CTNF 18/122,260 CTNF 86862 DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims The following is a FIRST, NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION for Application #18/122,260, filed on 03/16/2023. Claims 1-20 are now pending and have been examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. Per Step 1 of the analysis, the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claim 1 claims a method, or process. A process is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 14 claims a system comprising one or more processors, memories, and storage devices. Therefore, the system is interpreted as an apparatus. An apparatus is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 15 claims a computer program product. Paragraph [0069] of the filed specification excludes transitory mediums such as signals from what should be construed in interpreting the use of “computer program product” in the claims. Therefore, the claim in interpreted as an article of manufacture, which is a statutory category for patentability. Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims recite an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “in response to initiating and detecting a virtual event, identifying one or more participants in the virtual environment associated with the virtual event, wherein identifying the one or more participants further comprises identifying the presenter and the target audience, detecting and tracking one or more user actions and user reactions associated with each of the one or more participants in the virtual event to identify real-time participant feedback associated with each of the one or more participants based on the virtual event, wherein identifying the real-time participant feedback further comprises determining a correlation between the real-time participant feedback associated with the one or more participants of the target audience with the real-time participant feedback associated with the presenter, and generating for the presenter a real-time assessment of the virtual event based on the determined correlation and the real-time participant feedback associated with the target audience, wherein the real-time assessment further includes generating scaled user reactions from the target audience and suggestions for improving the scaled user reactions.” The claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, the claims are directed to the activity of “managing personal interactions between people, including social activities and teaching.” A manager or other collaborator working with a person giving a speech, lecture, or presentation can give the presenter feedback audibly, manually, in person, or via communication on a screen regarding the audience reaction as perceived by the manager by observation or analysis of incoming data such as live chat. This is often done in live speeches or live television shows using teleprompters, live broadcasts using display screens that only the presenters can see, and at live events by collaborators that are communicating in person or via other means. The claims simply automate the abstract idea using a computer and a virtual environment. Therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” specifically, “managing personal interactions between people, including social activities and teaching.” The claims are also secondarily directed to a mental process. A manager or other collaborator working with a person giving a speech, lecture, or presentation can observe the participants or the incoming feedback such as live chat, make a judgment about the feedback, and communicate suggestions regarding the audience response to the presenter audibly, manually, in person, or via communication on a screen regarding the audience reaction as perceived by the manager. Therefore, the claims are secondarily directed to a mental process. Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims include the recitation of “a virtual event…in a virtual environment,” “one or more processors,” “one or more…memories,” and “one or more storage devices.” However, these components are considered generic recitations of technical elements which are recited at a high level of generality. These components are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements also include “automatically” preforming various steps. However, there is no detail as to how the automation occurs. This recitation is considered a generic recitation of a technical element recited at a high level of generality as the “automatically,” absent further detail, seems to use generic components as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in the claims also include “automatically generating and displaying to the presenter a real-time assessment of the virtual event…includes generating and displaying…visual prompts representing scaled user reactions…generating and displaying suggestions for improving the scaled user reactions.” Absent further detail, which does not even include a display device, these limitations are considered insignificant extra-solution activity and further are considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network” is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, “sending messages over a network,” citing buySAFE v Google, and “presenting content” citing OIP Techs v Amazon.com ). Therefore this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements of the claims include the recitation of “a virtual event…in a virtual environment,” “one or more processors,” “one or more…memories,” and “one or more storage devices.” However, these components are considered generic recitations of technical elements which are recited at a high level of generality. These components are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements also include “automatically” preforming various steps. However, there is no detail as to how the automation occurs. This recitation is considered a generic recitation of a technical element recited at a high level of generality as the “automatically,” absent further detail, seems to use generic components as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more. The additional elements in the claims also include “automatically generating and displaying to the presenter a real-time assessment of the virtual event…includes generating and displaying…visual prompts representing scaled user reactions…generating and displaying suggestions for improving the scaled user reactions.” Absent further detail, which does not even include a display device, these limitations are considered insignificant extra-solution activity and further are considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network” is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, “sending messages over a network,” citing buySAFE v Google, and “presenting content” citing OIP Techs v Amazon.com ). Therefore this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. When considered as an ordered combination, the claims still are considered to be directed to an abstract idea. The claims the logical set of steps for identifying the entities available for working with a person giving a speech, lecture, or presentation, observing the participants or the incoming feedback such as live chat, making a judgment about the feedback, and communicating suggestions regarding the audience response to the presenter audibly, manually, in person, or via communication on a screen regarding the audience reaction as perceived by the manager. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more. When considering the dependent claims, claims 2-3 are considered part of the abstract idea. Claim 3 also includes the limitation “automatically.” This recitation is considered a generic recitation of a technical element recited at a high level of generality as the “automatically,” absent further detail, seems to use generic components as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more. Claim 5 is considered part of the abstract idea as detecting and tracking can be part of the managing of social interactions or the mental process, absent further detail. Claim 6 is considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network” is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” citing Symantec, “sending messages over a network,” citing buySAFE v Google, and “presenting content” citing OIP Techs v Amazon.com ). Therefore this additional element is not considered significantly more. The use of GUI icons for displaying and overlaying in the virtual environment is considered a generic recitation of a technical element and conventional computer functioning and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts to use icons in a GUI and to display and overlay icons and other messages. Claim 7 is considered a generic recitation of a technical element and conventional computer functioning and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the computer arts to use a heatmap and adjusting a heatmap color to indicate and display levels of a value or measure. The claim only describes using the heatmap as a display means to convey information which could also be done in other manners such as a chart, graph, brightness indicator, and other means. The other claims mirror those already discussed above. Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-5, 7-9, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 USC 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Morales, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0271927 A1 . Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 15, Morales teaches: A method (device) (medium) for viewing work item information, including: in response to a work item viewing request for a target work item, obtaining a flowchart of a target business corresponding to the target work item (see Figure 3, [0026]-[0027], [0037], [0044], and [0047]) displaying at least a partial region of the flowchart in a work item detail page corresponding to the work item viewing request (see Figure 4, [0040], [0043]-[0044], and [0052]-[0053] in which the flowchart of the work item detail is displayed in the interface to the requesting manager) Regarding Claims 2, 16, and 19 , Morales teaches: the method for viewing work item information of claim 1… wherein displaying the at least a partial region of the flowchart in the work item detail page corresponding to the work item viewing request includes in a case that there is a pending node corresponding to the authorized user in the flowchart, using at least one pending node as a selected node in the flowchart (see [0021], [0026]-[0027], [0034], [0037], [0040], [0044], [0047], and [0052] in which the authorized manager is converting or editing nodes which are pending nodes that are displayed relative to the master node; see Figure 4 which shows the flowchart of the work item with the created/edited/converted nodes) displaying a region of the flowchart including the selected node in a first display region in the work item detail page corresponding to the work item viewing request (see Figure 4, [0040], [0043]-[0044], and [0052]-[0053] in which the flowchart of the work item detail is displayed in the interface to the requesting manager) displaying summary information of the selected node in a second display region in the work item detail page (see Figure 4, [0040]-[0044], and [0057]-[0060]) Regarding Claim 3, Morales teaches: the method for viewing work item information of claim 2 in a case that there are a plurality of pending nodes, in response to a node switching operation for the second display region, switching the summary information of the selected node displayed in the second display region to summary information of another pending node (see [0052]-[0060]) updating the selected node highlighted in the flowchart to a pending node corresponding to the summary information displayed in the second display region (see Figure 4 and [0052]-[0060] in which the flow diagram displays the selected and pending nodes updated as the user selects, creates, and edits the workflow) Regarding Claim 4, Morales teaches: the method for viewing work item information of claim 2 receiving a reset trigger operation for a first control in the work item detail page (see at least [0021], [0037], and [0058]-[0060] in which a manager user enters a node conversion, deletion, or updating instruction in the work item detail page; the examiner notes that the limitation “reset trigger operation” is given no specific meaning in the applicant’s filed specification, and so the examiner by broadest reasonable interpretation interprets the limitation to be any kind of instruction or selection by the user of an action via the interface that triggers a reset of some sort in a node) displaying a region of the flowchart including the pending node in the first display region (see [0026], [0040]-[0042], and claims 5-6 and 18) displaying summary information of the pending node displayed in the first display region in the second display region (see [0026], [0040]-[0042], and claims 5-6 and 18) Regarding Claim 5, Morales teaches: the method for viewing work item information of claim 1 receiving a node selection operation for at least one node in the flowchart, and displaying summary information of a selected node in the work item detail page (see [0026]-[0027], [0037], [0044], [0047], and [0053] in which a user selects a node in the workflow flowchart and information associated with the node is displayed) Regarding Claims 7, 17, and 20, Morales teaches: the method for viewing work item information of claim 1 receiving a full-screen viewing operation for the flowchart, and displaying the flowchart in a process detail page (see Figure 4, [0026], and [0040]-[0044] in which the flowchart id displayed in a workflow page; the examiner notes that while the cited paragraphs do not specifically say “full-screen,” it is considered inherent that if the flowchart is displayed graphically on an interface to the user and it does not say that it is displayed in a “split screen” or in “part of the interface” that it would be a full-screen display) Regarding Claim 8, Morales teaches: the method for viewing work item information of claim 1 receiving a node editing operation for a node in the flowchart in response to determining that the authorized user has an editing permission, editing the node corresponding to the node editing operation in the flowchart (see [0021], [0025]-[0026], [0037], [0045], [0056], and [0065]) wherein the node editing operation includes a node deletion operation and a node addition operation (see [0056]-[0062], [0065], and [0068]) Regarding Claim 9, Morales teaches: the method for viewing work item information of claim 8 wherein receiving the node editing operation for the node in the flowchart includes: receiving a node editing trigger operation for at least one node in the flowchart (see [0021], [0025]-[0026], [0037], [0045], [0056]-[0062], [0065], and [0068])) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23 AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasaba, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0150287 A1 in view of Libin, Patent No. 11,677,575 B1 . Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Kasaba teaches: A computer-implemented method (system) (computer program product) for automatically generating and displaying real-time virtual feedback to a presenter in a virtual environment corresponding to a user experience associated with a target audience in the virtual environment, comprising: in response to initiating and detecting a virtual event, automatically identifying one or more participants in the virtual environment associated with the virtual event, wherein identifying the one or more participants further comprises identifying the presenter and the target audience (see [0038], [0047], [0049], [0064]-[0068], and [0111] in which a virtual online event such as a presentation is initiated, a presenter is identified by stored profile data and target audience members that join the presentation are also identified by the system by their stored profile or other means) automatically detecting and tracking one or more user actions and user reactions associated with each of the one or more participants in the virtual event to identify real-time participant feedback associated with each of the one or more participants based on the virtual event (see [0074], [0081], [0083], [0087], [0114], [0117], [0126], [0129]-[0133], and [0136] in which detecting and tracking of user reactions and feedback in real-time to the various portions of the presentation are collected in various ways for each of the participants) wherein identifying the real-time participant feedback further comprises determining a correlation between the real-time participant feedback associated with the one or more participants of the target audience with the real-time participant feedback associated with the presenter (see [0125] and [0130]-[0131] in which the participant feedback is correlated with portions of the presentation or actions of the presenter such as by timestamps or other means in order to correlate the real-time reactions of the audience to the presenter and presentation) automatically generating and displaying to the presenter a real-time assessment of the virtual event based on the determined correlation and the real-time participant feedback associated with the target audience (see Figures 18 and 19, [0137]-[0143], and [0147] in which a real-time assessment of the virtual event is displayed with real-time audience feedback) wherein the real-time assessment further includes generating and displaying on the virtual environment visual prompts representing scaled user reactions from the target audience (see Figures 18 and 19, [0137]-[0143], and [0147] in which the visual prompts show scaled user reaction, such as the degree of different emotions or reactions to various portions of the presentation; the examiner notes that such as [0142]-[0143] and [0147] display the visual prompts live in real-time to the presenter during the presentation) Kasaba, however, does not appear to specify: generating and displaying suggestions for improving the scaled user reactions Libin teaches: generating and displaying suggestions for improving the scaled user reactions (see Column 6, lines 10-20 and Column 10, lines 25-33 and 52-61 in which during the presentation the presenter is displayed suggestions for improving the current scaled audience engagement analytics of the presentation by prompts such as “Don’t slouch,” “turn more often to the audience,” speaking louder, spending more time on content, and other such suggestions ) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Libin with Kasaba because Kasaba already teaches displaying the real-time metrics for audience reactions, and displaying improvement suggestions would serve the presenter in less need to think on their feet while presenting and being able to easily incorporate the suggestions while they are presenting as they are displayed. Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination of Kasaba and Libin teaches: the computer-implemented method of claim 1… Kasaba further teaches: wherein automatically identifying the one or more participants in the virtual environment further comprises automatically detecting and accessing user profile data associated with the participants (see [0052] and [0068]-[0070]) Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination of Kasaba and Libin teaches: the computer-implemented method of claim 1… Kasaba further teaches: automatically detecting and tracking the one or more user actions and the user reactions associated with each of the participants based on movements and communications detected using a computer and virtual avatars of each of the one or more participants to determine the correlation (see [0074]-[0075], [0090]-[0091], [0096], [0111], [0114], [0117], [0129], and [0135]-[0136] in which the presenters and participants can be displayed as virtual avatars and the movements and communications of the presenter and participant avatars are detected and tracked for determining correlations and determining reactions) whereby determining the correlation further comprises detecting and tracking the one or more user actions and the user reactions based on a presentation made by the presenter in the virtual event (see [0074]-[0075], [0090]-[0091], [0096], [0111], [0114], [0117], [0129], and [0135]-[0136] in which the presenters and participants can be displayed as virtual avatars and the movements and communications of the presenter and participant avatars are detected and tracked for determining correlations and determining reactions) Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of Kasaba and Libin teaches: the computer-implemented method of claim 1… Kasaba further teaches: detecting and tracking the one or more user actions and the user reactions differently for the one or more participants based on whether a participant is the presenter or the target audience (see [0074]-[0075], [0081]-[0083], [0090]-[0091], [0096], [0111], [0114], [0117], [0126], [0129], and [0131]-[0136]; the examiner notes that the claim as written is extremely broad as “differently” could mean anything from just tracking different persons to different components doing the tracking to many other options, and therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation is taken in the examination of the claim to include nay two entities tracked separately) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasaba, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0150287 A1 in view of Libin, Patent No. 11,677,575 B1 and in further view of Rampton, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0228358 A1 . Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination of Kasaba and Libin teaches: the computer-implemented method of claim 1… Kasaba and Libin, however, does not appear to specify: wherein automatically identifying the one or more participants in the virtual environment further comprises automatically identifying whether the participants in the virtual environment are key audience members Rampton teaches: wherein automatically identifying the one or more participants in the virtual environment further comprises automatically identifying whether the participants in the virtual environment are key audience members (see [0013], [0032], and [0055]-[0056] in which key participants in a virtual meeting are identified for determining everything from schedule to preferred topics and items) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rampton with Kasaba and Libin because Kasaba already teaches a virtual event with a presenter and displaying the real-time metrics for audience reactions, and the system knowing the key participants could prioritize what the reactions and profiles of the key participants are, allowing for better feedback regarding reactions and any suggestions for improvement . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasaba, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0150287 A1 in view of Libin, Patent No. 11,677,575 B1 and in further view of Heins, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0349212 A1 . Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20, the combination of Kasaba and Libin teaches: the computer-implemented method of claim 1… Kasaba and Libin, however, does not appear to specify: automatically generating and displaying the real-time assessment by generating the visual prompts including graphical user interface (GUI) icons for displaying and overlaying on the virtual environment and over the one or more participants of the target audience Heins teaches: automatically generating and displaying the real-time assessment by generating the visual prompts including graphical user interface (GUI) icons for displaying and overlaying on the virtual environment and over the one or more participants of the target audience (see Figure 4 and [0095]-[0097] in which a dialogue box or pop up graphic overlaid on the presentation gives the presenter real time prompts of feedback and suggestions for improving the audience response) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Heins with Kasaba and Libin because Kasaba already teaches displaying the real-time metrics for audience reactions, and Libin teaches displaying improvement suggestions, and using an overlay or prompt type delivery would allow the presenter to easily notice the suggestions while still being able to focus on their presentation notes and interface . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasaba, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0150287 A1 in view of Libin, Patent No. 11,677,575 B1 and in further view of Heins, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0349212 A1 and in further view of Hirasawa, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2025/0118105 A1 . Regarding Claims 7 and 14, the combination of Kasaba, Libin, and Heins teaches: the computer-implemented method of claim 6… Kasaba, Libin, and Heins, however, does not appear to specify: automatically using and integrating a heat map with the GUI icons, and automatically adjusting a color associated with the GUI icons based on a range of colors of the heat map corresponding to the user experience associated with the target audience Hirasawa teaches: automatically using and integrating a heat map with the GUI icons, and automatically adjusting a color associated with the GUI icons based on a range of colors of the heat map corresponding to the user experience associated with the target audience (see Figures 2-4 and [0047]-[0054], and [0089]-[0091] in which the level of reaction id displayed as different colors/hues, with the higher reactions having brighter/warmer colors; the examiner notes that while the reference does not use the words “heat map,” the reference clearly uses different and brighter colors for greater or more noticeable reactions from the audience) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hirasawa with Kasaba, Libin, and Heins because Kasaba already teaches displaying the real-time metrics for audience reactions, and Libin teaches displaying improvement suggestions, and Heins teaches using an overlay or prompt type delivery to allow the presenter to easily notice the suggestions while still being able to focus on their presentation notes and interface, and using a heat map allows for a quickly recognizable display using colors and hues, and allows the presenter to gage the intensity of the reaction without having to read a lot on the screen. Conclusion The following prior art references was not relied upon in this office action but is considered pertinent to the claimed invention: Meredith, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0295404 A1- teaches a virtual event with audience engagement levels and score measured during the presentation and prompts displayed on the screen to the presenter regarding the engagement levels (see at least [0032]-[0033]) Dalabehera, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0306782 A1- teaches a virtual event with a presenter and audience and measuring audience reactions to the presenter in real-time with correlation to the presentation. Moskowitz, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2002/0177115 A1 Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445 . Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). Any response to this action should be mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231 or faxed to 571-273-8300 . Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window : Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314. /LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 2 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 3 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 4 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 5 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 6 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 7 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 8 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 9 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 10 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 11 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 13 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 14 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 15 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 16 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 17 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/122,260 Page 18 Art Unit: 3626
Prosecution Insights