DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Applicant filed Amendments on 09/15/2025. Claims 2-8, 20-27, and 29-35 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 2-8, 20-27, and 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
5. Analysis:
Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 2-8, 20-26, 33-35 are directed to a network (i.e., machine), claims 27, 29, 30-31, 32 are directed to a system (i.e., machine), claim 28 is directed to a method (i.e., process).
Regarding independent claim 27:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 27 recites the at least following limitations of “… creating or receiving said virtual depictions of said rarity assets found in said museum or gallery environment; a. … store and transmit said virtual depictions and other data representing a plurality of rarity assets and associated models; b. … the user to view the virtual depictions corresponding to authenticated rarity assets; c. … either associated with … or separate, configured to receive user navigation inputs associated with navigation within the virtual museum or gallery environment and provide navigation feedback based on said inputs; b. … i. Receive … a request to view said rarity assets; ii. Retrieve data representing said rarity assets …; iii. Generate data defining a virtual museum or gallery environment comprising said rarity assets based on said retrieved data; iv. Transmit said data defining a virtual museum or gallery environment to the portal; c. … i. Receive said virtual museum or gallery environment …; ii. Display said virtual museum or gallery environment to said user; iii. Receive user navigation inputs within said virtual museum or gallery environment; iv. Transmit said user navigation inputs …; and d. …i. Receive said user navigation inputs and ii. Change a portion of said virtual museum or gallery environment displayed the user navigation inputs.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including business relations providing virtual depictions of rarity assets in a museum or gallery environment with user-navigable presentations of said rarity assets to a said user). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 27 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a rarity platform (RP) network”, “a first device”, “a storage system”, “a portal”, “a second input device”, “, a server “, and “associated models from said storage system”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a rarity platform (RP) network”, “a first device”, “a storage system”, “a portal”, “a second input device”, “, a server “, and “associated models from said storage system” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 33:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 33 recites the at least following limitations of “… store asset information for a rarity asset, said asset information comprising legacy information, ledger information, and certification information; … to authenticate, certify, inspect, tag, track, log data, securely communicate, forensically measure, permeate smart particles and materials, and enter secure data points required to protect, secure, and store the rarity asset; wherein … to capture high-definition image data of the rarity asset and record forensic identifiers including micron-pixel color information and creator DNA or RNA micro- particles embedded in the rarity asset, and to generate authentication data for the asset by performing high-definition algorithmic correlation; … to apply cryptography to the authentication data and store the authentication data in association with the asset's ledger information in secure stores of the RTP; and wherein, upon receipt of a proposed transfer of fractional ownership governed by Rarity Operational Trading Rules (ROTR), … to obtain a current capture of the asset and perform the high-definition algorithmic correlation to compute similarity or dissimilarity between the current capture and the stored authentication data to detect alteration or deterioration, and … to update the ledger information to reflect the transfer only when the correlation indicates a match with the stored authentication data and the stored certification indicates authenticity.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including business relations storing asset information for a rarity asset). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 33 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a Rarity Trading Platform (RTP)” and “a RaritySystem (RS)”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a Rarity Trading Platform (RTP)” and “a RaritySystem (RS)” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 20-26, 29, 30-31, 32, and 34-35 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claim 2: simply provides further definition to “the RTP” recited in independent claim 33. Dependent claim 2 includes the additional elements of “wherein the RTP is configured to provide rarityminers with a portfolio of information regarding one or more of the raritymine assets automatically and in real time” that recite generic computer components such as software programing at a high-level of generality that merely implement the abstract idea in independent claim 33. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 3, 6, 7, 22, 23, 24: simply provide further definition to “the network” recited in independent claim 33. Dependent claims 3, 6, 7, 22, 23, 24 include the additional elements of “rarities exchange software, rarities physical tracking and safety software, software configured to provide financial analysis, software configured to provide rarity logistics, software configured to provide specially asset nodules, software configured to provide raresearcher input” that recite generic computer components such as software programing at a high-level of generality that merely implement the abstract idea in independent claim 1 (See Specification [0036], [00113] “The Rarity Trading Platform (RTP) software secure stores items including one or more of, legacy information, ledger information, certification, rarity vetting, logistics, insuring, clearing, storage, safety … the tool kit includes a robust software component, API cloud information (backend server), mobile applications, servers, sub-servers, networks, secure database(s) to store User RarityBit-Buyer information”). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 4 and 5: simply provide further definition to “the network” recited in independent claim 33. Dependent claims 4 and 5 include the additional elements of “a peer-to-peer network and a friend-to-friend network” that recite generic computer components such as a network at a high-level of generality that merely implement the abstract idea in independent claim 1 (See Specification [0005] “friend-to-friend (or F2F) computer networks, types of peer-to-peer networks in which users only make direct connections with people they know). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 8: simply further refines the abstract idea because it recites limitations (e.g., the network is further configured to be useable by a rarityminer in a practice mode to facilitate rarity trading experience), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claim 33. Additionally, merely stating that the network is further configured to be useable by a rarityminer in a practice mode to facilitate rarity trading experience does not provide any indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field and amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., network, rarityminer) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 20: simply provides further definition to “the network” additional element recited in independent claim 33. Dependent claim 20 includes the additional elements of “a digital transactional communication interface and controls” that recite generic computer components such as a digital transactional communication interface and controls at a high-level of generality that merely implement the abstract idea in independent claim 1 (See Specification [0022] “Rarities are generally irreplaceable and thus the described invention provides for unique exchange software, physical tracking and safety mechanisms, unique digital transactional communication and controls, navigation and other operational guidelines which provide for a robust rarity trading exchange). Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 21: simply further refines the abstract idea because it recites limitations (e.g., the network further comprises navigation and operational guidelines configured to facilitate rarity trading), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claim 33. Additionally, merely stating that the network further comprises navigation and operational guidelines configured to facilitate rarity trading does not provide any indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field and amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., network) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 25: simply further refines the abstract idea by further refining “the virtual depiction of a rarity” recited in independent claim 33. Simply stating that unrestricted access to the virtual depiction of a rarity is predicated on a non-zero level of fractional ownership of said rarity does not provide any indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 26: simply provides further definition to “the network” additional element recited in independent claim 33. Simply stating that the network incorporates and stores ownership verification data pertaining to a rarity asset being registered into the network does not provide any indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 29: simply further refines the abstract idea because it recites limitations (e.g., further comprising a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations for providing the virtual depictions of rarity assets in the museum or gallery environment to the user via the portal, the operations comprising: a. Generating the virtual museum or gallery environment comprising the plurality of authenticated rarity assets; b. Rendering said authenticated rarity assets as models within said virtual museum or gallery environment; c. Transmitting said virtual museum or gallery environment to the portal; d. Displaying said virtual museum or gallery environment on said portal; e. Tracking user movements within said virtual museum or gallery environment based on the user navigation inputs; and f. Changing the portion of said virtual museum or gallery environment displayed portal based on the user navigation inputs), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in dependent claim 27. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by a computer-readable medium and a processor amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., a computer-readable medium and a processor) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 30: simply provide further definition to “said rarities” recited in independent claim 27. Simply stating that wherein said rarities are, or are directly associated with, non-tangible rarities does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 31: simply provide further definition to “said non-tangible rarities” recited in dependent claim 30. Simply stating that wherein said non-tangible rarities comprise bitcoins does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 32: simply provide further definition to “said raritybits bought or sold in a particular raritymine” recited in independent claim 33. Simply stating that wherein said raritybits bought or sold in a particular raritymine are, or are directly associated with, specific rarities virtually depicted does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 34: simply provide further definition to “the rarity asset authentication data” recited in independent claim 33. Simply stating that wherein the rarity asset authentication data comprises micron-pixel color information does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 35: simply provide further definition to “the authentication data” recited in independent claim 33. Simply stating that wherein the authentication data comprises creator DNA or RNA micro-particles embedded in the rarity asset does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
6. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 2-8, 20-27, and 29-35 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of Claims 1-8 and 20-29 as being in violation of Sec. 101. It should be noted that former independent Claim 1 has been replaced with new independent Claim 33, and independent Claim 27 having been amended to include a number of new limitations that can be fully described as improving such functioning, especially in terms of marrying rarity asset authentication to display and other features of the claimed network (33) and system (27) … Independent Claims 27 and 28 recite limitations of the claim falling within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in fundamental economic practices and/or commercial for buying and selling rarity assets by providing virtual depictions of rarity assets in a museum or gallery to a user via a virtual reality viewer. " Independent Claims 1, 27, and 28 each respectively include additional elements; however, the Examiner opines that the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing device, a server, and/or software programming that merely perform, conduct, carry out, or implement the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application but are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. " Dependent Claims 2-8, 20-26, and 29 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the dependent claims also amount to merely using a computer to perform the abstract idea. Respectfully, Applicant urges that independent Claims 33 and 27 provide new and improved technical features in its additional limitations that clearly help with respect to the functioning of a computer and assorted adjunct network features such as presenting only authenticated rarity assets, including in a museum or gallery environment with a built in user-navigation input system to guide the user as he moves about in such an environment. (see Claim 27). Accordingly, Applicant urges that independent Claims 27 and 33, in regards to multiple of their individual claim limitations, and as to their claim limitations taken in combination, do provide the "something more" looked for when analyzing overcoming a Sec. 101 rejection under Step 2B of the Sec. 101 Guidelines. As all of the remaining claims depend directly or indirectly from independent Claims 27 and 33, they include, at a minimum, the limitations discussed above as to Claims 27 and 33 in terms of providing significant technical improvements as would be required in a Step 2B analysis under Sec. 101. Thus, the aforesaid arguments apply in overcoming the Sec. 101 rejection of the dependent claims. (2-8, 20-26, 29-33). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection under Sec. 101 as inapplicable to all claims, as they are drawn to avoid the conclusion that they are merely "abstract ideas without significantly more" and urges that said claims be allowed as representing patentable subject matter (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 3-4).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that the present claims for example independent claims 27 and 33 recite limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including business relations providing virtual depictions of rarity assets in a museum or gallery environment with user-navigable presentations of said rarity assets to a said user and storing asset information for a rarity asset). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in the section above.
Also, Examiner respectfully submits that the present claims for example independent claims 27 and 33 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a rarity platform (RP) network”, “a first device”, “a storage system”, “a portal”, “a second input device”, “, a server “, and “associated models from said storage system” and “a Rarity Trading Platform (RTP)” and “a RaritySystem (RS)”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, Examiner also submits that dependent claims 2-8, 20-26, 29, 30-31, 32, 34-35 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the dependent claims also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea and the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely uses a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in the section above.
7. Double Patenting: Applicant re-affirms that it acknowledges the current double patenting rejection and indicates that it will submit a Terminal Disclaimer assuming a Notice of Allowance is otherwise set to issue (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Page 4). Examiner hereby withdraws the Double Patenting Rejections of amended claims 2-8, 20-27, and 29-35 because of the amended claim limitations of amended claims 2-8, 20-27, and 29-35.
Relevant Prior Art
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the claimed invention, but they do not disclose all the claimed features, as explained below.
9. The best prior art of record, Buchanan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,588,651), hereinafter, “Buchanan”, and Saigh (U.S. Patent No. 8,015,069), hereinafter, “Saigh”, alone or in combination, alone or in combination, neither discloses nor fairly suggests the instant application amended claim limitations of "A first device for creating or receiving said virtual depictions of said rarity assets found in said museum or gallery environment; a. a storage system configured to store and transmit said virtual depictions and other data representing a plurality of rarity assets and associated models; b. a portal for the user to view the virtual depictions corresponding to authenticated rarity assets; c. A second input device either associated with the portal or separate, configured to receive user navigation inputs associated with navigation within the virtual museum or gallery environment and provide navigation feedback based on said inputs; b. a server configured to: i. Receive from the portal a request to view said rarity assets; ii. Retrieve data representing said rarity assets and associated models from saidstorage system; iii. Generate data defining a virtual museum or gallery environment comprising said rarity assets based on said retrieved data; iv. Transmit said data defining a virtual museum or gallery environment to the portal."
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
12. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
13. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696