DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to the RCE Amendment for Application Number 19416335 received on 6/25/2026.
Claims 1-30 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on 6/18/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-14 and 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durairaj et al. (US 20240039873) in view of Bisztrai et al. (US 20210075832).
Regarding claim 1, Durairaj disclosed a system (Durairaj, [0075]) for providing a simulated browsing session, the system comprising:
a cloud browser (Durairaj, [0062], “chat bot may proactively offer the user an opportunity to participate in a co-browse session, and upon user consent, the chat bot may automatically perform a set of desired actions (e.g., web actions) on a webpage with which the user is interacting through embedded JavaScript and/or other technologies.” That is, Durairaj’s chatbot performs actions on a webpage in correspondence with the user’s device and the chatbot is located in the cloud based system such as cloud based system 300 of Fig. 3. Therefore, Durairaj’s chatbot reasonably amounts to the claimed cloud browser, as defined in claim 2. See also [0075], Durairaj provides embodiments where the cobrowse script may “form a portion of, constitute a feature/device superset of, or otherwise involve a cloud-based system similar to the cloud-based system 300 of FIG. 3”; See also [0081]; The chatbot functions to implement a co-browse session and performs actions on the webpage and therefore reasonably amounts to the claimed cloud browser; See also [0070] in which Durairaj disclosed the various actions to be executed by the chatbot such as “ mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions”);
an application programming interface (API) (Durairaj, [0065], “intent classification application programming interface (API) 106”; [0119], “media augmentation system 316 may be embodied as any service or system capable of specifying how the portions of the cloud-based system 300… interact with each other and otherwise performing the functions described herein. In some embodiments, the media augmentation system 316 may be embodied as or include an application program interface (API)); and
a processor (Durairaj, [0123], “one or more processors executing computer program instructions and interacting with other system components for performing the various functionalities described herein”) configured to:
instantiate a first artificial intelligence (AI) controlled agent (Durairaj, [0062], “Referring now to FIG. 1, a system 100 for co-browsing by chat bots by leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) and asynchronous session handling is shown”, “AI-powered bots to handle co-browse sessions”; [0068] ,”an executable program that can be launched according to demand for the particular chat bot (e.g., by a cloud-based system)”);
receive, from a human user device or a second AI controlled agent, task data identifying an online task (Durairaj, [0066], “a user (e.g., customer) may encounter difficulties in navigating or troubleshooting a webpage or other web-based or software-based solution on a user device 102, which may require a form or other user-enterable content to be supplied by the user, in which case the user may reach out to a contact center system for guidance via an interaction interface 104.”; [0070], “the user has authorized a co-browsing session for assistance (e.g., completing a web-based form).” and “the user herself may proactively request assistance for a co-browse session with the bot and engage in the co-browse session”; Proactively requesting assistance for a co-browse session involves providing task data identifying the online task of the particular co-browse session the user needs assistance with);
autonomously determine an online action for advancing the online task, using the first AI controlled agent and based on the task data (Durairaj, [0144], Durairaj disclosed determining whether an incomplete co-browse session is stored by accessing a database, and if the user opts to resume an incomplete co-browse session, the system determines that it needs to retrieve an intent configuration file; That is, the system determines the online action of retrieving the configuration file based on the user’s opt in and need for assistance, as explained above);
select, based on the online action, one or both of the cloud browser or the API for executing the online action (Durairaj, [0144], upon opting in to resume an incomplete co-browse session, the system determines to retrieve the intent configuration file from the intent configuration data store 110. This access would utilize the media augmentation system 316 which amounts to an API, in order to access the information from the database/data structure. Therefore, upon a determination of an incomplete cobrowse session and the user opting in, the system selects both the chatbot/cobrowse script and API for executing the online action), wherein when the cloud browser is selected, the cloud browser is configured to fetch and render online content and interact with the online content (Durairaj, [0062], “chat bot may proactively offer the user an opportunity to participate in a co-browse session, and upon user consent, the chat bot may automatically perform a set of desired actions (e.g., web actions) on a webpage with which the user is interacting through embedded JavaScript and/or other technologies.”; The chatbot performing a set of desired actions on a webpage requires the chatbot fetching and rendering the web content of the web page in order to perform such desired actions);
execute the online action, using the one or both of the cloud browser or the API selected for executing the online action, to generate a result for advancing the online task (Durairaj, [0144], and [0119], As explained in preceding mapping, utilization of one or both to handle the relevant co-browse session and retrieving the configuration file);
autonomously determine one or more subsequent online actions for advancing the online task, using the first AI controlled agent based on at least one of (i) the task data, (ii) frame data generated as the result of executing the online action, or (iii) raw data generated as the result of executing the online action (Durairaj, [0138], “each intent configuration file may include one or more sequences of the various actions (e.g., mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions) to be executed by the chat bot in order to automatically resolve the user intent”; As shown above, the intent configuration file is selected based on the users opt in and need for assistance);
select, based on the one or more subsequent online actions, one or both of the cloud browser or the API for executing at least one of the one or more subsequent online actions (Durairaj, [0070], “In some embodiments, the chat bot may require access to personal and/or user-specific information in order to execute the relevant co-browse session, in which case the chat bot may retrieve the relevant data from a corresponding user database and/or data structure.” In such embodiments, this access would also utilize the media augmentation system 316 which amounts to selection of an API, in order to access the information from the database/data structure. See [0119]; As such, based on the needed assistance for the co-browse session, a selection of one or both of the chatbot/co-browse script and API would be made for each action in the sequences of actions from the configuration file);
execute the at least one of the one or more of the subsequent online actions, using the one or both of the cloud browser or the API selected for executing the one or more subsequent online actions, to generate another result for advancing the online task (Durairaj, [0138] and [0119], As explained in preceding mapping, utilization of one or both of the chatbot/co-browse script and API would be made for each action in the sequences of actions from the configuration file to be executed; For example if one of the actions in the sequence requires accessing database information, such would require the selection and use of media augmentation system 316 (API) along with the chatbot/cobrowse script for executing the action); and
communicate, to at least one of the human user device or the second AI controlled agent, at least one of the result or the another result (Durairaj, [0062], “the chat bot may automatically perform a set of desired actions (e.g., web actions) on a webpage with which the user is interacting”; [0138], Durairaj disclosed the chatbot/cobrowse script performing the actions such as mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and or other actions; [0140], “the chat bot then performs the relevant co-browse actions through the embedded JavaScript within the relevant webpage(s)”; See Fig. 10-11, involving plural communications between chatbot and user device, involving multiple results being communicated).
Durairaj did not explicitly disclose the cloud browser generating from the rendered online content, frame data including rendered frames.
In an analogous art, Bisztrai disclosed fetching and rendering online content and generating from the rendered online content, frame data including rendered frames (Bisztrai, [0041]-[0042] and [0047]. Bisztrai disclosed a cloud browser creating and encoding raw/frame data from a fetched/rendered webpage into a stream of frames for real-time streaming to clients to update their screens).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Durairaj and Bisztrai since Durairaj explicitly suggests the utilization of other technologies for interacting with a webpage with which the user is interacting (Durairaj, [0062], “chat bot may proactively offer the user an opportunity to participate in a co-browse session, and upon user consent, the chat bot may automatically perform a set of desired actions (e.g., web actions) on a webpage with which the user is interacting through embedded JavaScript and/or other technologies.”) and Bisztrai explicitly provides such other technologies, and therefore the motivation to combine is found within the references themselves. As Durairaj explicitly suggests the utilization of other technologies for implementing a collaborative browsing environment, such would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the utilization of Bisztrai’s cloud browser technology for implementing the shared session of Durairaj.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate Bisztrai’s cloud browser technology within the chatbot cloud browser of Durairaj to obtain predictable results of utilizing a well-known cloud browser technology that eliminates dependency on the site/page DOM and facilitates interactions between components, optimizing functionality across devices (Bisztrai, [0003], [0048]).
Claim 17 is directed to a method that contains steps that are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 1. As shown by the above rejection, the combination of Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed such limitations. Claim 17 is therefore rejected under the same rationale applied above.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed the system of claim 1, wherein the system is a server remotely located from and configured to communicate with the human user device via a network (Durairaj [0062], “chat bot may proactively offer the user an opportunity to participate in a co-browse session, and upon user consent, the chat bot may automatically perform a set of desired actions (e.g., web actions) on a webpage with which the user is interacting through embedded JavaScript and/or other technologies.” That is, Durairaj’s chatbot performs actions on a webpage in correspondence with the user’s device and the chatbot is located in the cloud based system such as cloud based system 300 of Fig. 3. See also [0075], Durairaj provides embodiments where the cobrowse script may “form a portion of, constitute a feature/device superset of, or otherwise involve a cloud-based system similar to the cloud-based system 300 of FIG. 3”; See also [0081]; The chatbot functions to implement a co-browse session and performs actions on the webpage and therefore reasonably amounts to the claimed cloud browser; See also [0070] in which Durairaj disclosed the various actions to be executed by the chatbot such as “mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions”), wherein the API is selected when the online action comprises uploading partially-filled form data to recreate within the cloud browser a state of content previously presented to the human user device prior to the simulated browsing session (The limitation is disclosed by the combined teachings of Durairaj in view of Bisztrai; Durairaj, [0144], “If, in block 612, the user opts to resume the incomplete co-browse session, the method 600 advances to block 614 in which the system 100 retrieves the corresponding intent configuration file from the intent configuration data store 110. Additionally, in block 616, the system 100 determines the action at which the co-browse session was terminated based on data stored in the co-browse action database 112. As indicated above, in some embodiments, the system 100 may monitor and record the actions performed during a co-browse session such that the user can subsequently resume an incomplete co-browse session in the event of a disconnection or disruption during the co-browse session.”; See [0149] “When the customer accepts to continue the co-browse session, the previous incomplete session is restored asynchronously, and the chat bot assists the customer to continue filling out the form on the webpage accessed by the user”; This access would utilize the media augmentation system 316 which amounts to an API, in order to access the information from the database/data structure. Therefore, upon a determination of an incomplete cobrowse session and the user opting in, the system selects both the chatbot/cobrowse script and API for executing the online action; In combination with the above functionality of Bisztrai ad [0046]-[0048], in utilizing Bisztrai’s teachings of generating and providing real-time frames, the combined teachings involve uploading such previous form data to the user device), and wherein the system supports interaction by the human user device with the system using one or more of an online application or an online device (Durairaj, [0062], [0066]).
Regarding claim 3, Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed the system of claim 2, wherein the one or more of the online application or the online device comprises at least one of a web browser, a computer application, a mobile application, or a web-enabled device (Durairaj, [0062], [0066]).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed the system of claim 1, wherein communicating transmits the result of executing the online action to the human user device, and wherein the human user device has navigational control over one or more of the one or more subsequent online actions (Durairaj, Fig. 10, Durairaj disclosed an example interaction between user and chat bot, in which the 5th box on the right disclosed the chatbot communicating a result to the user, for example highlighting navigation steps, to which the user displays on their screen; and the 6th box on the right which provides the user with the ability to fill out the form and therefore having navigational control over one or more subsequent actions; In combination with the above functionality of Bisztrai ad [0046]-[0048], in utilizing Bisztrai’s teachings of generating and providing real-time frames, the combined teachings transmit the results of executing the online action to the human user device).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed the system of claim 1, wherein the first AI controlled agent has navigational control over one or more of the one or more subsequent online actions (Durairaj, [0138], “each intent configuration file may include one or more sequences of the various actions (e.g., mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions) to be executed by the chat bot in order to automatically resolve the user intent”; Fig. 10, Durairaj disclosed, in the last box on the right, the chatbot obtaining permission to perform subsequent action of filling out the form).
Regarding claims 6 and 21, Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed the system of claim 5, wherein the navigational control over the one or more of the one or more subsequent online actions is conditioned based on at least one of information or a permission obtained from the human user device (Durairaj, [0138], “each intent configuration file may include one or more sequences of the various actions (e.g., mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions) to be executed by the chat bot in order to automatically resolve the user intent”; Fig. 10, Durairaj disclosed, in the last box on the right, the chatbot obtaining permission to perform subsequent action of filling out the form).
Regarding claims 7 and 22, Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed the system of claim 5, wherein communicating transmits the another result to the human user device, and wherein navigational control over the simulated browsing session is passed from the first AI controlled agent to at least one of the second AI controlled agent or the human user device (Durairaj, Fig. 11, 1st box on the right, the chatbot filled out the form after obtaining permission to which the chatbot indicates “Please go ahead and complete the rest”, to which the user has navigational control and fills out the form).
Regarding claims 8 and 23, Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more of the one or more subsequent online actions is a final online action of the simulated browsing session (Durairaj, [0138], “each intent configuration file may include one or more sequences of the various actions (e.g., mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions) to be executed by the chat bot in order to automatically resolve the user intent”; It is evident that a sequence of actions includes a final action to be performed; See Fig. 11, which shows the end of the session, thereby requiring one of the actions before such to be the final action).
Regarding claims 9 and 24, Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed the system of claim 1, wherein communicating transmits the result of executing the online action or the another result to at least one of the second AI controlled agent or the human user device, when a condition based on the task data is satisfied (Durairaj, Fig. 11, 1st box on the right, the chatbot filled out the form after obtaining permission to which the chatbot indicates “Please go ahead and complete the rest”; The condition of filling out the form was completed, thereby having the chatbot communicate the completion to the user).
Regarding claims 10 and 25, Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed the system of claim 1, wherein communicating transmits the result of executing the online action or the another result to at least one of the second AI controlled agent or the human user device, when a condition based on the task data is satisfied, and wherein navigational control of content within the simulated browsing session is transferred from the first AI controlled agent to at least one of the second AI controlled agent or the human user device upon satisfaction of the condition (Durairaj, Fig. 11, 1st box on the right, the chatbot filled out the form after obtaining permission to which the chatbot indicates “Please go ahead and complete the rest”; The condition of filling out the form was completed, to which navigational control is provided to the user to finish the form).
Regarding claims 11 and 26, Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed the system of claim 1, wherein the first AI controlled agent has autonomous navigational control over content within the simulated browsing session throughout the simulated browsing session such that the human user device is a passive observer or a supervisor of the simulated browsing session (Durairaj, Figs 10-11, Durairaj disclosed the chatbot having autonomous control over the session, filling out the form, to which the user observes).
Regarding claims 12 and 27, Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed the system of claim 1, wherein communicating transmits the another result to at least one of the second AI controlled agent or the human user device, and wherein a next online action is based on data received from at least one of the second AI controlled agent or the human user device in response to the another result condition (Durairaj, Figures 10-11 show a detailed cobrowsing session in which results of each action are transmitted between the chatbot and user to which further actions are based on such results).
Regarding claims 13 and 28, Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain previously generated user data (Durairaj, Fig. 6, 606, [0144], Durairaj disclosed, “ the system 100 determines whether an incomplete co-browse session is stored for the user”), and wherein determining one or more of the online actions or the one or more subsequent online actions uses the previously generated user data to personalize the simulated browsing session for the human user device by inferring at least one of session context, preferences of a user of the human user device, or a prior history of the user (Durairaj, [0023], “determining a user intent of the user based on the interaction between the user and the chat bot”; Fig. 6, 614-618, Durairaj disclosed utilizing a corresponding intent configuration file; [0011], “the intent configuration file defines a plurality of actions to be executed by the chat bot to resolve a user intent of the interaction between the user and the chat bot”; [0145], “the chat bot performs the actions defined by the intent configuration file starting at the termination point of the incomplete session”; [0147] the corresponding intent configuration file is one that matches the co-browse intent; [0152], “the system 100 determines whether an intent configuration file for an automated co-browse session has previously been generated for the particular user intent”; User intent amounts to the context of the session as to what the user is attempting to accomplish).
Regarding claims 14 and 29, Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: maintain a record of the simulated browsing session identifying which of the online actions and the one or more subsequent online actions are determined or executed by the first AI controlled agent or the second AI controlled agent (Durairaj, [0145], “the system 100 may resumes monitoring and storing the actions performed by the chat bot during the resumed co-browse session in the co-browse action database”), and which of the online actions and the one or more subsequent online actions are determined or executed by the human user device (Durairaj, [0144], “the system 100 may monitor and record the actions performed during a co-browse session such that the user can subsequently resume an incomplete co-browse session in the event of a disconnection or disruption during the co-browse session”).
Regarding claim 16, Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed the system of claim 1, wherein the API is configured to process structured text formats comprising one or more of Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), HTML fragments, Extensible Markup Language (XML), and JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) (Durairaj, [0119] Durairaj disclosed utilization of media augmentation system 316 which utilizes an API for communication and access between the various elements of the system; [0123], Durairaj disclosed access utilizing JSON).
Claim(s) 15 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durairaj et al. (US 20240039873) in view of Bisztrai et al. (US 20210075832) and further in view of Matula et al. (US 20220247800).
Regarding claims 15 and 30, Durairaj and Bisztrai disclosed the system of claim 1, and further disclosed the human user device having navigational control over the simulated browsing session but did not explicitly disclose wherein the first AI controlled agent and the second AI controlled agent receive no visual or other data resulting from any online action executed while the human user device has navigational control over the simulated browsing session.
Matula disclosed wherein the first AI controlled agent and the second AI controlled agent receive no visual or other data resulting from any online action executed while the human user device has navigational control over the simulated browsing session (Matula, [0058], Matula disclosed techniques for co-browsing in which the user may be provided with the ability to select content for redaction allowing the user to control what is visible by the other participants in the co-browsing session, and does not preclude the ability to control all visual or other data of the user).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Matula with Durairaj and Bisztrai, as they both disclosed functionality with respect to co-browsing sessions, and as such, they are within similar environments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the selective content sharing functionality of Matula within the teachings of Durairaj and Bisztrai, in order to allow for the user of Durairaj, in needing help with their online session, to control the sharing of sensitive information thereby facilitating the user from refraining from exposing sensitive information to an agent, such as the ai agents of Durairaj, for unauthorized use (Matula, [0010]), thereby making the system more desirable to use by its customers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/18/2026 with respect to amended claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 17-19 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection, necessitated by the amendment to these claims, including new limitations that change the scope of the invention.
With respect to claims 11 and 26, Applicant asserts, “The AI controlled agent must hold navigational control through the session, with the human user device not exercising such control. It is not a mere statement of purpose. Rather, it requires a control relationship that yields an operational difference from a system in which the human and the agent share control. The cited art, Durairaj, must therefore actually exhibit autonomous agent control throughout, with the human relegated to passive observation of supervision” [Response, 15-16].
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As previously noted in the Final Rejection submitted 5/29/2026, Applicant’s specification does not provide explicit definitions of a “passive observer” or a “supervisor”, and therefore it is evident that Applicant intends the claim to cover broad meanings. The mere mentioning that a user device is a passive observer or a supervisor does not by any means impart any specific requirements with respect to what the user can or cannot do during the session. If Applicant intends the limitation to require restricting the human user device’s permissions in some particular way, then the claim should be amended to include such in accordance with support from the Specification.
With regards to claims 13 and 28, Applicant asserts, “the intent configuration file is not derived from data about user preferences or the user’s personal history. The co-browse action database, in turn, stores the action at which the prior session terminated. i.e. a continuity marker indicating where to resume, not user data inferred to personalize the session” and “Resuming a session at a stored termination point by replaying actions constitutes session continuity, not personalization by inference” [ Response, 17].
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim lists alternatives of using previously generated user data to personalize the simulated browsing session “by inferring at least one of session context, preferences of a user of the human user device, or a prior history of the user.” The rejection relies on Durairaj, Fig. 6, 606, [0144]-[0145], in which Durairaj disclosed determining an incomplete session and resuming the incomplete co-browse session in which the system "retrieves the corresponding intent configuration file from the data store. Durairaj disclosed "the system 100 determines the action at which the co-browse session was terminated based on data stored in the co-browse action database 112. As indicated above, in some embodiments, the system 100 may monitor and record the actions performed during a co-browse session such that the user can subsequently resume an incomplete co-browse session in the event of a disconnection or disruption during the co-browse session", and " the chat bot performs the actions defined by the intent configuration file starting at the termination point of the incomplete session that has been resumed". It is evident by these teachings that Durairaj disclosed obtaining previously generated user data, and using the previously generated user data to personalize the simulated browsing session by inferring the session context from the intent configuration file, such that the browsing session can resume from where it left off. Durairaj explicitly disclosed at [0152], that "the system 100 determines whether an intent configuration file for an automated co-browse session has previously been generated for the particular user intent" and at [0145], "the chat bot performs the actions defined by the intent configuration file starting at the termination point of the incomplete session". It is evident that the chat bot personalizes the session according to the stored session context as to where the browsing session was previously stopped as a prior history of the user.
It is the Examiner’s position that Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which define the operation and apparatus of Applicant’s disclosed invention in manner, which distinguishes over the prior art.
Failure for Applicant to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims with scope parallel to the Applicant in the response and reiterates the need for the Applicant to more clearly and distinctly define the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ashkenazi et al. (US 20230297315) disclosed a cloud-based shared browser allowing participants associated with different permission levels with access to the shared browser (Ashkenazi. [0055]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY B DENNISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:50.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/JERRY B DENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights