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 .
Procedural Summary
Claims 17 – 21 have been canceled.
Claims 29 – 33 have been newly added.
Claims 1 – 16 and 22 – 33 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1 – 16 and 22 - 28 in the reply filed on 3/13/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 – 16 and 22 – 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 - 16 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. (Original) A method in a computing device operated by a player, comprising:
causing to be displayed a prompt soliciting a prediction of an intermediate result with respect to a football game in progress;
receiving first input specifying a first prediction, the prediction comprising:
an outcome category predicted for a distinguished possession underway in the football game; and
a number of points committed for the first prediction;
where the number of points committed for the first prediction is no greater than an uncommitted point balance of the player:
reducing the uncommitted point balance of the player by the number of points committed for the first prediction;
causing to be displayed an indication of the first prediction;
at a time after the distinguished possession concludes:
determining whether the outcome category predicted for the distinguished possession was satisfied by the distinguished possession;
where the outcome category predicted by the first prediction for the distinguished possession was satisfied by the distinguished possession:
adding a reward number of points based at least in part on the number of points committed for the first prediction to a total point balance of the player;
adding the reward number of points and the number of points committed for the first prediction to the uncommitted point balance of the player;
where the outcome category predicted by the first prediction for the distinguished possession was not satisfied by the distinguished possession:
subtracting from the total point balance of the player the number of points committed for the first prediction; and
causing the total point balance of the player as affected by the adding or subtracting to be displayed.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent fundamental economic principles or practices, and managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed the wagering of points based upon predicted outcomes This represents a fundamental economic practice, namely, exchanging consideration based on odds and outcomes The latter also falls under the grouping of managing interactions between people, i.e., rules for wagering between two parties.)
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): computing devices
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed computer devices. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
Figure 2 is a block diagram showing some of the components typically incorporated in at least some of the computer systems and other devices on which the facility operates, including those shown in Figure 1. In various embodiments, these computer systems and other devices 200 can include server computer systems, cloud computing platforms or virtual machines in other configurations, desktop computer systems, laptop computer systems, netbooks, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, televisions, cameras, automobile computers, electronic media players, etc. In various embodiments, the computer systems and devices include zero or more of each of the following: a processor 201 for executing computer programs and/or training or applying machine learning models, such as a CPU, GPU, TPU, NNP, FPGA, or ASIC; a computer memory 202 for storing programs and data while they are being used, including the facility and associated data, an operating system including a kernel, and device drivers; a persistent storage device 203, such as a hard drive or flash drive for persistently storing programs and data; a computer-readable media drive 204, such as a floppy, CD-ROM, or DVD drive, for reading programs and data stored on a computer-readable medium; and a network connection 205 for connecting the computer system to other computer systems to send and/or receive data, such as via the Internet or another network and its networking hardware, such as switches, routers, repeaters, electrical cables and optical fibers, light emitters and receivers, radio transmitters and receivers, and the like. While computer systems configured as described above are typically used to support the operation of the facility, those skilled in the art will appreciate that the facility may be implemented using devices of various types and configurations, and having various components.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 – 11, 22 – 25, 29, 30, 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huke (US 11,455,868).
As per claim 1, Huke discloses:
causing to be displayed a prompt soliciting a prediction of an intermediate result with respect to a football game in progress; (Huke Fig 3)
receiving first input specifying a first prediction, the prediction comprising: (Huke discloses player selects run or pass (i.e. prediction comprising outcome category) and how much points they would like to wager) (Huke Fig 5, 7:21 – 8:36)
an outcome category predicted for a distinguished possession underway in the football game; and(Huke discloses player selects run or pass (i.e. prediction comprising outcome category) and how much points they would like to wager) (Huke Fig 5, 7:21 – 8:36)
a number of points committed for the first prediction; (Huke discloses player selects run or pass (i.e. prediction comprising outcome category) and how much points they would like to wager) (Huke Fig 5, 7:21 – 8:36)
where the number of points committed for the first prediction is no greater than an uncommitted point balance of the player: (Huke discloses a player balance wherein they cannot wager more than their balance) (Huke 7:4 – 10)
reducing the uncommitted point balance of the player by the number of points committed for the first prediction; (Huke discloses a player balance wherein they cannot wager more than their balance) (Huke 7:4 – 10)
causing to be displayed an indication of the first prediction; (Huke discloses displaying a players selection ) (Huke Fig 5)
at a time after the distinguished possession concludes:
determining whether the outcome category predicted for the distinguished possession was satisfied by the distinguished possession; where the outcome category predicted by the first prediction for the distinguished possession was satisfied by the distinguished possession: adding a reward number of points based at least in part on the number of points committed for the first prediction to a total point balance of the player; adding the reward number of points and the number of points committed for the first prediction to the uncommitted point balance of the player; where the outcome category predicted by the first prediction for the distinguished possession was not satisfied by the distinguished possession: subtracting from the total point balance of the player the number of points committed for the first pre diction; and causing the total point balance of the player as affected by the adding or subtracting to be displayed.(Huke discloses the conventional wagering technique of a player committing points from their balance to a prediction, the determination if the prediction, such as a possession or play of a game was completed, and if the player made a successful prediction or an unsuccessful prediction and rewarding a player an amount additional to their wager according to the odds or decrementing the player the amount they wager if the prediction was wrong) (Huke 7:21 – 45)
As per claim 2, wherein the predicted outcome category is offensive score, touchdown, field goal, defensive stop, punt, missed field goal, fumble, interception, turnover on downs, safety, or time expired. (Huke Fig 9)
As per claim 3, wherein the predicted outcome category is pass for gain, pass for touchdown, pass for loss no gain, pass for interception, pass for interception for touchdown, spiked ball, pass for safety, run for gain, run for touchdown, run for loss no gain, run for fumble, run for fumble for touchdown, run for safety, field goal, missed field goal, missed field goal returned for touchdown, punt returned, punt fair caught, punt returned for touchdown, punt with fumble, punt with fumble returned for touchdown, kickoff returned, kickoff fair caught, kickoff returned for touchdown, kickoff out of the endzone, kickoff fumble, or kickoff fumble returned for touchdown. (Huke Fig 3 – 9)
As per claim 4, wherein a first team and a second team are playing in the football game, and wherein the first team is on offense for the distinguished possession, the method further comprising: receiving second input specifying a second prediction, the second prediction comprising: an outcome category predicted for a further possession following the distinguished possession underway in the football game, the further possession being the first possession after the distinguished possession in which the second team is on offense; and a number of points committed for the second prediction. (Huke discloses a player making multiple predictions on teams that are office or defense, wherein a wager for one team to make a goal is wager that the defense will not prevent them or fail to stop them from scoring) (Huke 8:5 – 35)
As per claim 5, determining the reward number of points by dividing the number of points committed by a numerical measure of the ease of predicting that the predicted outcome category will occur for the distinguished possession. (Huke discloses the use of odds that are used to scale (i.e. divide) a player committed number of points depending on the ease of prediction. Small odds are used for easy predictions while large odds are used for hard predictions based upon situational data) (Huke 8:21 – 57)
As per claim 6, determining an effective time for the first prediction; determining a game situation that exists in the game at the effective time; and determining the numerical measure of the ease of predicting that the predicted outcome category will occur for the distinguished possession by determining an aggregate rate at which the predicted outcome category occurs among possessions in a set of earlier games whose game situations are similar to or the same as the determined game situation. (Huke discloses determine a time for the first prediction based upon sensed game time and determining a numerical measure of ease of prediction (i.e. odds) of a situation occurring based upon historical situation data from past game) (Huke 4:3-22, 36-44; 6:51 – 67; 8:5 – 20; 8:58 – 9:13)
As per claim 7, wherein the determined game situation comprises a down number, a yards-to-first-down distance, and a yards-to-goal distance. (Huke 8:58 – 9:13)
As per claim 8, wherein the determined game situation further comprises any of an amount of time left on the game clock, a number of time outs remaining for the first team, whether the first team has a larger score than the second team, and a margin between the first team’s score and the second team’s score. (Huke server can interpret time of the game) (Huke 8:58 – 63)
As per claim 9, wherein the determined game situation further comprises any of a rank of the first team and a record of the first team. (Huke discloses determining players that aren’t statistically as good (i.e. record and rank) which affect the team) (Huke 815 – 20)
As per claim 10, wherein the first and second teams are both in a league, and the set of earlier games are games played by teams in the league. (Huke discloses NFL and historical data from previous games) (Huke Fig 5, 7:54 – 65)
As per claim 11, wherein the set of earlier games are games played by the first team. (Huke discloses historical data from previous games played by the first team) (Huke Fig 5, 7:54 – 65)
Independent claim(s) 22, 29 and 32 is/are anticipated by Huke based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
As per claim 23, wherein the sports contest is golf, baseball, or football. (Huke discloses football) (Huke Fig 3 – 9)
Dependent claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are anticipated by Huke based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 5 and 6, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 30 is/are anticipated by Huke based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 4, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 33 is/are anticipated by Huke based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 5 and 6, which are similar in claim scope.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke (US 11,455,868). In view of Amaitis et al (US 2012/0058813).
As per claim 12, Huke fails to disclose:
further comprising using Markov chain analysis to predict a probability that the predicted outcome category will occur based on the determined aggregate rate.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Amaitis teaches “In some embodiments, a determination of odds for a game may be made or understood to be made based on a Markov chain or state based analysis. For example, given state A of the teams in the game, apply the state transition B that models play of the game, to state A, and receive state C, the conclusion of the game. Further examples of such state analysis are given for example, U.S. provisional application 61/405,354 to Amaitis, entitled "Inside Wagering" and filed Oct. 21, 2010, which has been incorporated herein by reference. In such state analysis, the probabilities determined by a matrix or other structure represented by state C may be used to determine prices for a wager on a game with a given spread. State C may represent a probability of each possible outcome occurring (e.g., the probabilities that the Bears will beat the Packers by each of a possible number of points and the probabilities that the Packers will beat the Bears with each of a possible number of points). State C may represent an expected outcome of a game that may have a highest probability. Such probability and/or probabilities may form a basis for prices of wagers on the outcome or outcomes represented by the state.” (Amaitis 0220)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Huke in view of Amaitis to utilize a known technique to modify similar systems in the same way by means of using Markov chains to predict a probability. This would be beneficial as in the usage of such would be able to efficiently present predictions outcome for state based systems that have the highest probability of occurring.
Claim(s) 13, 14 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke (US 11,455,868) In view of Dishman (US 2019/0030435). As per claim 13, Huke fails to disclose:
wherein the computing device has a first system clock, and wherein a second computing device used by an observer has a second system clock, the method further comprising: using the first system clock to determine a second time at which first broadcast synchronization input based on a broadcast being observed by the player is received by the computing device is received; using the second system clock to determine a third time at which second broadcast synchronization input based on a broadcast being observed by the observer is received by the second computing device is received; subtracting the second time from the third time to obtain a time offset; adding the obtained time offset to the first time to obtain the effective time for the first prediction; identifying a play number of a play that began with the first snap that occurred in the broadcast being observed by the observer after the effective time for the first prediction; and determining the game situation specified by the observer for the identified play number.
However in a similar field of endeavor wherein prediction games are provided to a user, Dishman discloses a system that allows a user to predict events occurring in a football game (Dishman 0027), the live event being broadcast from one device to a user device (Dishman 0028), and further teaches the usage of multiple computers that timestamp a broadcasted event (Dishman 0053) and further teaches the use of a second clock to determine a latency period (i.e. offset) that user is experiencing when they view the broadcast (Dishman 0050, 0060, 0061) by determining a synchronization of the user device with the actual time of the broadcast to determine if the player has submitted predictions in a timely manner (Dishman 0056,. 0060 – 0064).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Huke in view of Dishman to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by determining a latency offset that is added to a players prediction wherein the offset enables the players prediction to be viewed as submitted in a timely manner. This would be beneficial as network delays may prevent a user from viewing a live broadcast instantaneously and that would hamper the “live” aspect of the game and ensure that all players are have a fair chance at submitting a response to the prediction game even if their device is out of synch.
As per claim 14, Huke fails to disclose:
wherein the first broadcast synchronization input activates a kickoff control displayed by the computing device, and wherein the second broadcasting position input activates a kickoff control displayed by the second computing device (Combination of Huke in view of Dishman, wherein Dishman teaches the monitoring for game start events involving the ball, such as snaps (i.e. kickoff events) (Dishman 0053).
Dependent claim(s) 31 is/are obvious over Huke and Dishman based on the same analysis set forth for combination of claim(s) 5 and 13, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke (US 11,455,868) In view of Dishman (US 2019/0030435) in view of Lockton (US 11082746).
As per claim 15, Huke fails to disclose:
wherein the first broadcast synchronization input activates is a first audio pattern received by an audio input of the computing device, and wherein the second broadcast synchronization input activates is a second audio pattern matching the first audio pattern received by an audio input of the second computing device.
However in a similar field of endeavor, Lockton teaches the use of a ACR system to determine an audio pattern from a broadcast to thereby synchronize player client devices and their submitted predictions. Lockton discloses (105) In some embodiments, latencies for each user or samples of users are determined and compared. For example, a server-side or client-side application is able to determine specific points in a broadcast and when they are received. Furthering the example, the application determines when a pitch occurs in a baseball game broadcast by any of the synchronization methods described herein such as ACR. Additionally, determination of live information is also performed (e.g., by a person attending a live event or receiving information from the live event without any delay). The information determined is able to be compared, such as: live event first pitch occurs at Time 7:30:00 p, and for User A at Time 7:30:05 p and for User Z at Time 7:30:30 p. The difference between User A (earliest content receipt) and User Z (slowest content receipt) is 25 seconds. Therefore, the game could send a lockout after 35 seconds (compared to the live event) which would give User A 30 seconds to respond and User Z 5 seconds to respond. Although there is a discrepancy, this may be permissible. However, if the questions come in rapid succession (e.g., every 30 seconds for each pitch in a baseball game), then User Z may not have any time to respond, so User Z is informed of the issue and is not permitted to play. In some embodiments, to level the field where there is a discrepancy in receipt of content (but not to the point where a user has no time to respond), the question may not be sent or displayed until the slowest content receipt user receives the specified content. For example, a live event first pitch occurs at Time 7:30:00 p, but for User A the pitch occurs at Time 7:30:05 p and for User Z at Time 7:30:10 p. To ensure the users have the same amount of time to respond to a question, the question is displayed at 7:29:50 p and a lockout signal is sent to all of the users at Time 7:30:00 p, or the question is displayed at 7:29:50 p for User A and the lockout signal is triggered/sent at 7:30:00 p for User A, but the question is displayed at 7:29:55 p for User A and the lockout signal is triggered/sent at 7:30:05 for User Z, so they are both locked out 5 seconds before the actual pitch. Any combination of displaying the question and locking out users is possible. Additionally, although the examples above specify User A and User Z, it is understood that User A or User Z could be a group or sample of users with the same delay/latency. (Lockton 22:8 – 50).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Huke and Dishman in view of Lockton to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by means of utilizing ACR to detect audio patterns in a broadcast and use that determined and detected audio patter to synchronize remote client devices with the viewed broadcast. This would enable the system to accurately determine if the users of the client devices submitted their predictions in a timely manner with respect to the viewed broadcast.
Claim(s) 16 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke (US 11,455,868) in view of Edsall (US 2022/0292919).
As per claim 16, Huke discloses:
determining an effective time for the first prediction; and determining the numerical measure of the ease of predicting that the predicted outcome category will occur for the distinguished possession… (Huke discloses determine a time for the first prediction based upon sensed game time and determining a numerical measure of ease of prediction (i.e. odds) of a situation occurring based upon historical situation data from past game) (Huke 4:3-22, 36-44; 6:51 – 67; 8:5 – 20; 8:58 – 9:13)
Huke fails to disclose:
based on predictions received from computing devices operated by other players received at similar times that predict the same outcome category.
However in a similar wager system, Edsall discloses a parimutuel betting system wherein the odds (i.e. ease prediction) is dynamically determined based upon multiple bettors wagering on the same event or betting line at similar times (i.e. parimutuel wagering). (Edsall 0044)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Huke in view of Edsall to utilize a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by implementing a parimutuel wagering system that dynamically modifies the odds based upon the predictions of others making predictions at the same time. Parimutuel wagering like this would be beneficial to jurisdictions that may only allow this type of wager to legally occur and not others and thus would be beneficial to players who enjoy this type of wagering is such jurisdictions.
Dependent claim(s) 26 is/are obvious over Huke and Edsall based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 16, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke (US 11,455,868) in view of Walker et al (US 8,500,537).
As per claim 27 and 28, Huke fails to disclose:
receiving second input selecting a first player group; and causing the total point balance of the player as affected by the adding or subtracting to be added to a group total of the first player group. [claim 27]
or
receiving second input selecting a first player group; and causing the total point balance of the player as affected by the adding or subtracting to be subtracted from a group total of the first player group. [claim 28]
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Walker discloses a wagering system that organizes players into groups and their individual actions and points affect the group or teams total of points by means of addition or subtraction. (Walker 10:9 – 42)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Huke in view of Walker to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by means of enabling individual players points totals to affect a group total for their team. This would be beneficial as it would engender a spirit of cooperation amongst players and encourage them to play longer as others are playing longer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
5/31/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights