Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-17 have been examined (note: art was not applied to claims 12-15).
Claim Interpretation
Intended Use
3. Claims 1, 16 and 17, “accepting… an input for selecting… the registrants…”
Claim 8, “wherein the calculated response deadline is presented to be changeable by the registrants”
Claim 17, “A non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a program that is to be executed by processing circuitry… wherein … the program causes the processor to perform steps of:…”
The language represents the intended use an “input”, “calculated response deadline” and stored program, respectively. According to the MPEP, such language will not differentiate a claim from the prior art (MPEP 2103 I C).
Optional Language
4. Claim 16, “for an opening in the recruitment information, extracting… and when the business entity … selects the registrants who are to be actually employed, presenting…” and “accepting… an input for selecting…”
Claim 16, as written, is silent the existence of such an opening. Additionally, a selection of registrants “who are to be actually employed”, is not required and according to the “accepting” step, the claim lacks an actual selection of registrants. Therefore, giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps of “[for an opening]… extracting… and presenting the registrants…” and “notifying the registrants…” do not occur and will not differentiate the claim from the prior art (MPEP 2103 I C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
7. Claim 16 recites:
… stores information of the registrants, employment request information to which the registrants applied, and employment information of the registrants…
accepting an input of recruitment information from a business entity, and presenting the recruitment information to the registrants;
accepting, from the registrants, the employment request information for the recruitment information;
accepting the employment request information, and presenting the employment request information to the business entity that has input the recruitment information; accepting, from the business entity that has input the recruitment information, an input for selecting the registrants who are to be actually employed from the employment request information; for an opening in the recruitment information, extracting, as offer candidate information, the registrants who may be employed by the business entity that has input the recruitment information, based on the employment request information at the business entity that has input the recruitment information or other business entities, or employment schedule information indicating determined employment at the business entity that has input the recruitment information or the other business entities, and when the business entity that has input the recruitment information selects the registrants who are to be actually employed, presenting the registrants to the business entity that has input the recruitment information;
accepting, from the business entity that has input the recruitment information, an input for selecting, as offer targets, the registrants who are to be actually employed, from the registrants presented as the offer candidate information; and notifying the registrants selected as the offer targets by the business entity that has input the recruitment information that the registrants have been selected as the offer targets for the opening in the recruitment information by the business entity that input the recruitment information.
Therefore, the claim recites a “hiring process”. Specifically, the claim recites placing a job announcement, receiving applications based on the job announcement, selecting applicants based on the received applications, and making job offers to selected applicants, which is a commercial or legal interaction (i.e. organizing human activity) and an abstract idea.
The additional elements of “being executed by a computer comprising a processor and a memory”, “the memory [stores]” and “the processor performs the steps of” represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement project management and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field. Hence, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
8. Claims 1 and 17 also recite the abstract idea of a “hiring process”. Claims 1 and 17, “an information processing apparatus… comprising a control unit and a storage unit” and “the control unit performs the steps of”, and “A non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a program that is to be executed by processing circuitry”, “the medium [stores]” and “the program causes the processor to perform steps of”, as additional elements. The additional elements represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement project management and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as they do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
Hence, claims 1 and 17 are not patent eligible.
9. Claim 2 recites “wherein, in the step of extracting the registrants as the offer candidate information, the registrants are extracted as the offer candidate information further based on information including either or both of the information of the registrants and the employment information at the business entity that has input the recruitment information or other business entities”, which further describes the abstract idea.
10. Claim 3, further describes the abstract idea as it recites: performs a step of calculating, for each of the registrants, a matching rate indicating a possibility that the registrants extracted as the offer candidate information are actually employed by the business entity that has input the recruitment information, and presents the matching rate for each of the registrants in the step of presenting the registrants as the offer candidate information. The additional element of “wherein the program further” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
11. Claim 4 recites “wherein, in the step of calculating the matching rate, the matching rate is calculated based on information including either or both of the information of the registrants and the employment information of the registrants”, which further describes the abstract idea.
12. Claim 5 recites “performs the step of accepting, from the registrants selected as the offer targets by the business entity that has input the recruitment information, a response for performing employment related to the recruitment information, and presenting the registrants as employed persons to the business entity that has input the recruitment information”, which further describes the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the program further” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
13. Claim 6 recites “wherein, in the step of accepting, from the registrants, the employment request information for the recruitment information, a response deadline to the employment request information is accepted’, which further describes the abstract idea.
14. Claim 7 recites “wherein, in the step of accepting the response deadline, the response deadline is … calculated and presented to the registrants” which further describes the abstract idea. The additional element of “automatically” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
15. Claim 8 recites “wherein the calculated response deadline is presented to be changeable by the registrants”, which further describes the abstract idea.
16. Claim 9 recites “wherein the response deadline is calculated based on information including an employment period related to the recruitment information”, which further describes the abstract idea.
17. Claim 10 recites “performs a step of notifying the registrants whose response deadlines have elapsed that the response deadlines have elapsed”, which further describes the abstract idea.
The additional element of “wherein the program further” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
18. Claim 11 recites “performs a step of presenting a calendar to the business entity that has input the recruitment information, and presenting an employment period related to the recruitment information on the calendar”, which further describes the abstract idea.
The additional element of “wherein the program further” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
19. Claim 12 recites “wherein, in the step of accepting the recruitment information from the business entity that has input the recruitment information, selection of date and time on the calendar from the business entity that has input the information is accepted and the recruitment information is accepted”, which further describes the abstract idea.
20. Claim 13 recites “performs a step of presenting a calendar to the registrants whose employment request information has been accepted, and presenting a period of the employment request information on the calendar”, which further describes the abstract idea.
The additional element of “wherein the program further” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
21. Claim 14 recites “wherein … classifies and stores the information of the registrants according to attributes of the registrants, and in the step of presenting the registrants as the offer candidate information, the registrants are presented to the business entity that has input the recruitment information by being classified according to the attributes of the registrants” which further describes the abstract idea.
The additional element of “the memory” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
22. Claim 15 recites “wherein the attributes of the registrants are stored by being classified into an internal employee hired by a specific business entity, an external employee previously hired by the specific business entity, and an external person not currently or previously hired by the specific business entity” which further describes the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
23. 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.
24. Claims 1-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
25. Claim 1 recites the limitation "[for an opening] … the employment request information at the business entity" in line 20 and “[accepting]… as offer targets… from the registrants presented as the offer candidate information” in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 16 and 17 also, as each recites similar language.
26. Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the program further…” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 5, 10, 11 and 13 also as each recites similar language (i.e. “the program”).
27. Claim 14 recites the limitation “in the step of presenting the registrants as the offer candidate information…” in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
28. Claim 17 recites the limitation “the program causes the processor…” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
More than one interpretation
29. Claim 1 recites “for an opening… and when the business entity that has input the recruitment information selects the registrants … presenting the registrants to the business entity that has input the recruitment information”. To one of ordinary skill, “presenting the registrants to the business entity” in response to an action, reasonably suggests that the registrants were not presented prior to the action. On the other hand, according to the claim, such an action is “when the business entity … selects the registrants…”, which would necessarily require a first presenting of the “registrants” to the “business entity”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation comprises one “presenting” of the registrants or two (MPEP 2173.02 I).
For purposes of examination, the language is being interpreted as follows: selecting, by the business entity, registrants who are to receive an offer from a list of registrants.
Claims 16 and 17 are also rejected as each recites similar language.
Dependent Claims
30. Claims 2-15 are also rejected as they depend from either claim 1, 5, 10, 11, 13 or 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
31. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(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.
32. Claims 1, 2, 5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Champaneria, US 20190019160.
33. As per claims 1, 16 and 17, Champaneria teaches an information processing apparatus (para 51) for managing registrants registered for employment, the information processing apparatus comprising a control unit and a storage unit (para 51), wherein
the storage unit stores information of the registrants (fig. 1, items 2 and 3; paras 90 and 157, “candidate profile(s)”), employment request information to which the registrants applied (fig. 1, item 1; fig. 3, item 211 “job posting applications”; para 79), and employment information of the registrants (fig. 3, item 211, “resume submissions”; paras 86-88), and the control unit (para 51) performs steps of:
accepting an input of recruitment information from a business entity, and presenting the recruitment information to the registrants (fig. 1, item 1; fig. 2, item 14; paras 64 and 65);
accepting, from the registrants, the employment request information for the recruitment information (fig. 6, item 51; para 79, 182);
accepting the employment request information (para 79), and presenting the employment request information to the business entity that has input the recruitment information (fig. 4, item 34; paras 71, 104, 138, 182, 184); accepting, from the business entity that has input the recruitment information, an input for selecting the registrants who are to be actually employed from the employment request information (fig. 7, item 711; paras 185 and 186); for an opening in the recruitment information (para 189), extracting, as offer candidate information, the registrants who may be employed by the business entity that has input the recruitment information (para 183, paras 185-186), based on the employment request information at the business entity that has input the recruitment information or other business entities, or employment schedule information indicating determined employment at the business entity that has input the recruitment information or the other business entities (fig. 1, item 3; fig. 4, items 32 and 33; para 104), and when the business entity that has input the recruitment information selects the registrants who are to be actually employed presenting the registrants to the business entity that has input the recruitment information (paras 199, 200 and 202);
accepting, from the business entity that has input the recruitment information, an input for selecting, as offer targets (para 202), the registrants who are to be actually employed, from the registrants presented as the offer candidate information (fig. 8, item 81; paras 189-191 and 200) and notifying the registrants selected as the offer targets by the business entity that has input the recruitment information that the registrants have been selected as the offer targets for the opening in the recruitment information by the business entity that input the recruitment information (fig. 8, items 81 and 811; paras 203 and 204).
As per claim 17, Champaneria additionally teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a program that is to be executed by processing circuitry and that is for managing registrants who are registered for employment (para 51);
wherein the medium stores information of the registrants (fig. 1, items 2 and 3; paras 90 and 157, “candidate profile(s)”), employment request information applied by the registrants (fig. 1, item 1; fig. 3, item 211 “job posting applications”; para 79), and employment information of the registrants (fig. 8, item 81; para 202)
the program causes the processor to perform steps of (para 51)
34. As per claim 2, Champaneria teaches wherein, in the step of extracting the registrants as the offer candidate information (paras 185 and 186), the registrants are extracted as the offer candidate information further based on information including either or both of the information of the registrants (para 183) and the employment information at the business entity that has input the recruitment information or other business entities (paras 183-186, and 212).
35. As per claim 5, Champaneria teaches the step of accepting, from the registrants selected as the offer targets by the business entity that has input the recruitment information, a response for performing employment related to the recruitment information, and presenting the registrants as employed persons to the business entity that has input the recruitment information (fig. 8, items 811; para 203)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
36. 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.
37. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champaneria, US 20190019160 in view of Shifman et al., US 20140279387 and McCagg et al. US 20100131418.
38. As per claims 3 and 4, Champaneria discloses a program (para 51) that scores resumes based on employment history (para 97) and evaluates candidates based on the scores (para 98). Champaneria also teaches presenting registrants as offer candidate information (paras 189-191). However, Champaneria does not explicitly recite: a step of calculating, for each of the registrants, a matching rate indicating a possibility that the registrants extracted as the offer candidate information are actually employed by the business entity that has input the recruitment information, and presents the matching rate for each of the registrants in the step of presenting the registrants as the offer candidate information.
Shifman et al. teach calculating, for each registrant, a matching rate, such as a probability estimation for misrepresentations in registrant applications (fig. 5a; para 24), and presenting the matching rate to a reviewer (paras 35 and 36). Additionally (claim 4), Shifman et al. teach calculating the matching rate, where the matching rate is calculated based on information including either or both of the information of the registrants and the employment information of the registrants (paras 30, 73, 95 and 98). 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 Champaneria and Shifman et al. in order to identify potential fraud in job applications (e.g. resumes) (‘160, paras 26 and 97; ‘387, paras 12 and 17). Neither Champaneria nor Shifman et al. teach registrants that are actually employed by the business entity that has input the recruitment information.
McCagg et al. teach a hiring process where positive or negative weights are assigned to applicants or registrants that are employed by a business entity seeking employees (paras 70 and 71). 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 Champaneria, Shifman et al. and McCagg et al. in order to accommodate positions (‘160; fig. 2, item 14) where internal hires are either preferred or not preferred (‘418, para 73) including identifying candidates who are misrepresenting themselves as current employees to increase the likelihood that they will be selected (‘160, para 12; ‘418, para 73) or improperly penalizing candidates if such a determination is by mistake (‘387, paras 12, 35 and 36).
39. Claim 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champaneria, US 20190019160 in view of Segal, US 20050228709.
40. As per claim 6, while Champaneria teaches scheduling “an interview with the candidate immediately after the candidate has been identified as acceptable and approved by a hiring manager” (para 195), candidates accepting offers to perform interviews (para 191) and “In some exemplary embodiments, the candidate may be given lower priority or may be disqualified from applying for the position based on their availability for an interview” (para 195). Champaneria does not specifically disclose in the step of accepting, from the registrants, the employment request information for the recruitment information, a response deadline to the employment request information is accepted. However, this is taught by Segal, as Segal recites incorporating built in deadlines at each step of a hiring process where a deadline, such as deadline to respond, is presented to an applicant as part of an application process (abstract, fig. 4 “CONTACT NOW-Action needed…”; paras 49, 52 and 53). 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 Champaneria and Segal in order to “ensure timely responses to the employer's submission of a request to offer proposals” (‘709; para 47).
41. As per claim 7, Champaneria teaches scheduling “an interview with the candidate immediately after the candidate has been identified as acceptable and approved by a hiring manager” (para 195), candidates accepting offers to perform interviews (para 191) and “In some exemplary embodiments, the candidate may be given lower priority or may be disqualified from applying for the position based on their availability for an interview” (para 195). Further, Champaneria discloses “automatically calculating” (i.e. “automatically determining”) as Champaneria provides an AI bot that may “complete all or part of an interview procedure (para 212) including scheduling an appointment date and time with a candidate (paras 189-197 and 257). However, Champaneria does not specifically disclose, in the step of accepting a “response deadline” associated with the scheduling of interviews, where the deadline is presented to the registrants. Segal teaches “response deadlines” such as incorporating built in deadlines at each step of a hiring process where a deadline, such as deadline to respond, is presented to an applicant as part of an application process (abstract, fig. 4 “CONTACT NOW-Action needed…”; paras 49, 52 and 53). 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 AI bot of Champaneria (‘160, para 257) with Segal in order to “ensure timely responses to the employer's submission of a request to offer proposals” (‘709; fig. 4, “General Manager”, “Remaining time…”; para 47) such as interviews (‘160, paras 189-197).
42. Claim 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champaneria, US 20190019160 in view of Segal, US 20050228709 and in further view of Lee et al., US 20090063413.
43. As per claims 8 and 9, Champaneria teaches scheduling “an interview with the candidate immediately after the candidate has been identified as acceptable and approved by a hiring manager” (para 195), candidates accepting offers to perform interviews (para 191) and “In some exemplary embodiments, the candidate may be given lower priority or may be disqualified from applying for the position based on their availability for an interview” (para 195). Further, Champaneria discloses “automatically calculating” as Champaneria provides an AI bot that may “complete all or part of an interview procedure (para 212) including scheduling an appointment date and time with a candidate (paras 189-197 and 257) where the appointment date and time are changeable (para 196). Champaneria does not specifically disclose, in the step of accepting the response time is a “response deadline” and is presented to the registrants. However, this is taught by Segal, as Segal recites incorporating built in deadlines at each step of a hiring process where a deadline, such as deadline to respond, is presented to an applicant as part of an application process (abstract, fig. 4 “CONTACT NOW-Action needed…”; paras 49, 52 and 53). Additionally, Segal teaches a response deadline that is calculated based on recruitment information including an employment period as Segal teaches resetting a response deadline in response to an employer requesting resubmission of an applicant’s response (para 47) or updating of the job placement (para 49). 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 Champaneria and Segal in order to “ensure timely responses to the employer's submission of a request to offer proposals” (‘709; para 47).
Neither Champaneria nor Segal teach wherein the response deadline is presented to be changeable by the registrants. However, this is taught by Lee et al. (fig. 5, “Deadline”, “11/30/07 17:00:00”, “Request Deadline Extension”; paras 32 and 53). 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 Champaneria, Segal and Lee et al., in order to “ensure timely responses to the employer's submission of a request to offer proposals” (‘709; para 47) while also providing reasonable flexibility with respect to a deadline such as in case of emergency (‘160, para 190; ‘413, para 32, “reason for requesting the deadline extension”).
44. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champaneria, US 20190019160 in view of Segal, US 20050228709, Lee et al., US 20090063413 and, in further view of Kolber et al., US 20130097093.
45. As per claim 10, neither Champaneria, Segal nor Lee et al. teach notifying the registrants whose response deadlines have elapsed that the response deadlines have elapsed. However, this is taught by Kolber et al. (para 202). 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 Champaneria, Segal, Lee et al., and Kolber et al. in order to “ensure timely responses to the employer's submission of a request to offer proposals” (‘709; para 47).
46. As per claim 11, Champaneria teaches presenting a calendar to the business entity that has input the recruitment information (fig. 1, item 1; fig. 2, item 14; paras 64 and 65), and present an employment period related to the recruitment information on the calendar (paras 11, 191 and 196).
Conclusion
61. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20130333048 Coggeshall et al. teach a system for detecting identity manipulation
US 20150248649 Avats, teaches a system for managing temporary and permanent job listings
62. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALVIN L HEWITT II whose telephone number is (571) 272-6709. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a-7p.
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.
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.
/CALVIN L HEWITT II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692