DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 08/02/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 15 are independent claims.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/02/2024 and 11/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretations/Examiner’s Notes
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow (see In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Also, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The following is provided to aid the reader in understanding how at least some claim elements (also commonly referred to as claim limitations), as a whole, have been considered in the rejections below:
“when” + {contingent scenario} [e.g. claims 10-12] = Even though the prior art rejections included below do not depend on the following technicality, it is nonetheless respectfully noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Therefore, as currently claimed, functionalities that currently depend on the “when” condition being true may not be narrowing the claims to the extent it may have been intended since, for purposes of prior art analysis, any prior art scenario showing at least one mappable instance wherein the contingency/triggering condition is not met/true (like, for claim 10, whenever the first message is not in the complete state, or, for claims 11 and 12, whenever the first message is not in the streaming state) would suffice to anticipate or teach these aspects. See “Contingent Limitations” in MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II and/or MPEP § 2143.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. See, for example:
Claims 2 and 16:
Claims 2 and 16 recite “displaying{…} the one or more previously completed messages from the other party in the first message format.” This introduces indefiniteness concerns because the first message format had already been defined in parent claims 1 and 15 as being associated with the streaming/incomplete state. Therefore, it is unclear if claiming in these dependent claims that completed messages should be displayed in the streaming/incomplete format was deliberate or in error.
Claims 5 and 17:
Dependent claims 5 and 17 recite “the message area{…} being visually less defined from the background of the conversational graphical user interface at the ending position{/right edge}.” This is indefinite because something being “less” defined is relative in nature (especially when there is nothing explicitly recited upon which to compare this purported “lesser” definition).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Pub. No. 2024/0267344 (hereinafter “Mulligan”).
As to independent claims 1 and 15, Mulligan shows a computer-implemented method and a concomitant system [Abstract], comprising:
providing, by one or more processors [¶ 95], a conversational graphical user interface for displaying messages between a user and an other party [a conversational graphical user interface is provided for displaying messages between a user and an other party (either another user or a chatbot) | figs. 3A & 5A-5B];
determining, by the one or more processors, that a first message from the other party is in a streaming state, the streaming state indicating that the first message is streaming to the user in the conversational graphical user interface [determining that a first message from the other party is in a streaming/incomplete state, the streaming/incomplete state indicating that the first message is streaming (or being typed) to the user in the conversational graphical user interface (fig. 5B; ¶¶ 213, 239, & 263)];
displaying, by the one or more processors, the first message being streamed in a first message format based on the first message being in the streaming state [the first message being streamed/typed is displayed in a first message format based on the first message being in the streaming/incomplete state (fig. 5B; ¶¶ 213 & 263)];
determining, by the one or more processors, that the first message from the other party is in a complete state; and displaying, by the one or more processors, the first message from the other party in a second message format based on the first message being in the complete state [the first message from the other party is displayed in a second message format based on the first message being in the complete state (fig. 3A; ¶¶ 42, 85-86, 213, & 261-263)].
As to dependent claims 2 and 16, Mulligan further shows:
determining, by the one or more processors, one or more previously completed messages from the other party in the complete state; and displaying, by the one or more processors in the conversational graphical user interface, the one or more previously completed messages from the other party in the first message format based on the one or more previously completed messages from the other party being in the complete state [one or more previously completed messages from the other party may be displayed in a format that shares the characteristics of the first format (fig. 3A; ¶¶ 42, 85-86, 213, & 261-263)].
As to dependent claim 3, Mulligan further shows:
receiving, by the one or more processors, a first chat message from the user via the conversational graphical user interface [a first chat message may be received from the user via the conversational graphical user interface (fig. 3A; ¶¶ 42, 85-86, 213, & 261-263)]; and
relaying, by the one or more processors, the first chat message to the other party, the other party including an artificial intelligence chat bot [the first chat message may be relayed to an artificial intelligence chat bot (figs. 3A & 5A-5B; ¶¶ 42, 85-86, 213, & 261-263)].
As to dependent claim 4, Mulligan further shows:
determining, by the one or more processors, a starting position in the conversational graphical user interface for the first message from the other party, the starting position indicating one or more of a first horizontal and a first vertical position for the first message in the conversational graphical user interface [a starting position in the conversational graphical user interface for the first message from the other party indicating one or more of a first horizontal and a first vertical position for the first message in the conversational graphical user interface may be determined (fig. 3A; ¶¶ 42, 85-86, 213, & 261-263)]; and
determining, by the one or more processors, an ending position in the conversational graphical user interface for the first message, the ending position indicating one or more of a second horizontal and a second vertical position in the conversational graphical user interface corresponding to a maximum size of a message area from the other party [an ending position in the conversational graphical user interface for the first message indicating one or more of a second horizontal and a second vertical position in the conversational graphical user interface corresponding to a maximum size of a message area from the other party may also be determined (fig. 3A; ¶¶ 42, 85-86, 213, & 261-263)
Examiner’s Note: It is noted that the above steps currently only describe determinations, but do not recite or require any additional steps apart from purely determining starting and ending positions of a first message.].
As to dependent claim 8, Mulligan further shows:
the first message format for the first message in the streaming state includes: a visible border along a left edge distinguishing a message area for the first message from a background of the conversational graphical user interface, an invisible border along a right edge of the message area, and a background of the message area along the right edge of the message area that matches the background of the conversational graphical user interface [the first message format for the first message in the streaming state includes: a visible border along a left edge distinguishing a message area for the first message from a background of the conversational graphical user interface, an invisible border along a right edge of the message area, and a background of the message area along the right edge of the message area that matches the background of the conversational graphical user interface (figs. 3A & 5A-5B). Also, it is important to note that the entirety of this limitation merely describes the look and feel of the GUI, and therefore limits itself to non-functional design choices which, for purposes of prior art analysis, lacks considerable patentable weight. See MPEP §§ 2111.04, 2111.05, and 2144.04.]; and
the second message format for the first message in the complete state includes: a visible border enclosing a perimeter of the message area, and the background of the message area being visually distinguished from the background of the conversational graphical user interface [the second message format for the first message in the complete state includes: a visible border enclosing a perimeter of the message area, and the background of the message area being visually distinguished from the background of the conversational graphical user interface (figs. 3A & 5A-5B). Also, it is important to note that the entirety of this limitation merely describes the look and feel of the GUI, and therefore limits itself to non-functional design choices which, for purposes of prior art analysis, lacks considerable patentable weight. See MPEP §§ 2111.04, 2111.05, and 2144.04.].
As to dependent claim 10, Mulligan further shows:
providing, by the one or more processors, an input area in the conversational graphical user interface, the input area being configured to receive a user input from the user when the first message is in the complete state [an input area may be provided in the conversational graphical user interface, the input area being configured to receive a user input from the user when the first message is in the complete state (figs. 3A & 5A-5B; ¶¶ 42, 85-86, 213, & 261-263)].
As to dependent claim 14, Mulligan further shows:
the streaming state of the first message indicates that a portion of the first message is displayed pending display of a remainder of the first message [the streaming state of the first message indicates that a portion of the first message is displayed pending display of a remainder of the first message (figs. 3A & 5A-5B; ¶¶ 42, 85-86, 213, & 261-263). Also, what a graphical element/state may or may not “indicate” to a human observer amounts to non-functional descriptive material, which does not carry considerable patentable weight for purposes of prior art analysis. See MPEP § 2111.05.].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 5-7, 9, 11, 13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Pub. No. 2024/0267344 (hereinafter “Mulligan”).
As to dependent claims 5 and 17, Mulligan further shows:
providing, by the one or more processors, the message area in the conversational graphical user interface for the first message, the message area being visually defined from a background of the conversational graphical user interface at the starting position{/left edge} and being visually [the provided message area is visually defined from a background of the conversational graphical user interface at the starting position/left edge} and it is also visually defined from the background of the conversational graphical user interface at the ending position/right edge (Mulligan: figs. 3A & 5A-5B)].
Mulligan does not appear to explicitly recite a scenario wherein the message area is “visually less defined from the background of the conversational graphical user interface at the ending position{/right edge}” as apparently intended.
However, designing a graphical element to be “less defined” is a non-functional design choice (see MPEP §§ 2111.05 and 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mulligan before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to display Mulligan’s ending position{/right edge} in a “visually less defined” manner because doing so would have been a non-functional design choice that may have been preferred to improve the aesthetics and/or look and feel of Mulligan’s existing graphical user interface teachings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Mulligan in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 5 and 17.
As to dependent claim 6, Mulligan further shows:
the ending position changes as the first message is streamed and a dimension of the message area is based on the ending position in the conversational graphical user interface for the first message; and the method includes increasing, by the one or more processors, a size of the message area in the conversational graphical user interface based on the starting position and the ending position as the first message is displayed [Mulligan shows changing an ending position as a message is streamed and becomes a completed message. The message area also increases in size from the size occupied by the streaming indicator to the size necessary occupied by the completed message, depending on its contents (see Mulligan: figs. 3A & 5A-5B). Moreover, these limitations (as explained above) also describe non-functional design choices (see MPEP §§ 2111.04, 2111.05, and 2144.04).].
As to dependent claims 7 and 18, Mulligan does not appear to explicitly recite a scenario wherein the first message format for the streaming state includes: a contrast of the message area relative to a background of the conversational graphical user interface varying in a gradient between a first portion of the message area adjacent to the starting position and a second portion of the message area adjacent to the ending position; and the message area including a border between the message area and the background adjacent to the starting position and no border between the message area and the background adjacent to the ending position before a completion time.
However, all of the above limitations describe non-functional design choices (see MPEP §§ 2111.05 and 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mulligan before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adapt Mulligan such that its first message format for the streaming state includes a contrast of the message area relative to a background of the conversational graphical user interface varying in a gradient between a first portion of the message area adjacent to the starting position and a second portion of the message area adjacent to the ending position; and the message area including a border between the message area and the background adjacent to the starting position and no border between the message area and the background adjacent to the ending position before a completion time because doing so would have amounted to adopting alternative non-functional design choices, which may have been preferred by some users to improve the aesthetics and/or look and feel of Mulligan’s existing graphical user interface teachings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Mulligan in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 7 and 18.
As to dependent claims 9 and 19, Mulligan further shows:
determining, by the one or more processors, a completion time at which an end of the first message is displayed in the conversational graphical user interface; and at the completion time, updating, by the one or more processors, the conversational graphical user interface {…} [Mulligan shows determining a completion time at which an end of the first message is displayed in the conversational graphical user interface; and at the completion time, updating the conversational graphical user interface (in other words, Mulligan shows updating the conversational graphical user interface when the message transitions from a streaming/incomplete state to a complete state). See figs. 3A & 5A-5B; ¶¶ 42, 85-86, 213, & 261-263.].
Mulligan does not appear to explicitly recite a scenario wherein the conversational graphical user interface is updated “to increase contrast between a message area of the first message and a background of the conversational graphical user interface” as apparently intended.
However, “to increase contrast” of a graphical user interface element as claimed is a non-functional design choice (see MPEP §§ 2111.05 and 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mulligan before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to display Mulligan’s conversational graphical user interface with an increased contrast because doing so would have been a non-functional design choice that may have been preferred by some users to improve the aesthetics and/or look and feel of Mulligan’s existing graphical user interface teachings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Mulligan in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 9 and 19.
As to dependent claim 11, Mulligan further shows:
modifying, by the one or more processors, a visual format of the input area when the first message is in the streaming state {…} [Mulligan shows modifying a visual format of the input area when the first message is in the streaming state. See figs. 3A & 5A-5B; ¶¶ 42, 85-86, 213, & 261-263.].
Mulligan does not appear to explicitly recite a scenario showing “modifying, by the one or more processors, a visual format of the input area when the first message is in the streaming state including reducing a contrast of the input area from a background of the conversational graphical user interface” as apparently intended.
However, “reducing a contrast” of a graphical user interface element as claimed is a non-functional design choice (see MPEP §§ 2111.05 and 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mulligan before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reduce a contrast of Mulligan’s input area because doing so would have been a non-functional design choice that may have been preferred by some users to improve the aesthetics and/or look and feel of Mulligan’s existing graphical user interface teachings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Mulligan in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 11.
As to dependent claim 13, Mulligan further shows:
after displaying the first message in the second message format based on the first message being in the complete state, modifying, by the one or more processors, a visual attribute of an input area of the conversational graphical user interface {…}[Mulligan shows modifying a visual attribute of an input area of the conversational graphical user interface after displaying the first message in the second message format based on the first message being in the complete state (see figs. 3A & 5A-5B; ¶¶ 42, 85-86, 213, & 261-263).].
Mulligan does not appear to explicitly recite a scenario showing a visual attribute of an input area of the conversational graphical user interface is modified “including an appearance of a border of the input area” as apparently intended.
However, modifying “an appearance of a border” of a graphical user interface element as claimed is a non-functional design choice (see MPEP §§ 2111.04, 2111.05, and 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mulligan before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an appearance of a border of Mulligan’s input area because doing so would have been a non-functional design choice that may have been preferred by some users to improve the aesthetics and/or look and feel of Mulligan’s existing graphical user interface teachings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Mulligan in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 13.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mulligan in view of US Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0372907 (hereinafter “Trufinescu”).
As to dependent claim 12, Mulligan shows a streaming state (Mulligan: fig. 5B; ¶¶ 213 & 263) but does not appear to explicitly recite “preventing text input from being entered into the input area when the first message is in the streaming state” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Trufinescu shows:
preventing, by the one or more processors, text input from being entered into the input area when the first message is in the streaming state [Trufinescu shows an analogous conversation environment wherein its input area-equivalent is prevented from receiving further input when a first message by an other party/bot is in a streaming/“thinking” state (Trufinescu: ¶ 42).].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mulligan and Trufinescu before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Trufinescu’s input prevention technique into Mulligan. The rationale for doing so would have been that Mulligan’s “other party” was shown to be a “chatbot” that “is designed to simulate human conversation through voice commands or text chats” (Mulligan: ¶ 27). Therefore, since it is customarily considered rude to interrupt humans while they are talking, so too would it have been desired to prevent a user from inadvertently interrupting Mulligan’s simulated human while it is streaming/responding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mulligan and Trufinescu in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 12.
As to dependent claim 20, Mulligan further shows:
providing, by the one or more processors, an input area in the conversational graphical user interface, the input area being configured to receive a user input from the user when the first message is in the complete state [an input area may be provided in the conversational graphical user interface, the input area being configured to receive a user input from the user when the first message is in the complete state (figs. 3A & 5A-5B; ¶¶ 42, 85-86, 213, & 261-263)];
modifying, by the one or more processors, a visual format of the input area when the first message is in the streaming state {…} [Mulligan shows modifying a visual format of the input area when the first message is in the streaming state. See figs. 3A & 5A-5B; ¶¶ 42, 85-86, 213, & 261-263.]; {…}
Mulligan does not appear to explicitly recite a scenario showing “modifying, by the one or more processors, a visual format of the input area when the first message is in the streaming state including reducing a contrast of the input area from a background of the conversational graphical user interface” as apparently intended.
However, “reducing a contrast” of a graphical user interface element as claimed is a non-functional design choice (see MPEP §§ 2111.05 and 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mulligan before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reduce a contrast of Mulligan’s input area because doing so would have been a non-functional design choice that may have been preferred by some users to improve the aesthetics and/or look and feel of Mulligan’s existing graphical user interface teachings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Mulligan in order to obtain at least the above aspect of the invention as recited in claim 20.
Moreover, Mulligan shows a streaming state (Mulligan: fig. 5B; ¶¶ 213 & 263) but does not appear to explicitly recite “preventing text input from being entered into the input area when the first message is in the streaming state” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Trufinescu shows:
preventing, by the one or more processors, text input from being entered into the input area when the first message is in the streaming state [Trufinescu shows an analogous conversation environment wherein its input area-equivalent is prevented from receiving further input when a first message by an other party/bot is in a streaming/“thinking” state (Trufinescu: ¶ 42).].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mulligan and Trufinescu before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Trufinescu’s input prevention technique into Mulligan. The rationale for doing so would have been that Mulligan’s “other party” was shown to be a “chatbot” that “is designed to simulate human conversation through voice commands or text chats” (Mulligan: ¶ 27). Therefore, since it is customarily considered rude to interrupt humans while they are talking, so too would it have been desired to prevent a user from inadvertently interrupting Mulligan’s simulated human while it is streaming/responding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mulligan and Trufinescu in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Inventor
Document ID
Relevance
Brewer; Jason et al.
US 20240356871 A1
“displaying, by the one or more processors, the first message being streamed in a first message format based on the first message being in the streaming state; determining, by the one or more processors, that the first message from the other party is in a complete state; and displaying, by the one or more processors, the first message from the other party in a second message format based on the first message being in the complete state.”
Tsang; Nicholas et al.
US 20230147542 A1
“displaying, by the one or more processors, the first message being streamed in a first message format based on the first message being in the streaming state; determining, by the one or more processors, that the first message from the other party is in a complete state; and displaying, by the one or more processors, the first message from the other party in a second message format based on the first message being in the complete state.”
YAMAKAWA; Devender Akira et al.
US 20140067965 A1
“displaying, by the one or more processors, the first message being streamed in a first message format based on the first message being in the streaming state; determining, by the one or more processors, that the first message from the other party is in a complete state; and displaying, by the one or more processors, the first message from the other party in a second message format based on the first message being in the complete state.”
Gruber; Thomas Robert et al.
US 20120016678 A1
“the streaming state of the first message indicates that a portion of the first message is displayed pending display of a remainder of the first message”
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571) 272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 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, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R CALDERON IV/
Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights