DETAILED 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 12th, 2025 has been entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a live streaming platform / electronic gaming machine (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-11, and a method of operating a live streaming platform (i.e., a process) in claims 12-20.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A live streaming platform server comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
prior to any of a plurality of plays of a wagering game of a streaming session being played at a streaming device operating separate from the live streaming platform server, receive, from an individual client device, operating separate from the streaming device and separate from the live streaming platform server, data associated with a plurality of wagers to be placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game, wherein a credit balance of that individual client device is reduced based on a total of the plurality of wagers to be placed,
receive, from the streaming device, data associated with the plurality of plays of the wagering game being played at the streaming device,
communicate, to that individual client device, data associated with a live stream that is at least partially based on the data received from the streaming device, the live stream being associated with the plurality of wagers placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game, and
after a conclusion of the plurality of plays of the wagering game, communicate, to that individual client device, data associated with any total award for that individual client device from the plurality of wagers placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game, wherein the credit balance of that individual client device is increased based on any total award.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for observing, evaluating and making a judgement concerning game play and the resolution of an associated wager as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including commercial or legal interactions in the form of legal obligations, sales activities, and interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a game interface including wagering.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a server, a processor, a memory device, a streaming device and a client device it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonable include other network connected devices such as generic/desktop computers, smart phones, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a server, a processor, a memory device, a streaming device and a client device amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0087] [0159]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0087] [0159]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-20 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a server, a processor, a memory device, a streaming device, a client device, a device associated with establishment personnel, an electronic gaming machine, a slot machine interface, a display device, as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 9-10, 12-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1-2) as being anticipated by Palmisano et al (US 2020/0111319)
Claim 1: Palmisano teaches a live streaming platform server comprising:
a processor (Palmisano Paragraphs [0007], [0036], [0243]); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor(Palmisano Paragraphs [0007], [0036], [0243]), cause the processor to:
prior to any of a plurality of plays of a wagering game of a streaming session being played at a streaming device operating separate from the live streaming platform server, receive, from an individual client device operating separate from the streaming device and separate from the live streaming platform server, data associated with a plurality of wagers to be placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game, wherein a credit balance of that individual client device is reduced based on a total of the plurality of wagers to be placed (-wherein secondary players can place one or more wagers of a primary player across multiple rounds and including the use of wagers that automatically follow the primary players actions- Palmisano Figure 11; Paragraphs [0155]-[0157], [0159], [0168], [0176], [0181]-[0182]),
receive, from the streaming device, data associated with the plurality of plays of the wagering game being played at the streaming device (Palmisano Paragraphs [0056], [0152], [0179]),
communicate, to that individual client device, data associated with a live stream that is at least partially based on the data received from the streaming device, the live stream being associated with the plurality of wagers placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game (-live streaming video- Palmisano Paragraphs [0056], [0152], [0179]), and
after a conclusion of the plurality of plays of the wagering game, communicate, to that individual client device, data associated with any total award for that individual client device from the plurality of wagers placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game, wherein the credit balance of that individual client device is increased based on any total award (-For each of a plurality of rounds of plays- Palmisano Figure 11;Paragraphs [0197]).
Claim 2: Palmisano teaches the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the individual client device comprises one of an electronic gaming machine and a slot machine interface board (-gaming devices- Palmisano Paragraphs [0067], [0088]-[0090]).
Claim 9: Palmisano teaches the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of plays of the wagering game of the streaming session being played at the streaming device comprise a subset of a total quantity of plays of the wagering game of the streaming session being played at the streaming device (-wherein the claim language encompasses both a subset of the entire total quantity of plays and additionally the subset of valid wagers vs invalid wagers received during game play - Palmisano Figure 11;Paragraphs [0197]; Elements 1122, 1130).
Claim 10: Palmisano teaches an electronic gaming machine comprising:
a display device (Palmisano Paragraphs [0036], [0055]-[0057]);
an interface (Palmisano Paragraphs [0036], [0055]-[0057]);
a processor (Palmisano Paragraphs [0007], [0036], [0243]); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (Palmisano Paragraphs [0007], [0036], [0243]), cause the processor to:
prior to any of a plurality of plays of a wagering game of a streaming session being played at a streaming device operating separate from the electronic gaming machine, enable a plurality of wagers to be placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game (-wherein secondary players can place one or more wagers of a primary player across multiple rounds and including the use of wagers that automatically follow the primary players actions- Palmisano Figure 11; Paragraphs [0155]-[0157], [0159], [0168], [0176], [0181]-[0182]),
reduce a credit balance based on a total of the plurality of wagers to be placed (Palmisano Figure 11; Paragraphs [0155], [0157], [0159], [0176]),
receive, via the interface and from a live streaming platform operating separate from the streaming device and separate from the electronic gaming machine, data associated with a live stream that is at least partially based on data associated with the plurality of plays of the wagering game played at the streaming device (Palmisano Paragraphs [0056], [0152], [0179]),
cause the display device to display the live stream comprising at least the plurality of plays of the wagering game (Palmisano Paragraphs [0056], [0152], [0179]),
receive, via the interface and from the live streaming platform, data associated with any total award from the plurality of wagers placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game (-For each of a plurality of rounds of plays- Palmisano Figure 11;Paragraphs [0197]), and
cause the display device to display any total award from the plurality of wagers placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game.
Claim 12: Palmisano teaches a method of operating a live streaming platform server, the method comprising:
prior to any of a plurality of plays of a wagering game of a streaming session being played at a streaming device operating separate from the live streaming platform server, receiving, from an individual client device operating separate from the streaming device and separate from the live streaming platform server, data associated with a plurality of wagers to be placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game, wherein a credit balance of that individual client device is reduced based on a total of the plurality of wagers to be placed (Palmisano Figure 11; Paragraphs [0155], [0157], [0159], [0176]),
receiving, from the streaming device, data associated with the plurality of plays of the wagering game being played at the streaming device (Palmisano Paragraphs [0056], [0152], [0179]),
communicating, to that individual client device, data associated with a live stream that is at least partially based on the data received from the streaming device, the live stream being associated with the plurality of wagers placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game (-live streaming video- Palmisano Paragraphs [0056], [0152], [0179]), and
after a conclusion of the plurality of plays of the wagering game, communicating, to that individual client device, data associated with any total award for that individual client device from the plurality of wagers placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game, wherein the credit balance of that individual client device is increased based on any total award (-For each of a plurality of rounds of plays- Palmisano Figure 11;Paragraphs [0197]).
Claim 13: Palmisano teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein the individual client device comprises one of an electronic gaming machine and a slot machine interface board (-gaming devices- Palmisano Paragraphs [0067], [0088]-[0090]).
Claim 20: Palmisano teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein the plurality of plays of the wagering game of the streaming session being played at the streaming device comprise a subset of a total quantity of plays of the wagering game of the streaming session being played at the streaming device (-wherein the claim language encompasses both a subset of the entire total quantity of plays and additionally the subset of valid wagers vs invalid wagers received during game play - Palmisano Figure 11;Paragraphs [0197]; Elements 1122, 1130)..
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.
Claims 3-8, 11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmisano et al (US 2020/0111319) as applied to at least claims 1, 2, 9-10, 12-13, and 20 above, and further in view of Acres (US 6,312,333).
Claim 3: The combination of Palmisano & Acres teaches the live streaming platform server of Claim 2, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine if any total award from the plurality of wagers placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game causes a handpay lockup event to occur (-encompassing consideration of individual awards in excess of 1200 for each of a series of game plays- Acres Abstract; Figure 3).
Palmisano is silent regarding the handling of handpay events including the detection of the same, the locking/unlocking of the game machine, and the related clearance of the handpay events with or without the assistance of casino personnel, however in an analogous gaming invention, Acres teaches that these features were known at the time of invention (Acres Abstract; Figure 3; Col 2:20-33, 7:7-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the handpay features as taught by Acres in the invention of Palmisano in order to ensure that payout amounts in excess of $1200 are handled in a manner as required by IRS regulations/law as taught by Acres (Acres Abstract; Col 1:9-16).
Claim 4: The combination of Palmisano & Acres teaches the live streaming platform server of Claim 3, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the determination being that any total award from the plurality of wagers placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game causes the handpay lockup event to occur and a user of the individual client device is associated with a handpay lockup event clearing feature, cause the processor to enable a clearing of the handpay lockup event independent of any gaming establishment personnel (-independent clearing available with completed player records- Acres Abstract; Figure 3; Element 90).
Claim 5: The combination of Palmisano & Acres teaches the live streaming platform server of Claim 3, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the determination being that any total award from the plurality of wagers placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game causes the handpay lockup event to occur, cause the processor to cause a request to clear the handpay lockup event to be communicated to a device associated with gaming establishment personnel (-encompassing any individual awards greater than the IRS threshold even if the same was a singular event & computer terminal - Acres Abstract; Figure 3; Col 7:7-43).
Claim 6: The combination of Palmisano & Acres teaches the live streaming platform server of Claim 2, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine if any individual award associated with any individual wager of the plurality of wagers causes a handpay lockup event to occur (-awards greater than $1200- Acres Abstract; Figure 3).
Claim 7: The combination of Palmisano & Acres teaches the live streaming platform server of Claim 6, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the determination being that any individual award associated with any individual wager of the plurality of wagers causes the handpay lockup event to occur and a user of the individual client device is associated with a handpay lockup event clearing feature, cause the processor to enable a clearing of the handpay lockup event independent of any gaming establishment personnel (Acres Abstract; Figure 3; Element 90; Col 2:20-33).
Claim 8: The combination of Palmisano & Acres teaches the live streaming platform server of Claim 6, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the determination being that any individual award associated with any individual wager of the plurality of wagers causes the handpay lockup event to occur, cause the processor to cause a request to clear the handpay lockup event to be communicated to a device associated with gaming establishment personnel (-computer terminal- Acres Abstract; Col 7:7-43).
Claim 11: The combination of Palmisano & Acres teaches the electronic gaming machine of Claim 10, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to any total award from the plurality of wagers placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game causing a handpay lockup event to occur, cause the processor to determine if a user of the electronic gaming machine is associated with a handpay lockup event clearing feature that enables a clearing of the handpay lockup event independent of any gaming establishment personnel (-wherein the casino personnel are only required with incomplete player records- Acres Abstract; Figure 3; Element 90).
Claim 14: The combination of Palmisano & Acres teaches the method of Claim 13, further comprising determining, by a processor, if any total award from the plurality of wagers placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game causes a handpay lockup event to occur (-encompassing consideration of individual awards in excess of 1200 for each of a series of game plays- Acres Abstract; Figure 3).
Claim 15: The combination of Palmisano & Acres teaches the method of Claim 14, further comprising, responsive to the determination being that any total award from the plurality of wagers placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game causes the handpay lockup event to occur and a user of the individual client device is associated with a handpay lockup event clearing feature, enabling, by the processor, a clearing of the handpay lockup event independent of any gaming establishment personnel (-independent clearing available with completed player records- Acres Abstract; Figure 3; Element 90).
Claim 16: The combination of Palmisano & Acres teaches the method of Claim 14, further comprising, responsive to the determination being that any total award from the plurality of wagers placed on the plurality of plays of the wagering game causes the handpay lockup event to occur, causing, by the processor, a request to clear the handpay lockup event to be communicated to a device associated with gaming establishment personnel (-encompassing any individual awards greater than the IRS threshold even if the same was a singular event & computer terminal - Acres Abstract; Figure 3; Col 7:7-43).
Claim 17: The combination of Palmisano & Acres teaches the method of Claim 13, further comprising determining, by a processor, if any individual award associated with any individual wager of the plurality of wagers causes a handpay lockup event to occur (-awards greater than $1200- Acres Abstract; Figure 3).
Claim 18: The combination of Palmisano & Acres teaches the method of Claim 17, further comprising, responsive to the determination being that any individual award associated with any individual wager of the plurality of wagers causes the handpay lockup event to occur and a user of the individual client device is associated with a handpay lockup event clearing feature, enabling, by the processor, a clearing of the handpay lockup event independent of any gaming establishment personnel (Acres Abstract; Figure 3; Element 90; Col 2:20-33).
Claim 19: The combination of Palmisano & Acres teaches the method of Claim 17, further comprising, responsive to the determination being that any individual award associated with any individual wager of the plurality of wagers causes the handpay lockup event to occur, causing, by the processor, a request to clear the handpay lockup event to be communicated to a device associated with gaming establishment personnel (-computer terminal- Acres Abstract; Col 7:7-43).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 12th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s references to previously presented arguments as presented in the Response to Office Action Submitted July 17th, 2025 are noted as having previously been addressed in the Final Action dated September 16th, 2025 and will not be reproduced herein as these arguments have already been previously addressed as originally presented.
Commencing on pages 8-9 of the Applicant’s above dated response the Applicant presents that the claimed invention integrates the any recited abstract idea into a practical application through integrating a live streaming platform server with but separate or independent of the client device and a streaming device to facilitate interactions between the devices, that provides a technical solution to integrating devices that were not previously integrated to with one another and further provides the advantage of reduces the amount of data communicated by the live streaming platform server and further reduces the frequency of the live streaming platform server communicating data to realize a technical improvement of less operational stress and less processing resources to facilitate the placement of a plurality of wagers by a client device on a plurality of plays of a game at a streaming device (Applicant Remarks Page 8-9).
Responsive to the preceding the Applicant’s proposed advantages do not meet the requirements for establishing a practical application for at least the reasons that enabling communication between devices and the bulk processing the plurality of transfers into a singular transfer are not disclosed by the Applicant’s specification (including cited portions) as providing unconventional solutions to an existing technological problem(s) or improving the functionality of the underlying technology (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)).
“An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a))
Continuing on pages 9-10 of the Applicant’s above dated response, and regarding the rejection of claims as being anticipated by Palmisano et al (US 2020/0111319) the Applicant presents that the applied prior art does not teach the claimed features of: i) enabling one individual personal device to place multiple wagers on multiple upcoming game rounds; and ii) lack any deduction of a total amount of multiple secondary wager amounts from the funds source.
Responsive to the preceding, it is noted that Palmisano does not explicitly limit the number of wagers placed by the secondary player to a singular wager per player as argued and instead presents “Accordingly, the player app may allow secondary players 1010 to track bets of the primary player 1002, place secondary wagers on one or more of those bets of the primary player 1002, see outcomes of the bets of the primary player 1002, and such.” (Emphasis Added Palmisano Paragraph [0156]) that would reasonably encompass the copying of multiple bets placed by a single primary player by a secondary player. Palmisano additionally provides for the secondary player to not only hitching their wagers to the particular primary wagers but additionally hitch on to one or more particular players and subsequently therewith automatically make addition wagers when a new round of play begins (Palmisano Paragraph [0152], [0154], [0181], [0185]). Accordingly, the teachings of Palmisano are understood to enable a secondary player to place multiple wagers for each of multiple primary players and primary player bets across both a singular round and a plurality of rounds of game play that reasonably teaches the argued feature of enabling a personal device to place multiple wagers on multiple upcoming game rounds.
Notwithstanding the preceding however insomuch as “…Palmisano includes multiple personal devices that allow each respective user of a personal device (i.e. a secondary player) to place a secondary wager on an upcoming game round during a wagering window that occurs prior to the game round (see paragraphs [0150] and [0176])”, enabling a player to place additional wagers would at best be respectfully understood to represent the obvious mere duplication of parts as set forth by MPEP 2144.04 Subsection VI.B and accordingly remain alternatively obvious under 35 USC §103.
With regards to the feature of deducting the total amount of multiple secondary wager amounts from the funds source, it is noted that, Palmisano teaches the use of combined and individual transactions to cover betting amounts (Palmisano Paragraphs [0159], [0197]), and as such teaches this feature as particularly presented.
Continuing on page 11 of the Applicant’s above dated response, the Applicant presents that claims 2-20 incorporated features argued with respect to claim 1 above and should similarly found allowable over the respectively applied prior or prior art combination.
Responsive to the preceding, the Applicant’s arguments directed to claim 1 are not found to be persuasive for the reasons set forth herein above and as such are not suitable to support the patentability 2-20 as proposed.
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715