DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission including amendment to the claims filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
3. Claims 1, 9, 14, and 17-18 have been amended. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are pending and will be considered for examination.
4. The new title submitted on 12/10/2025 has been considered and is entered into the application; the objection to the Specification is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
5. Claims 1 and 17-18 recite the limitations “if the target instruction is a first type”, “if the target instruction is a second type”, and “if the target instruction is a third type”. Each of the clauses indicates that the associated limitations occur only when the criteria of these clauses are met. However, the present claims never affirmatively require such events to occur. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations does not require these conditional steps to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. As such, the limitations followed by ““if the target instruction is a first type”, “if the target instruction is a second type”, and “if the target instruction is a third type” clauses do not appear to have patentable weight since they are contingent upon a condition occurring.
Examiner suggests positively reciting the criteria occurring prior to each of the limitations.
Examiner’s Note
6. As stated in the “claim interpretation” section above, the limitations followed by “if the target instruction is a first type”, “if the target instruction is a second type”, and “if the target instruction is a third type” clauses do not appear to have patentable weight since they are contingent upon a condition occurring. Nevertheless, in the interest of compact prosecution, rejections for these limitations are provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claims 1, 9-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Qitao (CN117289841A, published on December 26, 2023) in view of Hariri et al. (US 2025/0272117 A1) in view of Hwacinski et al. (US 11151518 B2) and further in view of Turley et al. (US 2025/0103962 A1).
As in Claim 1, Yang teaches an interaction method, comprising:
displaying, in response to a user triggering an instruction creation function, an instruction creation interface (Figs. 1-3, pars. 80-93, with a user input or request on a software development assistance application main interface, a template interface (e.g., software development auxiliary template library) can be displayed for creating or adding templates (e.g., instructions or prompts));
determining prompt information corresponding to a target instruction according to information for creating the target instruction input by the user in the instruction creation interface (Figs. 1-3, at least pars. 80-93, a user can create or customize the template by writing an instruction in the interface using ${} in the Prompt to write the customized content into {}. The variables in {} can be identified to realize the corresponding dialogue interaction function through the large language model; further see pars. 69-79); and
generating and displaying an operation control of the target instruction according to the prompt information (Figs. 2-3, pars. 80-93, 104-105, 123-125, the added templates can be displayed in the software development auxiliary template library, which can be selectable by the user).
Yang does not appear to teach: if the target instruction is a first type, displaying a sending of information corresponding to the target instruction to a first Agent, and outputting response information generated by the first Agent based on the target instruction in an interaction interface between the user and the first Agent, in response to the user triggering the operation control of the target instruction; if the target instruction is a second type, displaying, in response to the user triggering the operation control of the target instruction, guidance information for starting interaction based on the target instruction in the interaction interface between the user and the first Agent, and outputting, in response to the user inputting second interaction information, response information generated by the first Agent based on the target instruction and the second interaction information in the interaction interface between the user and the first Agent; and if the target instruction is a third type, calling a second Agent to interact with the user in response to the user triggering the operation control of the target instruction, wherein the second Agent with an interaction function corresponding to the target instruction is created according to the target instruction.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Hariri teaches: if the target instruction is a first type, displaying a sending of information corresponding to the target instruction to a first Agent, and outputting response information generated by the first Agent based on the target instruction in an interaction interface between the user and the first Agent, in response to the user triggering the operation control of the target instruction ( FIGS. 5A-5C, based on the selection of suggested prompt indicating different type of content or application, a digital assistant or generative models outputs information in response to the selected prompt; further see FIGS. 6A-7B and the accompanying paragraph).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating the customized prompt or prompt information, as taught by Yang, and to provide information for the selected prompt type, as taught by Hariri. The motivation is to generate context-aware response that match the user’s intent and content type, enhancing the relevance and effectiveness of the output.
Yang and Hariri do not teach: if the target instruction is a second type, displaying, in response to the user triggering the operation control of the target instruction, guidance information for starting interaction based on the target instruction in the interaction interface between the user and the first Agent, and outputting, in response to the user inputting second interaction information, response information generated by the first Agent based on the target instruction and the second interaction information in the interaction interface between the user and the first Agent; and if the target instruction is a third type, calling a second Agent to interact with the user in response to the user triggering the operation control of the target instruction, wherein the second Agent with an interaction function corresponding to the target instruction is created according to the target instruction.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Hwacinski teaches: if the target instruction is a second type, displaying, in response to the user triggering the operation control of the target instruction, guidance information for starting interaction based on the target instruction in the interaction interface between the user and the first Agent, and outputting, in response to the user inputting second interaction information, response information generated by the first Agent based on the target instruction and the second interaction information in the interaction interface between the user and the first Agent (see FIGS. 3A-3F, col. 7, line 12 to col. 8, line 40, with a selection of prompts or guided hints based pm different categories or topics -- such as icons 304 or calendar events 306 as shown in FIGS. 3B-3C-- the system displays additional prompts or guided prompts for further selection. In response to the user’s subsequent selections and inputs, the system then displays further guided prompts as shown in FIGS. 3D-3E).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating the customized prompt or prompt information, as taught by Yang, in view of Hariri’s teachings, and to provide additional prompts based on the selection of provided prompts, as taught by Hwacinski. The motivation is to is to guide users through building events efficiently while enhancing the experience with contextual prompts.
Yang, Hariri, and Hwacinski do not teach: if the target instruction is a third type, calling a second Agent to interact with the user in response to the user triggering the operation control of the target instruction, wherein the second Agent with an interaction function corresponding to the target instruction is created according to the target instruction.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Turley teach: if the target instruction is a third type, calling a second Agent to interact with the user in response to the user triggering the operation control of the target instruction, wherein the second Agent with an interaction function corresponding to the target instruction is created according to the target instruction (pars. 69, 71, 88-89, 94-95, 174-184, when the system identifies a specific instruction or prompt, the created customized AI agents can be called or executed. User can define not only the agents’ knowledge, personality, tone, and capabilities, but also how different types or categories of prompts are handled. This includes user-defined model-specific instructions, trigger-instruction pairs, templates, and prompt starters that classify prompts by intent, expected output, required capability. This agent can specialize in certain topics or functions, and prompts can dynamically invoke the appropriate knowledge based or instructions; further see pars. 100, 104, 106).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating the customized prompt or prompt information, as taught by Yang, in view of Hariri’s and Hwacinski’s teachings, and to invoke created customized AI agent for specific prompt or instruction, as taught by Turley. The motivation is to allow users to tailored response based on user-defined goals, guidelines, can contextual refinements.
As in Claim 9, Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley further teaches that the generating and displaying an operation control of the target instruction according to the prompt information comprises:
generating, in response to a confirmation operation of the user on the prompt information, the interaction function corresponding to the target instruction and an operation control of the target instruction associated with the interaction function according to the prompt information (Yang, Figs. 2-3, pars. 80-93, 104-105, in response to the confirmation operation of the defined template to be added in the template addition interface, the added template is output in the software development assistance template library; further see pars. 23-125); and
displaying the operation control of the target instruction (Yang, Figs. 2-3, pars. 80-93, 104-105; further see pars. 23-125).
As in Claim 10, Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley further teaches that the displaying, in response to a user triggering an instruction creation function, an instruction creation interface comprises:
displaying an operation control of the instruction creation function (Yang, Figs. 2-3, pars. 80-93, 104-105; further see pars. 23-125); and
displaying the instruction creation interface in response to the user triggering the operation control of the instruction creation function (Yang, Figs. 2-3, pars. 80-93, 104-105; further see pars. 23-125).
As in Claim 11, Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley further teaches that the displaying, in response to a user triggering an instruction creation function, an instruction creation interface comprises:
displaying, in response to the user inputting first interaction information, the first interaction information (Yang, Figs. 2-3, pars. 80-93, 104-105; further see pars. 23-125); and
displaying the instruction creation interface, and displaying the first interaction information in the instruction creation interface as information for creating the target instruction, in response to the user triggering the instruction creation function for the first interaction information (Yang, Figs. 2-3, pars. 80-93, 104-105; further see pars. 23-125).
As in Claim 12, Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley further teaches displaying the prompt information (Yang, Figs. 2-3, pars. 80-93, 104-105; further see pars. 23-125); and
updating, in response to a modification operation of the user on the prompt information, the prompt information according to the modification operation (Yang, Figs. 2-3, pars. 80-93, 104-105, for example, existing templates can be modified with user input; further see pars. 23-125).
Claim 17-18 are substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
8. Claims 2, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Qitao (CN117289841A, published on December 26, 2023) in view of Hariri et al. (US 2025/0272117 A1) in view of Hwacinski et al. (US 11151518 B2) in view of Turley et al. (US 2025/0103962 A1) and further in view of Azose et al. ( US 20250117573 A1).
As in Claim 2, Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley does not teach that wherein the displaying an operation control of the target instruction comprises: determining, in response to the user setting a distribution scenario or according to the target instruction, the distribution scenario of the operation control of the target instruction; and displaying the operation control of the target instruction in the distribution scenario.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Azose teaches that that wherein the displaying an operation control of the target instruction comprises:
determining, in response to the user setting a distribution scenario or according to the target instruction, the distribution scenario of the operation control of the target instruction (FIGS. 2A-4D, at least par. 37, based on the type of device or screen size, a drafting assistant tool can determine or adjust the elements it displays. (The reason is to ensure optimal usability and visibility on smaller screen); and
displaying the operation control of the target instruction in the distribution scenario (FIGS. 2A-4D, at least par. 37).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating the customized prompt or prompt information, as taught by Yang, in view of Hariri’s, Hwacinski’s, and Turley’s teachings, to adjust the prompt elements based on the type of devices, as taught by Azose. The motivation is to is to ensure optimal usability and visibility for different types of devices.
As in Claim 14, Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley does not teach displaying guidance information for enabling the target instruction, in response to third interaction information input by the user matching with the target instruction, displaying a sending of information corresponding to the target instruction to the first Agent, and outputting response information generated by the first Agent based on the target instruction, in response to a confirmation operation of the user; or
displaying guidance information for starting interaction based on the target instruction, in response to fourth interaction information input by the user matching with the target instruction, and outputting response information generated by the first Agent based on the target instruction and fifth interaction information, in response to the user inputting the fifth interaction information.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Azose teaches displaying guidance information for enabling the target instruction, in response to third interaction information input by the user matching with the target instruction, displaying a sending of information corresponding to the target instruction to the first Agent, and outputting response information generated by the first Agent based on the target instruction, in response to a confirmation operation of the user; or displaying guidance information for starting interaction based on the target instruction, in response to fourth interaction information input by the user matching with the target instruction, and outputting response information generated by the first Agent based on the target instruction and fifth interaction information, in response to the user inputting the fifth interaction information (par. 35, FIG. 3C shows a drafting assistant interface displaying three generated responses from a language model, which may arrive at different times. Pending responses show loading placeholders until received. Each response can be selected and inserted into a text box, with some versions providing separate insert controls for each response.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating the customized prompt or prompt information, as taught by Yang, in view of Hariri’s, Hwacinski’s, and Turley’s teachings, and to provide guidance information for the user interaction, as taught by Azose. The motivation is to allow users to compare multiple options and choose the best response, improving flexibility and efficiency in drafting.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to Claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
9. Claims 3-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Qitao (CN117289841A, published on December 26, 2023) in view of Hariri et al. (US 2025/0272117 A1) in view of Hwacinski et al. (US 11151518 B2) in view of Turley et al. (US 2025/0103962 A1) and further in view of Yu, Peng (CN117827804A, published on April 5, 2024).
As in Claim 3, Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley does not teach that the determining prompt information corresponding to a target instruction according to information for creating the target instruction input by the user in the instruction creation interface comprises: generating structured prompt information corresponding to the target instruction according to the information for creating the target instruction input by the user in the instruction creation interface.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Yu teaches that the determining prompt information corresponding to a target instruction according to information for creating the target instruction input by the user in the instruction creation interface comprises: generating structured prompt information corresponding to the target instruction according to the information for creating the target instruction input by the user in the instruction creation interface (at least pars. 50-53,the system can obtain the user interaction information with the input and generate a prompt result according to the generated structure interactive information).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating the customized prompt or prompt information, as taught by Yang, in view of Hariri’s, Hwacinski’s, and Turley’s teachings, and to generate the structed prompt information, as taught by Yu. The motivation is to ensure clarity, guiding the model’s response, and improving relevance and accuracy.
As in Claim 4, Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley and Yu teach all the limitations of Claim 3. Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley and Yu further teach that the generating structured prompt information corresponding to the target instruction according to the information for creating the target instruction input by the user in the instruction creation interface comprises:
parsing the information for creating the target instruction to determine content of at least one of a task or an output comprised in the information for creating the target instruction (Yu, see at least pars. 50-76);
expanding the content of at least one of the task or the output to generate task description information and output description information in the prompt information (Yu, see at least pars. 50-76); and
generating the structured prompt information corresponding to the target instruction according to the task description information and the output description information (Yu, see at least pars. 50-76).
As in Claim 5, Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley and Yu teach all the limitations of Claim 4. Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley and Yu further teach that the expanding the content of at least one of the task or the output comprises:
expanding the content of at least one of the task or the output according to the content of the at least one of the task or the output and sample prompt information, wherein the sample prompt information comprises sample task description information and sample output description information (Yu, see at least pars. 50-76).
As in Claim 6, Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley and Yu teach all the limitations of Claim 5. Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley and Yu further teach that the sample prompt information is structured prompt information generated from the sample task description information and the sample output description information according to a preset structure, the generating the structured prompt information corresponding to the target instruction comprises:
generating the structured prompt information corresponding to the target instruction according to the task description information and the output description information in the prompt information and the preset structure corresponding to the sample prompt information (Yu, see at least pars. 50-76).
As in Claim 7, Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley and Yu teach all the limitations of Claim 3. Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley and Yu further teach that the generating structured prompt information corresponding to the target instruction according to the information for creating the target instruction input by the user in the instruction creation interface comprises:
generating, in response to the user triggering an information perfection control in the instruction creation interface, the structured prompt information corresponding to the target instruction according to the information for creating the target instruction input by the user in the instruction creation interface (Yu, see at least pars. 50-76).
Claim 20 is substantially similar to Claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale.
10. Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Qitao (CN117289841A, published on December 26, 2023) in view of Hariri et al. (US 2025/0272117 A1) in view of Hwacinski et al. (US 11151518 B2) in view of Turley et al. (US 2025/0103962 A1) in view of Jaygarl et al. (US 2019/0066677 A1) and further in view of Saleh, Sarah Ragab Ismail (US 2025/0181215 A1).
As in Claim 8, Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley does not teach that the instruction creation interface comprises a title input area and an instruction content input area; the information for creating the target instruction comprises at least one of a title of the target instruction or content of the target instruction; the title of the target instruction is displayed in the operation control of the target instruction, in response to the information for creating the target instruction comprising the title of the target instruction; and a title generated according to the prompt information is displayed in the operation control of the target instruction, in response to the information for creating the target instruction not comprising the title of the target instruction.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Jaygarl teaches that the instruction creation interface comprises a title input area and an instruction content input area (FIGS. 17-21, at least pars. 256-284);
the information for creating the target instruction comprises at least one of a title of the target instruction or content of the target instruction (FIGS. 17-21, at least pars. 256-284);
the title of the target instruction is displayed in the operation control of the target instruction, in response to the information for creating the target instruction comprising the title of the target instruction (FIGS. 17-21, at least pars. 256-284).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating the customized prompt or prompt information, as taught by Yang, in view of Hariri’s, Hwacinski’s, and Turley’s teachings, and to create and edit the prompt information, as taught by Jaygarl. The motivation is to allow users to easily create and edit the command information.
Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley and Jaygarl do not teach that a title generated according to the prompt information is displayed in the operation control of the target instruction, in response to the information for creating the target instruction not comprising the title of the target instruction.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Saleh teaches that a title generated according to the prompt information is displayed in the operation control of the target instruction, in response to the information for creating the target instruction not comprising the title of the target instruction (at least pars53, 84, 77, 81, 83, 92, the foundation model is tasked not only with generating follow-on prompts for content enhancements but also with creating concise, natural language titles for each prompt. These titles serve as user-friendly labels displayed in the interface as suggestions. The model generates multiple titles—usually limited in length—to clearly represent the purpose of each enhancement prompt. The system extracts and displays these titles as clickable options, allowing users to select enhancements based on the title alone, without seeing the full prompt text).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating the customized prompt or prompt information, as taught by Yang, in view of Hariri’s, Hwacinski’s, Turley’s, and Jaygarl’s teachings, and to generate the titles of the prompt, as taught by Saleh. The motivation is to make it easier for users to understand and choose relevant content improvements quickly and intuitively.
Claim 21 is substantially similar to Claim 8 and rejected under the same rationale.
11. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Qitao (CN117289841A, published on December 26, 2023) in view of Hariri et al. (US 2025/0272117 A1) in view of Hwacinski et al. (US 11151518 B2) in view of Turley et al. (US 2025/0103962 A1) and further in view of Jaygarl et al. (US 2019/0066677 A1).
As in Claim 15, Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley does not teach displaying one or more created instructions, in response to the user triggering an instruction check function; displaying, in response to an editing operation of the user on a first instruction in the one or more instructions, a title and prompt information corresponding to the first instruction; updating and displaying, the title and the prompt information corresponding to the first instruction, in response to a modification operation of the user on at least one of the title or the prompt information corresponding to the first instruction; and displaying, in response to a confirmation operation of the user on the title and the prompt information corresponding to the updated first instruction, the updated operation control of the first instruction.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Jaygarl teaches displaying one or more created instructions, in response to the user triggering an instruction check function (see at least pars. 285-286, 290-293);
displaying, in response to an editing operation of the user on a first instruction in the one or more instructions, a title and prompt information corresponding to the first instruction (see at least pars. 285-286, 290-293);
updating and displaying, the title and the prompt information corresponding to the first instruction, in response to a modification operation of the user on at least one of the title or the prompt information corresponding to the first instruction (see at least pars. 285-286, 290-293); and
displaying, in response to a confirmation operation of the user on the title and the prompt information corresponding to the updated first instruction, the updated operation control of the first instruction (see at least pars. 285-286, 290-293).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating hanging protocols in the workspace by placing thumbnail images, as taught by Yang, in view of Hariri’s, Hwacinski’s, and Turley’s teachings, and to edit the prompt/command and add them to the interface, as taught by Jaygarl. The motivation is to make it easier for users to customize tasks within quick commands
As in Claim 16, Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Yang-Hariri-Hwacinski-Turley does not teach further teaches displaying one or more created instructions, in response to the user triggering an instruction check function; and deleting, in response to a delete operation of the user on a second instruction in the one or more created instructions, the operation control of the second instruction.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Jaygarl teaches displaying one or more created instructions, in response to the user triggering an instruction check function (pars. 82, 90);
and deleting, in response to a delete operation of the user on a second instruction in the one or more created instructions, the operation control of the second instruction (par. 292).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating hanging protocols in the workspace by placing thumbnail images, as taught by Yang, in view of Hariri’s, Hwacinski’s, and Turley’s teachings, and to provide the way to delete the prompt/command information, as taught by Jaygarl. The motivation is to let users easily delete or reorder tasks in a quick command, improving control and usability.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims 1-12 and 14-21 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179