DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11, 14-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,108 in view of Bicanic et al. US 2014/0043426 hereinafter referred to as Bicanic.
In regards to claim 1, the instant application requires the features:
“wherein the central processing unit ends the short duration interactive video introduction session upon expiration of a predefined duration in the absence of a first continuation request made by the requesting user or in the absence of a second continuation request made by the unknown person of interest prior, and wherein the first continuation request or the second continuation request is made prior to the expiration of the predefined duration or at the end of the expiration of the predefined duration”
However, Bicanic teaches in paragraph [0045] and Figure 1 the user selectable options include an option to request for extending the duration of current video session beyond the predetermined duration. Figure 1 step 140 illustrates that when no inputs are received (absence of a request) for extending the session the session is terminated. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified ‘108 patent in view of Bicanic to have included the features of “wherein the central processing unit ends the short duration interactive video introduction session upon expiration of a predefined duration in the absence of a first continuation request made by the requesting user or in the absence of a second continuation request made by the unknown person of interest prior, and wherein the first continuation request or the second continuation request is made prior to the expiration of the predefined duration or at the end of the expiration of the predefined duration” because a need exists for a better interactive platform for facilitating interaction and communication between different users, a platform which may substantially increase the users' interest and trust, and the platform's credibility (Bicanic [0005]).
The other differences in the claims of the ‘108 patent and the instant application has features of claim 1 in the ‘108 patent included in claim 3 of the instant application. Specifically, claim 3 of the instant application includes the following features:
“wherein the predefined duration that causes the central processing unit to end the short duration interactive video introduction session is a first selectable predefined duration that is selectable by the requesting user, and wherein a second selectable predefined duration that is selectable by the requesting user causes the central processing unit to end the short duration interactive video introduction session at the expiration of the second selectable predefined duration.”
All the features of claim 1 of the instant application are known from claim 1 of the ‘108 patent in view of Bicanic. Therefore, claim 1 is not considered patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘108 patent.
In regards to claim 2 of the instant application, the features are generally the same as claim 2 of the ‘108 patent and are therefore known from the ‘108 patent in view of Bicanic.
In regards to claim 3 of the instant application, the features are known from claim 1 of the ‘108 patent and are therefore known from the ‘108 patent in view of Bicanic.
In regards to claim 4 of the instant application, the features are known from claim 6 of the ‘108 patent and are therefore known from the ‘108 patent in view of Bicanic.
In regards to claim 5 of the instant application, the features are known from claims 7-8 of the ‘108 patent and are therefore known from the ‘108 patent in view of Bicanic.
In regards to claim 6 of the instant application, the features are known from claims 7 and 9 of the ‘108 patent and are therefore known from the ‘108 patent in view of Bicanic.
In regards to claim 7 of the instant application, the features are known from claim 10 of the ‘108 patent and are therefore known from the ‘108 patent in view of Bicanic.
In regards to claim 8 of the instant application, the features are known from claim 11 of the ‘108 patent and are therefore known from the ‘108 patent in view of Bicanic.
In regards to claim 9 of the instant application, the features are known from claim 12 of the ‘108 patent and are therefore known from the ‘108 patent in view of Bicanic.
In regards to claim 10 of the instant application, the features are known from claim 13 of the ‘108 patent and are therefore known from the ‘108 patent in view of Bicanic.
In regards to claim 11 of the instant application, the features are known from claim 14 of the ‘108 patent and are therefore known from the ‘108 patent in view of Bicanic.
In regards to claim 14 of the instant application, the features are known from claim 15 of the ‘108 patent and are therefore known from the ‘108 patent in view of Bicanic.
In regards to claim 15 of the instant application, the features are known from claim 16 of the ‘108 patent and are therefore known from the ‘108 patent in view of Bicanic.
In regards to claim 16, it contains similar limitations as in claim 1 written in method format and therefore is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 1.
In regards to claim 17, it contains similar limitations as in claim 2 and therefore is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 2.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,108. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
In regards to claim 18, it contains similar limitations as in claim 1 of the ‘108 patent with some features of claim 1 not included. Therefore, claim 18 is essentially a genus of claim 1 of the ‘108 patent which would be considered a species. However, a species always anticipates a genus and therefore, claim 18 cannot be considered to be an independent and distinct invention in view of the ‘108 patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bustamente US 2013/0238708 hereinafter referred to as Bustamente in view of Li et al. US 2020/0273136 hereinafter referred to as Li in view of Bicanic.
In regards to claim 1, Bustamente teaches:
“A short duration interactive video introduction system that facilitates a short duration interactive video introduction session between a requesting user and an unknown person of interest that is a member of a social media site”
Bustamente [0016] teaches in more particular embodiment, the first identity is associated with a user name assigned by a fee-based matching service (e.g., a profile name associated with a service provider). The user name is shown to a plurality of end users in an online community associated with the fee-based matching service. For example, the fee-based matching service can include being billed by the minute, by the communication session, the video session, through a monthly flat rate, or any combination of the above (which may or may not involve revenue sharing with 3.sup.rd party providers). Bustamente paragraph [0062] teaches Communication broker 34 can maintain any suitable business rules to control the functions of the communications involving users. This is especially important for voice dating or video dating; otherwise, the phones, video cameras, video conferencing equipment, etc. could be initiated at unexpected (potentially unwanted) times (e.g., a phone ringing at 3 AM, video equipment being activated at various inopportune times, etc.). The Examiner interprets that applications such as video dating would include a user that is unknown to another user.
“comprising: a first network connection that communicatively couples the short duration interactive video introduction system to a first electronic device used by the requesting user, wherein the first network connection receives a user request from the first electronic device to conduct the short duration interactive video introduction session with the unknown person of interest”
Bustamente paragraph [0069] teaches a first user or source initiates a communication session request from a SIP endpoint that is addressed to a second user or recipient (62) with a profile address. It can be interpreted that the first user is a requesting user and the second user is an unknown user.
“a central processing unit that generates a short duration interactive video introduction invitation in response to receiving the user request”
Bustamente paragraph [0069] teaches communication broker 34 reconciles the calendar data, and then displays an aggregate calendar to each end user showing dates and times that each end user is available for a communication session request (68).
“and a second network connection that communicatively couples the short duration interactive video introduction system to a second electronic device, wherein the central processing unit communicates short duration interactive video introduction invitation to the second electronic device via the second network connection”
Bustamente paragraph [0070] Communication broker 34 transmits the translated communication request to the recipient originating from the source profile address (72), with the translated call request being received by the recipient SIP endpoint from the recipient SIP server (74). The call recipient could then decide whether to accept or deny the communication request (76). If the recipient accepts the request, a communication session (e.g., telephone call, video session, etc.) is initiated between the SIP endpoints (78).
“wherein the short duration interactive video introduction invitation includes [accepting the invitation] configured to establish communication connectivity between the first electronic device of the requesting user and an electronic device of the unknown person of interest”
Bustamente paragraph [0068] teaches communication broker 34 next transmits a communication session call invitation message addressed to a second user (joe@gizmo.com) from a first user (profileZ@match.com) to destination SIP server 38. Destination SIP server 38 sends a service availability request to destination SIP endpoint 42 (e.g., Joe's cell phone, Smartphone, personal computer), which if available and accepted by Joe, initiates a communication session call set-up invitation back to Sally at SIP endpoint 40 (via communication broker 34).
“wherein the short duration interactive video introduction invitation that identifies the requesting user and that has [accepted the invitation] is presented on a display of the electronic device of the unknown person of interest in response to the electronic device of the unknown person of interest receiving the short duration interactive video introduction invitation”
Bustamente paragraph [0068] destination SIP server 38 sends a service availability request to destination SIP endpoint 42 (e.g., Joe's cell phone, Smartphone, personal computer), which if available and accepted by Joe, initiates a communication session call set-up invitation back to Sally at SIP endpoint 40 (via communication broker 34).
“wherein the first electronic device of the requesting user and the electronic device of the unknown person of interest are communicatively coupled together in response to receiving an acceptance of the short duration interactive video introduction invitation by the unknown person of interest”
Bustamente paragraph [0070] Communication broker 34 transmits the translated communication request to the recipient originating from the source profile address (72), with the translated call request being received by the recipient SIP endpoint from the recipient SIP server (74). The call recipient could then decide whether to accept or deny the communication request (76). If the recipient accepts the request, a communication session (e.g., telephone call, video session, etc.) is initiated between the SIP endpoints (78).
“wherein the central processing unit conducts the short duration interactive video introduction session between the requesting user and the unknown person of interest in response to communicatively coupling the first electronic device of the requesting user and the electronic device of the unknown person of interest”
Bustamente Figure 4 step 78 teaches that the communication session is initiated.
“and wherein the central processing unit ends the short duration interactive video introduction session upon expiration of a predefined duration ...”
In Figure 4 Bustamente teaches that the session is termination by users. However, Bustamente teaches in paragraph [0082] User session mappings could be described as the collective one-on-one sessions for each participant to have a communication session with each of their prospective dating candidates. This can take place in a round-robin fashion (or using any other appropriate protocol), where each participant would communicate with each candidate for a predefined, structured communication period. The Examiner interprets that a predefined communication period is equivalent to a predefined duration. While these features are explored in different embodiment it would have been considered nothing more than a design choice based on application to determine how and when to end a communication session. This feature does not provide any unpredictable results as it merely ends in terminating the session in a known fashion. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
Bustamente does not explicitly teach:
“a selectable link” and “the selectable link”
However, accepting an invitation via a selectable link is a well-known feature. For example, Li teaches in paragraph [0151] The WeChat message may also similarly include inviter identification information and a link, and then feedback may be sent to the first client through the server by clicking the link and accepting the invitation. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bustamente in view of Li to have included the features of “a selectable link” and “the selectable link” because the prior art have difficulty in meeting the demands of car owners with respect to actively inviting others to share addresses for pick-up and drop-off, and quickly and directly planning trip routes (Li paragraph [0005]).
Bustamente/Li do not explicitly teach:
“[wherein the central processing unit ends the short duration interactive video introduction session upon expiration of a predefined duration] in the absence of a first continuation request made by the requesting user or in the absence of a second continuation request made by the unknown person of interest prior, and wherein the first continuation request or the second continuation request is made prior to the expiration of the predefined duration or at the end of the expiration of the predefined duration”
Bicanic teaches in paragraph [0045] and Figure 1 the user selectable options include an option to request for extending the duration of current video session beyond the predetermined duration. Figure 1 step 140 illustrates that when no inputs are received (absence of a request) for extending the session the session is terminated. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Bustamente/Li in view of Bicanic to have included the features of “wherein the central processing unit ends the short duration interactive video introduction session upon expiration of a predefined duration in the absence of a first continuation request made by the requesting user or in the absence of a second continuation request made by the unknown person of interest prior, and wherein the first continuation request or the second continuation request is made prior to the expiration of the predefined duration or at the end of the expiration of the predefined duration” because a need exists for a better interactive platform for facilitating interaction and communication between different users, a platform which may substantially increase the users' interest and trust, and the platform's credibility (Bicanic [0005]).
In regards to claim 10, Bustamente/Li teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the acceptance of the short duration interactive video introduction invitation by the unknown person of interest is communicated to the short duration interactive video introduction system in response to the unknown person of interest’s [acceptance]”
Bustamente paragraph [0068] destination SIP server 38 sends a service availability request to destination SIP endpoint 42 (e.g., Joe's cell phone, Smartphone, personal computer), which if available and accepted by Joe, initiates a communication session call set-up invitation back to Sally at SIP endpoint 40 (via communication broker 34).
Bustamente does not explicitly teach:
“selection of the selectable link”
Li teaches in paragraph [0151] The WeChat message may also similarly include inviter identification information and a link, and then feedback may be sent to the first client through the server by clicking the link and accepting the invitation. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bustamente in view of Li to have included the features of “selection of the selectable link” because the prior art have difficulty in meeting the demands of car owners with respect to actively inviting others to share addresses for pick-up and drop-off, and quickly and directly planning trip routes (Li paragraph [0005]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bustamente in view of Li in view of Bicanic and further in view of Allharayeri US 10,334,397 hereinafter referred to as Allharayeri.
In regards to claim 11, Bustamente/Li/Bicanic teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein in response to declining of the short duration interactive video introduction invitation by the unknown person of interest, the central processing unit generates a message that indicates that the short duration interactive video introduction invitation has been declined” and “short duration interactive video introduction invitation”
Bustamente paragraph [0075] teaches User 2 can receive the notification, potentially along with the associated relevant profile information for the initiating user (User 1), and may then either accept or deny the invitation (95). If User 2 declines the invitation, no communication session is scheduled between User 1 and User 2.
Bustamente/Li do not explicitly teach:
“and wherein the message that indicates that the [invitation to connect] has been declined is communicated to the first electronic device of the requesting user via the first network connection”
Allharayeri teaches in column 9 lines 55-65 teaches the detection and notification module may transmit the second profile of the second user to the first communication device as an invitation to connect with the second communication device, and the first profile of the first user to the second communication device as an invitation to connect with the first communication device. Thereafter, the detection and notification module notifies the first communication device when the second user has accepted or rejected the invitation to connect the second communication device with the first communication device. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Bustamente/Li/Bicanic in view of Allharayeri to have included the features of “and wherein the message that indicates that the [invitation to connect] has been declined is communicated to the first electronic device of the requesting user via the first network connection” because With such increase in the use of communication devices for accessing social networks, the users of the communication devices are feeling a need of exchanging contact information, including pictures, social network profiles, emails, and phone numbers, for enhancing social interaction. (Allharayeri column 1 lines 30-35).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bustamente in view of Li.
In regards to claim 18, Bustamente teaches:
“A short duration interactive video introduction system that facilitates a short duration interactive video introduction session between a requesting user and an unknown person of interest that is a member of a social media site”
Bustamente [0016] teaches in more particular embodiment, the first identity is associated with a user name assigned by a fee-based matching service (e.g., a profile name associated with a service provider). The user name is shown to a plurality of end users in an online community associated with the fee-based matching service. For example, the fee-based matching service can include being billed by the minute, by the communication session, the video session, through a monthly flat rate, or any combination of the above (which may or may not involve revenue sharing with 3.sup.rd party providers). Bustamente paragraph [0062] teaches Communication broker 34 can maintain any suitable business rules to control the functions of the communications involving users. This is especially important for voice dating or video dating; otherwise, the phones, video cameras, video conferencing equipment, etc. could be initiated at unexpected (potentially unwanted) times (e.g., a phone ringing at 3 AM, video equipment being activated at various inopportune times, etc.). The Examiner interprets that applications such as video dating would include a user that is unknown to another user.
“comprising: a first network connection that communicatively couples the short duration interactive video introduction system to a first electronic device used by the requesting user, wherein the first network connection receives a user request from the first electronic device to conduct the short duration interactive video introduction session with the unknown person of interest”
Bustamente paragraph [0069] teaches a first user or source initiates a communication session request from a SIP endpoint that is addressed to a second user or recipient (62) with a profile address. It can be interpreted that the first user is a requesting user and the second user is an unknown user.
“a central processing unit that generates a short duration interactive video introduction invitation in response to receiving the user request”
Bustamente paragraph [0069] teaches communication broker 34 reconciles the calendar data, and then displays an aggregate calendar to each end user showing dates and times that each end user is available for a communication session request (68).
“and a second network connection that communicatively couples the short duration interactive video introduction system to a second electronic device, wherein the central processing unit communicates short duration interactive video introduction invitation to the second electronic device via the second network connection”
Bustamente paragraph [0070] Communication broker 34 transmits the translated communication request to the recipient originating from the source profile address (72), with the translated call request being received by the recipient SIP endpoint from the recipient SIP server (74). The call recipient could then decide whether to accept or deny the communication request (76). If the recipient accepts the request, a communication session (e.g., telephone call, video session, etc.) is initiated between the SIP endpoints (78).
“wherein the short duration interactive video introduction invitation includes [accepting the invitation] configured to establish communication connectivity between the first electronic device of the requesting user and an electronic device of the unknown person of interest”
Bustamente paragraph [0068] teaches communication broker 34 next transmits a communication session call invitation message addressed to a second user (joe@gizmo.com) from a first user (profileZ@match.com) to destination SIP server 38. Destination SIP server 38 sends a service availability request to destination SIP endpoint 42 (e.g., Joe's cell phone, Smartphone, personal computer), which if available and accepted by Joe, initiates a communication session call set-up invitation back to Sally at SIP endpoint 40 (via communication broker 34).
“wherein the short duration interactive video introduction invitation that identifies the requesting user and that has [accepted the invitation] is presented on a display of the electronic device of the unknown person of interest in response to the electronic device of the unknown person of interest receiving the short duration interactive video introduction invitation,
Bustamente paragraph [0068] destination SIP server 38 sends a service availability request to destination SIP endpoint 42 (e.g., Joe's cell phone, Smartphone, personal computer), which if available and accepted by Joe, initiates a communication session call set-up invitation back to Sally at SIP endpoint 40 (via communication broker 34).
“wherein the first electronic device of the requesting user and the electronic device of the unknown person of interest are communicatively coupled together in response to receiving an acceptance of the short duration interactive video introduction invitation by the unknown person of interest”
Bustamente paragraph [0070] Communication broker 34 transmits the translated communication request to the recipient originating from the source profile address (72), with the translated call request being received by the recipient SIP endpoint from the recipient SIP server (74). The call recipient could then decide whether to accept or deny the communication request (76). If the recipient accepts the request, a communication session (e.g., telephone call, video session, etc.) is initiated between the SIP endpoints (78).
“wherein the central processing unit conducts the short duration interactive video introduction session between the requesting user and the unknown person of interest in response to communicatively coupling the first electronic device of the requesting user and the electronic device of the unknown person of interest”
Bustamente Figure 4 step 78 teaches that the communication session is initiated.
“and wherein the central processing unit ends the short duration interactive video introduction session upon expiration of a predefined duration”
In Figure 4 Bustamente teaches that the session is termination by users. However, Bustamente teaches in paragraph [0082] User session mappings could be described as the collective one-on-one sessions for each participant to have a communication session with each of their prospective dating candidates. This can take place in a round-robin fashion (or using any other appropriate protocol), where each participant would communicate with each candidate for a predefined, structured communication period. The Examiner interprets that a predefined communication period is equivalent to a predefined duration. While these features are explored in different embodiment it would have been considered nothing more than a design choice based on application to determine how and when to end a communication session. This feature does not provide any unpredictable results as it merely ends in terminating the session in a known fashion. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
Bustamente does not explicitly teach:
“a selectable link” and “the selectable link”
However, accepting an invitation via a selectable link is a well-known feature. For example, Li teaches in paragraph [0151] The WeChat message may also similarly include inviter identification information and a link, and then feedback may be sent to the first client through the server by clicking the link and accepting the invitation. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bustamente in view of Li to have included the features of “a selectable link” and “the selectable link” because the prior art have difficulty in meeting the demands of car owners with respect to actively inviting others to share addresses for pick-up and drop-off, and quickly and directly planning trip routes (Li paragraph [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422