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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 18, it is unclear how a deck of cards also includes plurality of tokens, as the tokens, are clearly not part of the deck of cards.
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.
Claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, in the form of human activity, without significantly more. Independent claim 1, among other thing recites recite(s) a method of playing a game, including:
providing a deck of cards comprising a plurality of cards arranged in a number of suits, wherein: each suit consists of a number of different cards; dealing a number of cards to each player, the number of cards matching the number of suits in the deck of cards; placing one undealt card face up to form a discard pile; placing the remaining undealt cards face down to form a draw pile; each player, in turn, selecting one card from the draw pile or the discard pile and placing one card on the discard pile until one player indicates that the one player has completed a particular challenge of a plurality of challenges; each remaining player, in turn, selecting one of the plurality of challenges to utilize; and determining a score of each of the plurality of players. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because all of such steps are an abstract idea in the form of human activity, as rules of playing a card game.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the cards do not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application, as the steps are merely steps of human activity, without significantly more. To that end note MPEP 2106.04, as Cited 896 F.3d at 1339-40, 127 USPQ2d at 1555. The Federal Circuit concluded that "[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,". An example of a claim reciting following rules or instructions is In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 977 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1017. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "rules for playing games", which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. 917 F.3d at 1160-61; 129 USPQ2d at 10117.
In addition, there are no additional elements (as the method only uses cards), to be more than “human activity”, to significantly add more than the judicial exception to transform the method from the abstract idea (i.e. an abstract idea of human activity following rules of the card games), into a patent eligible subject matter. In that regard, neither claim 1 nor any one of claims 2-8, provides any additional elements to be more than “human activity”, as the dependent claims merely implementing the rules of the game. For example, claim 2 related to “from a hand, from a number of cards according to a particular challenge” (as the challenge is based on the probability of forming the “easiest meld/hand”). Claim 3, similar to claim 2, but rather based upon the most difficult challenge. Claim 4, is determine a winner after totaling score, after predetermined number of hands were played (e.g., claim 4), whereas claims 5-6 related to additional cards can be added. Claim 8, related to scores related to completed challenges, i.e., completed melds.
With respect to claim 7, the additional cards of claims 7, are merely cards, with additional printed matter, to be consider more than “human activity”, to significantly add more than the judicial exception, to transform the method from the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. With respect to the printed matter upon the additional cards of claim 7, it has been held that the critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).In Miller (In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396, 164 USPQ 46, 49 (CCPA 1969). Unlike the fact situations in In Miller and re Gulack, the substrate (card surface) does not support the printed indicia and the indicia is not arranged such that it's positioned in a unique position with respect to the substrate. Moreover, card indicia is directed towards conveying an abstract game related meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. There is not a new and unobvious functional relationship therebetween. Instead, the printed matter is akin to the images on a playing card in In re Bryan (In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unpublished)) and the dice indicia of Ex parte Gwinn ( Ex parte Gwinn, 112 USPQ 439, 446-47 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1955)), neither of which were determined to establish a new and unobvious functional relationship with the substrate.
Thus, neither the deck of cards with number of suits (i.e., claim 1) nor the additional cards with different printed matter (e.g., claim 7), to significantly add more than the judicial exception to transform the method from the abstract idea of a human activity as rules of playing the card game, into a patent eligible subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewayne et al US 2005/0093229 (“Dewayne”) in view of Kim Dong KR20180002556A (“Kim Dong”) and Sek US 2014/0042698 (“Sek”).
As per claim 1, Dewayne discloses a method of playing a card game with a plurality of players (method of playing a card type game)(Figs. 9-11 and paragraphs [0054]-[0077] in conjunction to Figs. 1-3, 12 and 15 and at least [0017]-[0020] regarding the cards using to play the game) ,comprising
providing a deck of cards comprising a plurality of cards arranged in a number of suits, wherein: each suit consists of a number of different cards (providing cards with different suits, such as eight suits cards, each suit includes cards from 2-10 and J-Ace)(Figs. 1 and 15; [0053]-[0055]); and each of the different cards within a respective one of the suits comprises a unique pip value (Fig. 1 and [0053] each suit includes different cards from 2-10 and J-Ace);
dealing a number of cards to each player (dealing between 7 to 10 cards, depending on the number of players)([0056]);
placing one undealt card face up to form a discard pile ([0056]);
placing the remaining undealt cards face down to form a draw pile ([0056]);
each player, in turn, selecting one card from the draw pile or the discard pile and placing one card on the discard pile until one player indicates that the one player has completed a particular challenge of a plurality of challenges (players, with their cards and the piles, are attempting to forming combination, melds, i.e., challenges) (Figs. 9 and 10 and [0059]-[0063]);
each remaining player, in turn, selecting one of the plurality of challenges to utilize (players, at their turns, drawing cards, from respective piles, to attempt to form the best meld)([0063]-[0072]);
and determining a score of each of the plurality of players (after a hand is over, the melds are allocate with a point system, to tally a score)([0074]-[0076]).
Dewayne is not specific regarding the number of the different cards matches the number of suits.
Dewayne is not specific regarding the dealing of the number of cards, the number of the different cards matches the number of suits.
With respect to, the number of the different cards matches the number of suits, Kim Dong discloses the use of 25 cards arrange in five different colors and each group of cards includes the numeric values 1-5 (Fig. 1 and page 1, 1st par., and page 2, 10th -12th pars. Of the machine translation). Thus, Kim Dong discloses a number of the different cards matches a number of suits, such as 5 different suits (a suit equivalent to a different color) with five cards in each suit/color.
Therefore, 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 to form Dewayne’s number of the different cards matches the number of suits as taught by Kim Dong for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way of forming a card type game having numerical cards arrange with different suits/color to play a type card game according to the rules of the game and the cards are dealt to players to play the game (e.g., cards suitable for forming a meld). In that regard, it is noted that has it been held The fact pattern in Ruiz v. AB Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004) The court found motivation to combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention in the "nature of the problem to be solved" because each reference was directed "to precisely the same problem of underpinning slumping foundations. The nature of the problem to be solved may lead inventors to look at references relating to possible solutions to that problem. Id. at 1277, 69 USPQ2d at 1691. In this case, Dewayne and Kim Dong are looking to solve the problem of playing a card game with a deck of cards, whereas the deck is formed by groups of cards with similar value of cards in each group (e.g., numerical cards from 1 or 2 and up) and each group of cards to be distinguish from each other by different means, such as different colors (as taught by Kim Dong) or different suit (as taught by Dewayne).
With respect to the dealing of the number of cards, the number of the different cards matches the number of suits, Sek in [0037] states “each hand of cards contains seven cards; however, for more or less cards to be dealt to each of the players. As the object of the game is to be the first player to discard all of the cards from his or her hand of cards, the duration of the game can be influenced by the initial number of cards dealt to each of the players. “.
Therefore, 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 to form Dewayne’s dealing of the number of cards, the number of the different cards matches the number of suits (in this case, dealing 8 cards, as matching the number of suits) as taught by Sek for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Sek’s suggestion that the number of cards dealt are regulate the duration of the game.
As per claim 4, with respect to further comprises: playing a predetermined number of hands; and totaling each player's score after the predetermined number of hands to determine a winner, note Dewayne’s [0053]-[0073] as the rules of the game to play a number of predetermined hands to form a desire meld and alike; note [0074]-[0077] as the tallying of the meld/s to determine the score, as the object in Dewayne ‘s game is to score 800 points).
As per claim 5, with respect to wherein: each of the plurality of challenges is available for a given player only once in the predetermined number of hands, note Dewayne’s [0074] ”Completed Hand; The hand is over when one player plays all remaining cards held in hand. If all remaining cards match as meld sets or meld runs, the player may lay them down without discarding on the last turn. This ends the hand and there is no further play until after the next hand is dealt”.
As per claim 6, with respect to wherein: each of the plurality of challenges, with the exception of a most difficult challenge, is available for a given player only once in the predetermined number of hands, as mentioned above in claim 5, the hand is over when a hand is completed (this also includes “a most challenge”, i.e., a most difficult meld to achieve is based upon the number of cards in a deck and a probability to match the most difficult meld. The examiner takes the position that within the modified card game of Dewayne, depending on cards used, the number of players, as well as a number of rounds played, there will be “the most challenging meld” to achieve and the “not most challenge meld”).
As per claim 7, Dewayne discloses wherein: the deck of cards further comprises one or more selected from a group consisting of:
a wild card that is usable in place of one of the number of cards of each suit (such as jokers)(Fig. 3; [0043]).
Dewayne is not specific regarding a skip card that, when placed on the discard pile by a player, causes a next player's turn to be skipped; and a swap card that, when placed on the discard pile by a player, enables the player to swap one of the player's cards with one card from another player's hand.
However, Sek discloses a skip card that, when placed on the discard pile by a player, causes a next player's turn to be skipped (pass card/s)(Figs. 7 and 8; [0050] and [0051]); and a swap card that, when placed on the discard pile by a player, enables the player to swap one of the player's cards with one card from another player's hand (whirlwind card/s)(Figs. 5 and 6; [0046]- [0048]).
Therefore, 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 to form Dewayne’s with further a skip card that, when placed on the discard pile by a player, causes a next player's turn to be skipped and a swap card that, when placed on the discard pile by a player, enables the player to swap one of the player's cards with one card from another player's hand as taught by Sek for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Sek’s suggestions to use such additional cards, while these cards are not part of the challenges/melds, such additional cards adding more skill and entertainment to contest the players, while attempting to form winning challenges to win the card game.
As per claim 8, with respect to wherein: each of the plurality of challenges is associated with one or both of a fixed point value and a variable point value, note Dewayne’s [0075] as the challenges (i.e., forming melding) is according to a fix point system.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewayne, Kim Dong and Sek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saint-Victor US 6,070,877 (“Saint-Victor”).
As per claim 2, Dewayne is not specific regarding wherein: the one player indicating that the one player has completed the particular challenge comprises the player indicating that the particular challenge is not a most difficult challenge of the plurality of challenges; and the method further comprises each remaining player completing one additional turn.
However, Saint-Victor discloses a one player indicating that the one player has completed the particular challenge comprises the player indicating that the particular challenge is not a most difficult challenge of the plurality of challenges (indicating that the not most difficult challenge is, for example normal marriage values as 20 points (table of column 2) or Trump marriage (e.g., value 40 points). Also, within Saint-Victor game, players continue to play until a winner declares (e.g., 3:47+” Each player is given 12 cards by group of 3 or 4 cards depending on dealer's choice. Remember the first marriage will be the trump suit. The winner of a trick:(a) makes any declaration,(b) marks his/her points on the scorulators,(c) puts the cards in his/her stock,(d) replenishes his/her hands, and (e) leads the next trick, playing any card that they wish. This process continues until the leader reaches 1000 points (or any total points agreed upon) to win the game and become the genius or the winner.” . Thus, the examiner construed the continues of the game, after the “not a most difficult challenge”, as completing one additional turn, as claimed.
Therefore, 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 to form Dewayne’s the one player indicating that the one player has completed the particular challenge comprises the player indicating that the particular challenge is not a most difficult challenge of the plurality of challenges and the method further comprises each remaining player completing one additional turn as taught by Saint-Victor for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of plying a challenging/melding type game while following known rules as indicating a particular challenge (in this case, not the most difficult challenge, i.e., not the most difficult melding) to awarded points according to the difficulty of the challenge. In that regard, The Federal Circuit, Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008), noted that the segmentation aspect of the first reference and the mechanization function of the second perform in the same way after combination as they had before. The Federal Circuit further observed that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that adding replaceable segments as taught by the first reference to the mechanized cover of the other would result in a cover that maintained the advantageous properties of both of the prior art covers. In this case, the combination of Dewayne- Saint-Victor would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that the modified card game maintains its respective properties and functions, after they have been combined, as a card game with a deck of cards including a plurality of cards with different suits, to form different melding, as the melds awarded points, according to a particular melding/challenge based upon their “difficulty”, to reach a winning score.
Claim(s) 9-11, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niederlitz US 1,693,525 (“Niederlitz “) in view of Kim Dong.
As per claim 9, Niederlitz discloses a deck of cards (Fig. 1, page 1, line 1-page 2, line 52): comprising:
a plurality of cards arranged in a number of suits (54 cards arrange in 8 suits)(Fig. 1; page 1, line 41-88), wherein: each suit consists of a number of cards (there are 7 cards in each suit; cards numbers from 8-10 and from J-Ace)(Fig. 1; page 1, lines 41-69); the number of suits is at least five (there are 8 suits)(page 1, lines 41-53); and each card within a given suit comprises a unique pip value (Fig. 1 and page 1, lines 54-69).
Niederlitz is not specific regarding the number of suits matches the number of cards in each suit.
However, Kim Dong discloses the use of 25 cards arrange in five different colors and arrange with the numeric value 1-5 (Fig. 1 and page 1, 1st par., and page 2, 10th -12th pars. Of the machine translation). Thus, Kim Dong discloses a number of the different cards matches a number of suits, such as 5 different suits (a suit equivalent to a different color) with five cards in each suit/color.
Therefore, 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 to form Niederlitz’s number of suits matches the number of cards in each suit as taught by Kim Dong for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way of forming a card type game having numerical cards arrange with different suits/color to play a type card game according to the rules of the game.
As mentioned above, with respect to claim 1, as the Court had held in Ruiz v. AB Chance, as a hallmark of a proper obviousness rejection based on combining known prior art elements is that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected the elements to maintain their respective properties or functions after they have been combined. In this case, Niederlitz and Kim Dong are looking to solve the problem of playing a card game with a deck of cards, whereas the deck is formed by groups of cards with similar value in each group (e.g., numerical cards from 1 or 2 and up) and each group of cards to be distinguish from each other by different means, such as different colors (as taught by Kim Dong) or different suit (as taught by Niederlitz).
As per claim 10, Niederlitz discloses wherein: the number of suits is 8 (Fig. 1 and page 1, lines 44-53).
As per claim 11, with respect to wherein: pip values within each suit increment from one to a number matching the number of cards in the suit, note Niederlitz ‘ Fig. 1 and page 1, as each card, within each suit, includes the numbers 8-10 as well as J-Ace (page 2, lines 61-64); also each includes value from 2-10 and J-Ace (page 2, lines 78-84). Note Kim Dong’s Fig. 1 as each color suit includes cards from 1-to-5.
As per claim 18, with respect to further comprising: a plurality of tokens, the Examiner takes an Official Notice that the use of plurality tokens is old and well known and obvious to incorporate because it facilitate the winner and loser of the wagering card type game. As it is well-known within wagering games, tokens are been used for such reasons, and the deck of cards of Niederlitz is configure to be used in such wagering game, for example, a poker type game (e.g., page 2, lines 31+).
As per claim 20, Niederlitz discloses wherein: the suits comprise spades, clubs, hearts, diamonds and stars (Fig. 1; page 1, 44-53)
Niederlitz is not specific regarding the other suits are crowns, crosses and moons.
However, such limitations are directed to printed matter. In that regard, Per MPEP 2111.05, If a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate does not exist. USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. the critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. In re Gulack, and In Miller (as mentioned above in section 2). This relationship was held to constitute a functional relationship between the indicia and the substrate. The printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. Evidence against a functional relationship exists where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter. Another example in which a product merely serves as a support would occur for a deck of playing cards having
images on each card. See In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unpublished). In Bryan the applicant asserted that the printed matter allowed the
cards to be "collected, traded, and drawn"; "identify and distinguish one deck of cards from another"; and "enable[] the card to be traded and blind drawn". However, the court found that these functions do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and where instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. Unlike the fact situations in Miller and Gulack, the substrate (card surface) does not support the printed indicia and the indicia is not arranged such that it's positioned in a unique position with respect to the substrate. As such, no patentable weight is given to the claimed printed matter.
Therefore, 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 to form Niederlitz ‘s crowns, crosses and moons additional suits as for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated as user’s preference, that would have not changed the function of such symbols as acting as suites for a plurality of cards within the deck of cards.
Claim(s) 12-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niederlitz and Kim Dong as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sek.
As per claim 12, Niederlitz is not specific regarding further comprising: at least one wild card.
However, Sek discloses at least one wild card (wild cards)(Figs. 13-16; [0033], [0034], and [0055]).
Therefore, 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 to form Niederlitz’s with at least one wild card as taught by Sek for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Sek’s suggestions to use such additional cards, while these cards are not part of the challenges/melds, such additional cards adding more skill and entertainment to contest the players, while attempting to form winning challenges to win the card game.
As per claim 13, with respect to wherein: the at least one wild card comprises four wild cards, note Sek’s Figs. 13-16 as well as [0033]-[0035].
As per claim 14, Niederlitz is not specific regarding further comprising: at least one skip card.
However, Sek discloses at least one skip card (pass card/s)(Figs. 7 and 8; [0050] and [0051]). Therefore, 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 to form Niederlitz ’s with at least one skip card as taught by Sek for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 12.
As per claim 15, with respect to wherein: the at least one skip card comprises two skip cards, note Sek’s Figs. 7 and 8 as well as [0033]-[0035].
As per claim 16, Niederlitz is not specific regarding further comprising: at least one swap card.
However, Sek discloses at least one swap card (whirlwind card/s)(Figs. 5 and 6; [0046]- [0048]). Therefore, 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 to form Niederlitz ’s with at least one swap cards taught by Sek for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 12.
As per claim 17, with respect to wherein: the at least one skip card comprises two swap cards, note Sek’s Figs. 5 and 6 as well as [0033]-[0035]).
As per claim 19, Niederlitz is not specific regarding wherein: the deck of cards consists of 72 cards.
However, Sek discloses “In reference to FIG. 1-16, the card game apparatus comprises seventy-two numbered cards” ([0033]).
Therefore, 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 to form Niederlitz‘s deck the deck of cards consists of 72 cards as taught by Sek for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Sek’s suggestion to use 72 cards suitable to play games that designed for entertainment purposes involve luck and skills.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/AMIR A KLAYMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 7/25/2025