of event building blocks that are automatically sorted according to frequencies of addition of the plurality of event building blocks” in order to efficiently prioritize and sort code blocks based on frequency of usage for the developer to save time during development from searching through unused code blocks.
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches The method according to claim 1,
the combination lacks explicitly
further comprising displaying a function building block triggering region including a plurality of function building blocks that are automatically sorted according to an application type to which the virtual object belongs (No rejection required due to “or” language), or automatically sorted according to frequencies of addition of the plurality of function building blocks.
Kathpalia teaches
further comprising displaying a function building block triggering region including a plurality of function building blocks that are automatically sorted according to frequencies of addition of the plurality of function building blocks (Kathpalia [col. 6, lines 34-44] displaying interface 400 and teaches positioning elements based on frequency, patterns of usage, and frequency of usage with clustering in order to personalize the experience for the user. Where Chong explicitly taught the function building blocks and Kathpalia is only being used to teach the concept of sorting and positioning elements in different panels based on frequency of usage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Kathpalia to “further comprising displaying function building block triggering region including a plurality of function building blocks that are automatically sorted according to frequencies of addition of the plurality of function building blocks” in order to efficiently prioritize and sort code blocks based on frequency of usage for the developer to save time during development from searching through unused code blocks.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong et al. (US 10,276,061 B2) hereinafter Chong in view of Zaydman et al. (US 2016/0026439 A1) hereinafter Zaydman and further in view of Bennett et al. (US 2017/0052767 A1) hereinafter Bennett and further in view of Mimlitch, III et al. (US 2018/0285084 A1) hereinafter Mimlitch and further in view of Sevenster et al. (US 2019/0108175 A1) hereinafter Sevenster.
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches The method according to claim 4,
the combination lacks explicitly
wherein the omitting identifier includes an ellipsis.
Sevenster teaches
wherein the omitting identifier includes an ellipsis (Sevenster [0049] teaches “On the other hand, a sentence from which codes were extracted with only low relevance scores may be shown in a grayed-out or otherwise de-emphasized format, or may be presented using ellipses (“ . . . ”) as placeholders with the “hidden” text being optionally selected for display by the user clicking on (or hovering over, or otherwise selecting) the ellipsis using a pointing device. ”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Sevenster to “wherein the omitting identifier includes an ellipsis” in order to improve readability, reduce cognitive load and efficiently clean layout.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong et al. (US 10,276,061 B2) hereinafter Chong in view of Zaydman et al. (US 2016/0026439 A1) hereinafter Zaydman and further in view of Bennett et al. (US 2017/0052767 A1) hereinafter Bennett and further in view of Javadi (US 2018/0253194 A1).
Regarding claim 23, the combination teaches The method according to claim 1,
wherein the first function building block defines a function performed by the virtual object after a time point defined by the first begin block and before a time point defined by the first end block.
Javadi teaches
wherein the first function building block defines a function performed by the virtual object after a time point defined by the first begin block and before a time point defined by the first end block (Javadi [0086] “For example, the first row of the arrangement may begin with a graphical element for “wait” that is associated with a user-configured wait time parameter of 10 seconds. The system may identify the wait icon and look-up the corresponding program logic for that icon, which could be to pause execution of the protocol by issuing a wait instruction to one or more components of the flow cytometry machine.” Where the first instruction may be a wait graphical element followed by incubation function and further an additional wait before the end block may be added using the Visual Protocol Designer of Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Javadi to “wherein the first function building block defines a function performed by the virtual object after a time point defined by the first begin block and before a time point defined by the first end block” in order to improve and accurately execute functions based on user needs thus increasing user satisfaction and execution of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the examiner has updated the citation of the Bennett reference. Further, the examiner recommends explicitly claim the invention in which the first begin block and the first end block are arranged differently with same or different vertical positions based on the different states to avoid a BRI interpretation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noor Alkhateeb whose telephone number is (313)446-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00AM ET to 5:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Chat do, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at HYPERLINK "https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form"https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NOOR ALKHATEEB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193