DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This office action is issued in response to communication filed on 6/9/22 . Claims 1-23 are pending in this Office Action.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 18 and 23 recite the term "and/or", which is selective language, the examiner suggests using either the "and" term or the "or" term, otherwise the claims should be worded in a clearer fashion to claim both terms. For the purpose of this examination the examiner is selecting the "or" term from this selective language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
2. Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. Claim 1 recites a method which is a statutory category.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitations:
“receiving a plurality of NFT inputs into a one-way function, the one-way function operates as a few-shot model where the plurality of NFT inputs are a few-shot support set; and generating at least one NFT output based on the plurality of NFT inputs such that the plurality of NFT inputs cannot be identified by inverting the one-way function with the at least one NFT output and encoding the matching elements to a cryptographic token connected to a smart contract associated with the at least one NFT output”. The one way function and encoding the matching elements are mathematical calculation that falls under mathematical concepts of the abstract idea groupings.
The limitations : “extracting features of each NFT input in the plurality of NFT inputs via the few-shot model; identifying elements from the extracted features for use in generating the at least one NFT output based upon distinctiveness, interoperability or exclusivity of the extracted features of the few-shot support set and based on a smart contract structure of the plurality of NFT inputs; amalgamating the identified features via an artistic model including matching elements of the identified features which go together based upon a semantic connection or matching contours, colors, or shadings” are processes that that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help with a pen and paper.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 1 recites additional element of “few -shot model” and “artistic model”. This additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
The additional elements of “receiving input and generating output” are mere data gathering and thus are insignificant extra solution activity(See MPEP 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, using “few -shot model” and “artistic model” is mere instructions to apply an exception. The “receiving input and generate output” is mere data gathering and are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. . Even when considered in combination, the additional element do not provide an inventive concept, claim 1 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites additional element of “wherein identifying the features from the extracted features includes identifying indicators of a cryptographic protocol associated with at least one NFT input in the plurality of NFT inputs” which is a process that that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help with a pen and paper. The additional element of ” “wherein receiving the plurality of NFT inputs includes receiving at least one cryptographic wallet associated with the plurality of NFT inputs” which is mere data gathering and is well known, routine, and conventional. Even when considered in combination, the additional element do not provide an inventive concept, claim 2 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 3 recites additional element of “wherein identifying the elements from the extracted features based upon exclusivity of the extracted features includes identifying a generation associated with each NFT input in the plurality of NFT inputs, the generation including at least one traceable feature including any one of a number of times exchanged, a value at an exchange, and a rarity, wherein the rarity is any one of: an algorithmic rarity defined by a static lookup associated with at least one smart contract associated with the plurality of NFT inputs or visual features defined by a survey of the plurality of NFT inputs associated with the at least one smart contract” which is mental process that can be performed in the human mind. Claim 3 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites the additional feature of “combining the visual features that fit with one another; or determining a weight for the rarity” which is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help with a pen and paper. Claim 4 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. Claim 5 recites a method which is a statutory category.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitations:
“receiving a plurality of inputs including at least one NFT input into a one-way function, the at least one NFT input having a plurality of features; and generating at least one NFT output based on the at least one NFT input such that at least one feature of the at least one NFT input cannot be identified by inverting the one-way function with the at least one NFT output” . The one way function is mathematical calculation that falls under mathematical concepts of the abstract idea groupings.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
The additional element of “receiving input and generating output” are mere data gathering and thus are insignificant extra solution activity(See MPEP 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
As indicates above, the “receiving input and generate output” are mere data gathering and are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. . Even when considered in combination, the additional element do not provide an inventive concept, claim 5 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 6 recites additional limitation of “recognizing at least one cryptographic protocol associated with the plurality of NFT inputs” which is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind.
The additional element of “wherein receiving the at least one NFT input includes receiving a plurality of NFT inputs and at least one cryptographic wallet associated with the plurality of NFT inputs” are mere data gathering and thus are insignificant extra solution activity(See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II . Even when considered in combination, the additional element do not provide an inventive concept, claim 6 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 7 recites additional limitation of “wherein generating the at least one NFT output includes identifying at least one exclusivity feature in each NFT input in the plurality of NFT inputs and generating an amalgamation of the exclusivity features for association with the at least one NFT output” which is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help with a pen and paper. Claim 7 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites additional limitation of “wherein identifying the at least one exclusivity feature includes identifying a generation associated with each NFT input in the plurality of NFT inputs, the generation including at least one traceable feature being any one of a number of times exchanged, a value at an exchange, and a rarity” which is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. Claim 8 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites additional limitation of “wherein the rarity comprises an algorithmic rarity defined by any one of: a static lookup on a smart contract associated with the plurality of NFT inputs or visual features defined by a survey of each NFT input in the plurality of NFT inputs associated with the smart contract” which is mathematical calculation. Claim 9 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites additional limitation of “wherein the rarity comprises visual features defined by a survey of each NFT input in the plurality of NFT inputs associated with the smart contract; and wherein the method further comprises combining the visual features by position, function or fit” which is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help with a pen and paper. Claim 10 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites additional limitation of “wherein the at least one traceable feature is the rarity, the method including determining a weight for the rarity” which is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help with a pen and paper. Claim 11 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites additional limitation of “wherein generating the at least one NFT output includes generating a randomized NFT output” which is mere data gathering and thus are insignificant extra solution activity(See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering and are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional element do not provide an inventive concept, claim 12 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 13:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. Claim 13 recites a system which is a statutory category.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitations:
“receiving a plurality of inputs including at least one NFT input into a one-way function, the at least one NFT input having a plurality of features; and generating at least one NFT output based on the at least one NFT input such that at least one feature of the at least one NFT input cannot be identified by inverting the one-way function with the at least one NFT output” . The one way function is mathematical calculation that falls under mathematical concepts of the abstract idea groupings.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
The additional elements of “receiving input and generating output” are mere data gathering and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.(See MPEP 2106.05(g))
The additional elements of “memory, processor and adapter” are recited at the very high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
As indicates above, the “receiving input and generate output” are mere data gathering and are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. The memory, processor and adapter are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 13 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 14 recites additional element of “wherein the instructions cause the at least one processor to receive the at least one NFT input as a plurality of NFT inputs; receive at least one cryptographic wallet associated with the plurality of NFT inputs and recognize a cryptographic protocol associated with the plurality of NFT inputs” which is mere data gathering and is well known, routine, and conventional. Even when considered in combination, the additional element do not provide an inventive concept, claim 14 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 15 recites additional element of “wherein the instructions cause the at least one processor to identify at least one exclusivity feature in each NFT input in the plurality of NFT inputs and generate an amalgamation of exclusivity features for association with the at least one NFT output” which is mental process that can be performed in the human mind. Claim 15 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recites additional element of “wherein the instructions cause the at least one processor to identify the at least one exclusivity feature with a generation associated with each NFT input in the plurality of NFT inputs”. The identifying step is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. The additional element of “the generation including at least one traceable feature including any one of a number of times exchanged, a value at an exchange, and a rarity” is mere data gathering and thus is insignificant extra solution activity(See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II . Even when considered in combination, the additional element do not provide an inventive concept, claim 16 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 17 recites additional element of “wherein the rarity comprises an algorithmic rarity defined by at least one of a static lookup associated with at least one smart contract; or a survey of the plurality of NFT inputs associated with the at least one smart contract” which is mathematical calculation. Claim 17 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recites additional element of “: extract visual features of the at least one NFT input via a few-shot model; identify features from the extracted visual features to generate the at least one NFT output based upon distinctiveness, interoperability and/or exclusivity of the extracted visual features; and amalgamate the identified features via an artistic model, which includes matching elements of the identified features which go together based upon a semantic connection or matching contours, colors, or shadings” are processes that that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help with a pen and paper. The additional element of “few -shot model” and “artistic model” amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when considered in combination, the additional element do not provide an inventive concept, claim 18 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 19 recites additional element of “wherein the instructions cause the at least one processor to encode the elements to a cryptographic token connected to a smart contract associated with the at least one NFT output” which is mathematical calculation. Claim 19 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Claim 20:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which is a statutory category.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitations:
“receive a plurality of inputs including at least one NFT input into a one-way function, the at least one NFT input having a plurality of features including indicators of at least one cryptographic wallet; and generate at least one NFT output based on the at least one NFT input such that at least one feature of the at least one NFT input cannot be identified by inverting the one-way function with the at least one NFT output” . The one way function is mathematical calculation that falls under mathematical concepts of the abstract idea groupings.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
The additional elements of “receiving input and generating output” are mere data gathering and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.(See MPEP 2106.05(g))
The additional element of “non-transitory computer readable medium” is recited at the very high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
As indicates above, the “receiving input and generate output” are mere data gathering and are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. The non-transitory computer medium is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 20 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 21 recites the additional element of “wherein the plurality of instructions cause the processor to identify at least one exclusivity feature in the at least one NFT input” . The identifying step is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. The additional element of “generate an amalgamation with the at least one exclusivity feature for association with the at least one NFT output” is mere data gathering and thus is insignificant extra solution activity(See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II . Even when considered in combination, the additional element do not provide an inventive concept, claim 21 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 22 recites the additional element of “wherein the plurality of instructions cause the processor to identify a generation associated with the at least one NFT input including at least one traceable feature being any one of a number of times exchanged, a value at an exchange, and a rarity, the rarity being one of: an algorithmic rarity defined by at least one of a static lookup associated with a smart contract of the at least one NFT input; or visual features determined via a survey of the at least one NFT input associated with the smart contract” which is mental process that can be performed in the human mind. Claim 22 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 22 is not patent eligible.
Claim 23 recites the additional element of “wherein the plurality of instructions cause the processor to: extract visual features of the at least one NFT input via a few-shot model; identify features from the extracted visual features to generate the at least one NFT output based upon distinctiveness, interoperability and/or exclusivity of the extracted visual features; and amalgamate the identified features via an artistic model, which includes matching elements of the identified features which go together based upon a semantic connection or matching contours, colors, or shadings” which is mental process that can be performed in the human mind. Claim 23 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 23 is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 allowed.
Claims 18-19 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
4. Claims 5,12-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “What Are Crypto Kitties | Explained With Animation by The Economic Diary. YouTube Video December 17, 2021 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYC4xFuQM0), hereinafter “ED” and further in view of Knock et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2023/0297984 A1, hereinafter “Knock”)
As to claim 5, ED teaches a method of generating an NFT, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of inputs including at least one NFT input into a one-way function, the at least one NFT input having a plurality of features (ED at frame 0:25-0:34 teaches kittens come with different visual features called traits and some of these traits are rarer than others. ED frame 6:45-7:01 teaches to breed two kitties you own together, click on one of them in your litter and then click on the breed button that pops up. This will be the sire , then click on the sire with my kitties and pick a cat to act as dame hit OK. Soon you’ll have your very own bouncing baby crypto kitty) ; and
generating at least one NFT output based on the at least one NFT input such that at least one feature of the at least one NFT input cannot be identified by inverting the one-way function with the at least one NFT output. (ED frame 6:45-7:01 teaches to breed two kitties you own together, click on one of them in your litter and then click on the breed button that pops up. This will be the sire , then click on the sire with my kitties and pick a cat to act as dame hit OK. Soon you’ll have your very own bouncing baby crypto kitty)
ED fails to expressly teach using one-way function such that such that at least one feature of the at least one NFT input cannot be identified by inverting the one-way function with the at least one NFT output.
However, Knock teaches one way function. (Knock par 0020] teaches hash values may be generated using fixed-output length one-way hashing functions that take variable-length input, and may be effectively impossible (or at least computationally infeasible) to reverse.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to utilize the one-way function of generate the NFT output as taught by ED to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to prevent tampering.(Knock par [0020])
As to claim 12, ED and Knock teach the method of claim 5, wherein generating the at least one NFT output includes generating a randomized NFT output.(ED frames 5:27-5:41 teaches there is a higher chance that baby kitty will inherit traits from its mom and dad but it doesn’t always happen)
Claim 13 merely recites a system to perform the method of claim 5. Accordingly, ED and knock teach every limitations of claim 13 as indicates in the above rejection of claim 5.
Claim 20 merely recites a non-transitory computer readable medium containing a plurality of instructions when executed by a processor, perform the method of claim 5. Accordingly, ED and knock teach every limitations of claim 20 as indicates in the above rejection of claim 5. Furthermore, ED also teaches the indicators of at least one cryptographic wallet as recited in claim 20.( ED frame 1:21-1:34 teaches to start playing the game, you’ll need to purchase some Ethereum and put it in a digital wallet called MetaMask)
5. Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ED and Knock and further in view of Yantis et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2022/0058633 A1, hereinafter “Yantis”)
As to claim 6, ED and Knock teach the method of claim 5, wherein receiving the at least one NFT input includes receiving a plurality of NFT inputs and at least one cryptographic wallet associated with the plurality of NFT inputs (ED frame 1:21-1:34 teaches to start playing the game, you’ll need to purchase some Ethereum and put it in a digital wallet called MetaMask)
ED and Knock do not teach recognizing at least one cryptographic protocol associated with the plurality of NFT inputs.
However, Yantis teaches recognizing at least one cryptographic protocol associated with the plurality of NFT inputs.(Yantis’s abstract teaches in response to verifying that the defined amount of currency has been locked, request generation of an NFT in accordance with a tokenization protocol that represents the locked currency)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Yantis with ED and knock to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to allow user to transact using the NFT.(Yantis’s abstract)
As to claim 7, ED, Knock and Yantis teach the method of claim 6, wherein generating the at least one NFT output includes identifying at least one exclusivity feature in each NFT input in the plurality of NFT inputs and generating an amalgamation of the exclusivity features for association with the at least one NFT output.(ED frames 5:41-5:49 teaches some traits combined into other traits a kitty with blue eyes when bred with a kitty with green eyes might birth a brown eye kitty)
As to claim 8, ED, Knock and Yantis teach the method of claim 7, wherein identifying the at least one exclusivity feature includes identifying a generation associated with each NFT input in the plurality of NFT inputs, the generation including at least one traceable feature being any one of a number of times exchanged, a value at an exchange, and a rarity. (ED frames 3:43-4:07 teaches the generation number tell you how many generations a kitty is removed from the generation zero)
As to claims 14-16, see the above rejection of claims 6-8 respectively.
6. Claims 9-11, 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ED, Knock , Yantis and further in view of “STOP!! Know Before You Buy or Sell! Is Your NFT Rare?-NFT Rarity Calculator” by CodeStackr. ( You tube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz1y4j9gvP8, Publication March 1, 2022, hereinafter “CodeStackr”)
As to claim 9, ED, Knock and Yantis teach the method of claim 8 but fail to teach wherein the rarity comprises an algorithmic rarity defined by any one of: a static lookup on a smart contract associated with the plurality of NFT inputs or visual features defined by a survey of each NFT input in the plurality of NFT inputs associated with the smart contract.
However, CodeStackr teaches wherein the rarity comprises an algorithmic rarity defined by any one of: a static lookup on a smart contract associated with the plurality of NFT inputs or visual features defined by a survey of each NFT input in the plurality of NFT inputs associated with the smart contract. (CodeStackr frames 0:58-1:15 teaches we divide the specific attribute shows up on an nft by the total nft count in the collection and then we divide that into one”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of CodeStackr with ED, knock and Yantis to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to prevent user from wasting money.(CodeStackr frames 0:10-0:16)
As to claim 10, ED, Knock , Yantis and CodeStackr teach the method of claim 9, wherein the rarity comprises visual features defined by a survey of each NFT input in the plurality of NFT inputs associated with the smart contract (ED frames 2:32-2:47 teaches the game gets interesting once you start figuring out which traits are rare and how to get them); and wherein the method further comprises combining the visual features by position, function or fit.(ED frames 6:45-7:02 teaches to breed two kitties you own together click on one of them in your litter and then click the breed button)
As to claim 11, ED, Knock , Yantis and CodeStackr teach method of claim 8, wherein the at least one traceable feature is the rarity, the method including determining a weight for the rarity. (CodeStackr frames 1:46-2:03 teaches total rarity score for the NFT, the higher the score, the more rare that NFT is)
As to claims 17 and 22 , see the above rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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.
/HIEN L DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147