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 .
Status of the Application
This Office-Action acknowledges the Amendment filed on 12/1/2025 and is a response to said Amendment.
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 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-20 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device being less than a designated wager amount and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event:
communicate data that causes the gaming device to reduce the amount of the credit meter, and
modify, based on at least part of the reduced amount of the credit meter, an amount of a progressive award maintained independent of the gaming device.
Claim 10 recites:A system comprising:
a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause a display, by a display device, of a first value of a progressive award, and responsive to an amount to play any game at the gaming device of a credit meter of a gaming device being less than a designated wager amount, and a cashout input being received at the gaming device:
contribute the amount of the credit meter to the progressive award without issuing any cashless ticket vouchers in association with the cashout input being received, and after the contribution of the amount of the credit meter to the progressive award,
cause a display, by the display device, of a second, greater value of the progressive award.
Claim 12 recites:
An electronic gaming machine comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to an amount of a credit meter being less than a designated wager amount to play any game at the electronic gaming machine and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event:
reduce the amount of the credit meter, and
communicate data that results in a modification, based on at least part of the reduced amount of the credit meter, of an amount of a progressive award maintained independent of the electronic gaming machine.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a gaming machine) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: contributing an amount of a credit meter to a progressive award responsive to an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device being less than a designated wager amount and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claim 1, 10, 12 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: processor and display device.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Guinn et al., US 20140094274 discloses that display devices for a gaming machine may comprise a plasma, LED, OLED, LCD, CRT, projection, or transmissive display device and are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 38); Pierrie et al., US 20010031659 discloses that many of the details of operating conventional gaming devices such as reel-based slot machines, video-based poker games, coin acceptors, card readers (credit, debit, smart, etc.) are well known. It is well known how to place bets, recognize the amount bet, and award the winning player based upon a pay table stored in memory. Therefore, the method and teachings of the present invention can be incorporated into a stand-alone casino game such as commonly seen with stand-alone keno, slot, and poker games (paragraph 31);
Rehill et al., US 10726678 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the graphical user interfaces are arranged to display information regarding a program, software application or other element associated with a computing device (Col 22, lines 44-47); Fujimaki et al., US 20140114890 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a computer includes an input device, a central processing unit (CPU), a storage device (for example, a RAM) for storing data, a program memory (for example, a ROM) for storing a program, and an output device (paragraph 50);
Nguyen et al., US 20040172508 discloses that it is well known, a computer stores data in memory (paragraph 1); Pecenik et al., US 20170092069, discloses that output device for a gaming machine is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art and may comprise any number or combination of a variety of well-known devices, including, without limitation: a display device, a light-emitting diode (LED), an audio speaker, an electric motor, a printer, a coupon or product dispenser, an infra-red port (e.g., for communicating with a second game machine), a Braille computer monitor, a coin and/or bill dispenser, a bell, an LED display (e.g., for displaying a players credit balance) (paragraph 82);
Cockrell, Jr., US 20070057464, discloses that computer systems for implementing games can be suitable general-purpose computers having a processor and memory and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 69);
Geisner, US 20080242421, discloses processors can be general purpose processor for implementing online games and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 24, 34, 52);
Wilson, US 20050277457, discloses that it is readily understood that the video games are normally computer controlled, and that the game-logic electronic circuitry for implementing the method for playing such a video game in a machine is well known and available to one skilled in the art (paragraph 28);
Thomas, US 20160358424, discloses that reel-based games utilize symbols for display on an array for generating outcomes are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 4);
Peltz et al., US 20110009197, discloses that players making wagers to initiate game play of a wagering game is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 15);
Walker et al., US 20040038733, discloses that credit balances are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 64);
Saffari, US 20030050111, discloses a conventional gaming machine (system) comprising an input device used to play a game, processor to implement the game, memory device, and/or display are used to allow a player to play a game to a determined outcome (paragraph 2);
Luciano, Jr., US 20030232638, discloses that, should the player decide that they want to quit the game, it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a player can activate a cash-out button in which credits or money can be transferred to the player using well-known techniques that include depositing coins in a coin hopper or transferring credits or money to a coupon that is redeemable at other machines or kiosks (paragraph 50);
Kaminkow, US 20030054874 discloses when a player wants to “cash out” the player can be presented with forms of payment such a token in a coin payout tray or printed on a ticket or credits to a credit, debit or smart card and that card reader and ticket printer machines are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 33);
Rowe et al., US 20030013531, discloses that when it comes wagering games, it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that such wagering games have wager accepting devices such as coin acceptors, bill validators, credit card readers, and other devices configured to read or accept items of value and provide a credit there for (paragraph 35);
Walker et al., US 20040038733, discloses that it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that output devices may comprise a plurality of display devices, such as an LED display for displaying a player’s credit balance (paragraph 64);
Reeves, US 9552693, discloses that it is well-known in the art, that a gaming machine can display a credit meter and the funds in the account of the player are movable to and from the balance of the credit meter during a play session (Col 6, line 59 to Col 7, line 4);
Nelson, US 20170092059, discloses that credit balances being established from receiving cash, ticket vouchers or promotional ticket is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art as well as it being well-known that gaming machines utilize ticket vouchers when a player wishes to leave the gaming machine and has credits remaining on the gaming machine (paragraph 6);
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-9, 11, 13-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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.
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, 3-4, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singer et al., US 20170024952 (Singer).
Regarding Claim 1.
Singer discloses a system comprising:
a processor (Fig 2, elem 12; para 54); and
a memory device (Fig 2, elem 14; para 54) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device being less than a designated wager amount to play to any game at the gaming device and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event (Abstract, para 19, 22-25, 41, 43, 111-116. A player can make a wager towards achieving a progressive award. The wager made is interpreted as a credit meter contribution event. The amount of credits the player can wager can be less than a maximum amount.):
communicate data that causes the gaming device to reduce the amount of the credit meter (Abstract, para 111-116. Wagers made would be reduced from the player credit balance.), and
modify, based on at least part of the reduced amount of the credit meter, an amount of a progressive award maintained independent of the gaming device (Abstract, para 111-116. A progressive gaming system capable of distributing progressive awards to other gaming devices is interpreted as maintaining a progressive award that is independent from the gaming device. A gaming device that can be randomly or apparently randomly selected for providing a player of that gaming device one or more progressive awards means the gaming device is not in charge of maintaining the progressive award. The progressive award being funded by the wagered amount is interpreted as the amount of the progressive award being modified based on at least part of the reduced amount of the credit meter.)
Regarding Claim 3.
Singer discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein an identity of a user of the gaming device at least partially determines the occurrence of the credit meter contribution event (para 103-104. Player tracking is implemented in which the player can be tracked, and, therefore, being provided with the option of there being an occurrence of the credit meter contribution event and making a wager.).
Regarding Claim 4.
Singer discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the designated wager amount comprises a minimum wager amount to play a game at the gaming device (para 111-116).
Regarding Claim 12.
Singer discloses an electronic gaming machine comprising:
a processor (Fig 2, elem 12; para 54); and
a memory device (Fig 2, elem 14; para 54) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to an amount of a credit meter being less than a designated wager amount to any game at the gaming device and an occurrence of a credit meter contribution event (Abstract, para 19, 22-25, 41, 43, 111-116):
reduce the amount of the credit meter (Abstract, para 111-116), and
communicate data that results in a modification, based on at least part of the reduced amount of the credit meter, of an amount of a progressive award maintained independent of the electronic gaming machine (Abstract, para 111-116.).
Regarding Claim 14.
Singer discloses the electronic gaming machine of Claim 12, wherein the occurrence of the credit meter contribution event is at least partially based on an identity of a user (para 103-104. Player tracking is implemented in which the player can be tracked, and, therefore, being provided with the option of there being an occurrence of the credit meter contribution event and making a wager.).
Regarding Claim 15.
Singer discloses the electronic gaming machine of Claim 12, wherein the designated wager amount comprises a minimum wager amount to play a game (para 111-116).
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 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer et al., US 20170024952 (Singer) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Guinn, US 20160063817 (Guinn)
Regarding Claim 5.
Singer discloses the system of Claim 1, but failed to disclose wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by a display device independent of the gaming device, of the modified amount of the progressive award.
However, Guinn discloses that community display devices can be implemented for communicating information concerning results and status of progressive awards (para 38).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Guinn’s teachings with Singer because it would allow patrons within a casino to see the status of the progressive award as taught by Guinn.
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation, while Singer does disclose of there being a progressive award, Singer appears to fail to disclose of displaying a modified amount of the progressive award, let alone the display device for the progressive award being independent of the gaming device. By incorporating a community display which tracks the status of the progressive award, that community display device is interpreted as being independent of the gaming device as well as displaying the modified amount of the progressive award.
Regarding Claim 16.
Singer discloses the electronic gaming machine of Claim 12, but failed to disclose wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to display, by a display device, the modified amount of the progressive award.
However, Guinn discloses that community display devices can be implemented for communicating information concerning results and status of progressive awards (para 38).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Guinn’s teachings with Singer because it would allow patrons within a casino to see the status of the progressive award as taught by Guinn.
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation, while Singer does disclose of there being a progressive award, Singer appears to fail to disclose of displaying a modified amount of the progressive award, let alone the display device for the progressive award being independent of the gaming device. By incorporating a community display which tracks the status of the progressive award, that community display device is interpreted as being independent of the gaming device as well as displaying the modified amount of the progressive award.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments in regards to the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant argues that that the elements of the claimed gaming systems integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by alleging that “an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device is less than a designated wager amount and cannot, by itself, be used to fund any wagering activity at the gaming device. In recognition of these problems (and the associated waste created by the issuance of such low-value ticket vouchers), in certain instances which occur responsive to a cashout input being received at the gaming device, the claimed system contributes an amount of the credit meter to a progressive award without issuing any cashless ticket vouchers in association with the cashout input being received. Such a configuration enables users to bypass being provided such cashless ticket vouchers (and convert the funds for one or more chances to win relatively high value awards otherwise not available to such users). Such a conversion avoids potentially burdening users with cashless ticket vouchers of relatively little value and burdening gaming establishments with providing resources (e.g., personnel, redemption kiosks, and/or printing material) for issuing and subsequently redeeming such cashless ticket vouchers (see at least paragraphs [0014] to [0019]). As such, the system differs from prior gaming devices that employed printed cashless ticket vouchers of low-value amounts and the associated burdens in handling such ticket vouchers placed on the system.” (Page 7)
The Examiner disagrees because there appears to be no change to the actual gaming system, as claimed, nor any technological improvements. There is simply no specificity detailed that provides any improvement to the gaming machine. In this case, the Examiner had provided prior art that the Examiner believes discloses that such concepts are well-known, well-understood, routine, and conventional to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example:
Pecenik et al., US 20170092069, discloses that output device for a gaming machine is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art and may comprise any number or combination of a variety of well-known devices, including, without limitation: a display device, a light-emitting diode (LED), an audio speaker, an electric motor, a printer, a coupon or product dispenser, an infra-red port (e.g., for communicating with a second game machine), a Braille computer monitor, a coin and/or bill dispenser, a bell, an LED display (e.g., for displaying a players credit balance) (paragraph 82);
Peltz et al., US 20110009197, discloses that players making wagers to initiate game play of a wagering game is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 15);
Walker et al., US 20040038733, discloses that credit balances are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 64);
Luciano, Jr., US 20030232638, discloses that, should the player decide that they want to quit the game, it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a player can activate a cash-out button in which credits or money can be transferred to the player using well-known techniques that include depositing coins in a coin hopper or transferring credits or money to a coupon that is redeemable at other machines or kiosks (paragraph 50);
Kaminkow, US 20030054874 discloses when a player wants to “cash out” the player can be presented with forms of payment such a token in a coin payout tray or printed on a ticket or credits to a credit, debit or smart card and that card reader and ticket printer machines are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 33);
Rowe et al., US 20030013531, discloses that when it comes wagering games, it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that such wagering games have wager accepting devices such as coin acceptors, bill validators, credit card readers, and other devices configured to read or accept items of value and provide a credit there for (paragraph 35);
Walker et al., US 20040038733, discloses that it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that output devices may comprise a plurality of display devices, such as an LED display for displaying a player’s credit balance (paragraph 64);
Reeves, US 9552693, discloses that it is well-known in the art, that a gaming machine can display a credit meter and the funds in the account of the player are movable to and from the balance of the credit meter during a play session (Col 6, line 59 to Col 7, line 4);
Nelson, US 20170092059, discloses that credit balances being established from receiving cash, ticket vouchers or promotional ticket is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art as well as it being well-known that gaming machines utilize ticket vouchers when a player wishes to leave the gaming machine and has credits remaining on the gaming machine (paragraph 6).
Accordingly, the Examiner must respectfully disagree that the claims recite patent-eligible methods for at least the reasons recited in the rejection as presented above.
Applicant states: In this case, it is improper for the Office Action to rely on one version of Singer (i.e., the alternative wager proposition version found in at least paragraphs [0118] to [0128]), which risks an amount of a player's remaining credit balance for a chance to win an alternative award when that balance is less than a designated wager amount, with another version of Singer (i.e., the progressive wager version found in at least paragraphs [0111] to [0116]), which allocates a portion of a wager for a play of a base or primary game to a progressive award. The elements of these different versions of Singer are not arranged or combined in the same way as the system of Claim 1. Specifically, Singer discloses that the alternative wager propositions are separate from and in addition to any wagers that can be placed on any plays of the wagering game (see paragraph [0127]). Additionally, Singer does not include any teaching that would direct those skilled in the art to the system of Claim 1 without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other. Accordingly, this rejection is improper and should be withdrawn. (page 8)
The Examiner disagrees. Singer discloses in paragraph [0179] It is intended that the features of the various embodiments disclosed herein may be combined without departing from the scope of the subject matter presented.
[0180] It should further be understood that various changes and modifications to the present embodiments described herein will be apparent to those skilled in the art. Such changes and modifications can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the present subject matter and without diminishing its intended advantages. It is therefore intended that such changes and modifications be covered by the appended claims.
In this case, the Examiner believes that such modification, such as combining alternate versions, could be implemented without departing from the scope of the subject matter presented as anticipated by Singer.
Applicant states: With respect to the version of Singer that pertains to the progressive wager, Applicant respectfully submits that while Singer discloses allocating a portion of a wager to a progressive award (see paragraph [0111]), the wager that funds the allocation is at least a minimum wager amount to play a game. Specifically, Singer discloses that for each play of a wagering game, the gaming system enables the player to place a wager having an amount that is at least a minimum wager amount (see paragraph [0119]). Singer discloses that the allocation to the progressive award is a portion of each wager to initiate the base or primary game (see paragraph [0111]). That is, an allocation to a progressive award as disclosed by Singer is based on a wager of at least the minimum wager amount to play a wagering game at the gaming device. As such, Singer does not disclose or suggest allocating funds to a progressive award when an amount of a credit meter is less than the minimum wager amount for the play of the wagering game.
With respect to the version of Singer that pertains to the alternative wager proposition, Applicant respectfully submits that while Singer discloses displaying an alternative wager proposition when a player's credit balance is less than a designated wager amount (see paragraphs [0176], [0177]), the alternative wager proposition itself provides a play of a game of chance funded by the player's credit balance. Specifically, Singer discloses that an alternative wager proposition can include a play of a bonus game (see paragraph [0147]). Singer also discloses that by accepting the third alternative wager option, the player chooses to wager the player's remaining credit balance of 75 credits for a 12.5% chance to win the third alternative award of 500 credits (see paragraph [0174]) such that the remaining credit balance for the third alternative wager option is a wager having an amount sufficient to provide a play of a game (i.e., the bonus game). As such, Singer does not disclose or suggest a designated wager amount to play the bonus game, let alone funding a progressive award responsive to an amount of a credit meter being less than the designated wager amount to play the bonus game. (page 8-9)
The Examiner disagrees. As indicated in the response above with regard to paragraphs [0179]-[0180], the Examiner believes that the combination of alternatives could be combined without departing from the scope of the subject matter presented as anticipated by Singer.
Best Applicable Prior Art
Regarding independent Claim 10, the closest prior art, Singer et al., US 20170024952, discloses: A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause a display, by a display device, of a first value of a progressive award, and responsive to an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device being less than a designated wager amount, and a cashout input being received at the gaming device: contribute the amount of the credit meter to the progressive award without issuing any cashless ticket vouchers in association with the cashout input being received, and after the contribution of the amount of the credit meter to the progressive award, cause a display, by the display device, of a second, greater value of the progressive award.
While Singer discloses contributing the amount of the credit meter to the progressive award, Singer failed to disclose that it is responsive to an amount of a credit meter of a gaming device being less than a designated wager amount, and a cashout input being received at the gaming device. Instead, Singer is directed towards a player making a wagering input which is interpreted as teaching away from a cashout input being made and received at the gaming device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6-11, 13, 17-20 have no prior art rejection but currently stand rejected under USC §101
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3715