DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
2. Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0321094).
With respect to claim 16, Wei et al. teaches a method of facilitating scoring for an in-person, live-action game involving a plurality of players, the method comprising: determining, by a gaming outfit worn by a first player of the plurality of players (“sensing shell may be worn by a live being” – paragraph [0237]) or a projectile launcher of a second player of the plurality of players, a shot hit by the second player against the first player based at least in part on detection of an impact of a projectile (“projectile” – paragraph [0116]) fired by the projectile launcher (“shooting apparatus” or “gun” – paragraph [0238]) with the gaming outfit (See paragraphs [0104], [0109]-[0116] teaching the functionality of the sensor determining a hit shot; [0235] – [0239] – “The sensing apparatus may be capable of detecting when the live being is hit by a projectile”, “The human may aim the gun at other humans”; See also [0332] – “The human participant may shoot projectiles using a weapon (e.g. shooting apparatus), and/or may be shot by projectiles (e.g. from other humans or from robots)”); and updating a score for the in-person, live-action game based on the shot hit (“life points” - paragraph [0239]).
With respect to claim 19, Wei et al. teaches wherein the detection of the impact of the projectile is performed by a piezo electric based impact pad of one or more piezo electric based impact pads associated with the gaming outfit that are capable of detecting physical impact (paragraph [0114] – “The sensors may be … piezoelectric”; See also paragraphs [0104]-[0105] teaching a “flat surface” of the sensing apparatus, which reads on impact pad).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “ Obvious to try ” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-8, 11-12, 14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0321094) in view of Waldman et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0229108).
With respect to claims 1-3, Wei et al. teaches a method of facilitating scoring for an in-person, live-action game involving a plurality of players, the method comprising: determining, by a gaming outfit worn by a first player of the plurality of players (paragraphs [0235] – [0239]), a shot hit against the first player based at least in part on detection of an impact of a projectile fired by a projectile launcher (i.e. “gun” – paragraph [0238]) of a second player of the plurality of players with the gaming outfit (paragraphs [0104], [0109]-[0116], [0235] – [0239]; [0332]);
Wei et al. teaches that after determining the shot hit (via sensing shell), a signal is sent to a game controller to provide game scoring (paragraph [0142], but fails to expressly teach wherein the gaming outfit comprises a feedback sensor to provide feedback regarding the shot. However, analogous art reference Waldman et al. teaches that it is known to provide feedback regarding a determined shot hit via a feedback sensor of a gaming outfit 200 (“vest receiver”), wherein the feedback sensor comprises one or more lights 202, and wherein said providing feedback comprises causing the one or more lights to produce a prescribed light (paragraphs [0036], [0040], [0041]), wherein the color confirms the shot hit Id. and a second pattern of a flashing light pattern or the non-flashing light pattern indicates the shot hit has resulted in elimination of the first player from a live in-person, live-action game (paragraph [0040]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the feedback sensor of Waldman et al. into the game of Wei et al. The rationale to combine is to provide sensory feedback. This will help facilitate gameplay and provide information to the players/spectators. Waldman et al. does not expressly disclose lights 202 to be LED light, but teaches that it is known to use LED lights for game play light indicators (paragraph [0038]0. A person ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use LED lights for the lights 202 as they are known to require little power with minimal heat produced. Lastly, Waldman et al. uses a prescribed color to provide the feedback (paragraph [0040]) as opposed to using a “flashing pattern” as claimed. However, the specific light orientation (i.e. color vs pulsing/blinking/flashing vs changing intensity) is considered an obvious aesthetic design choice. Each approach provides a visual indication to the players/spectators. Should applicant traverse this position, examiner cites to paragraph [0041] of Waldman for its teaching of the lights 202 making a flashing (i.e. “pulsates or beats”) pattern. A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine this known lighting feature with the color lighting taught in paragraph [40]. The rationale to combine is to provide a known light pattern to for indicating a hitting impact.
With respect to claim 4, Waldman, cited above for the feedback sensor, further teaches wherein the feedback sensor comprises one or more lights 202, and wherein said providing feedback comprises causing the one or more lights to produce a flashing light pattern or a non-flashing light pattern (paragraph [0040]). The motivation to combine is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 5, Waldman, cited above for the feedback sensor, further teaches wherein the feedback sensor can comprise a light and a haptic feedback sensor, and wherein said providing feedback comprises causing the haptic feedback sensor to produce vibration (“tactile” … “vibrate”)(paragraph [0036]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use a haptic sensor that vibrates for the feedback sensor as this will expectantly provide visceral feedback feel to the user when they are hit. Examiner notes the haptic feedback can be used in conjunction with the light feedback sensor as set forth in Waldman at paragraph [0036]).
With respect to claim 6, Wei et al. teaches updating a score for the in-person, live-action game based on the shot hit (“life points” - paragraph [0239]).
With respect to claim 7, Wei et al. teaches wherein the gaming outfit includes a communication circuit operable to transmit information to a central server via a communication network (paragraphs [0135]- [0136], [0140], [0266] – “central game server”) and wherein the method further comprises causing real-time information regarding the in-person, live-action game maintained by the central server to be updated by notifying, by the gaming outfit via the communication circuit, the central server of the shot hit (“life points” - paragraph [0239]; examiner notes paragraphs [0235], [0349], [0377] teaching that the systems, devices and methods pertaining to a vehicle, or robot, are also applicable to humans wearing the sensing unit).
With respect to claim 8, Wei et al. teaches wherein said determining further comprising differentiating between a legitimate shot hit and a false positive hit from a non-projectile impact (via predetermined thresholds – paragraphs [0143]-[0153]); .
With respect to claim 11, Wei et al. teaches wherein the detection of the impact of the projectile is performed by a piezo electric based impact pad of one or more piezo electric based impact pads associated with the gaming outfit that are capable of detecting physical impact (paragraph [0114]).
With respect to claim 12, Wei et al. teaches wherein the gaming outfit includes one or more of a shirt, a pair of pants, a one-piece jumpsuit, and a helmet (paragraph [0237]), wherein the detection of the impact of the projectile is performed by a piezo electric based impact pad of one or more piezo electric based impact pads associated with one or more of the shirt, the pair of pants, the one-piece jumpsuit, or the helmet (paragraph [0114]).
With respect to claim 14, Wei et al. teaches wherein the in-person, live-action game is played within an enclosed indoor arena (paragraph [0334]-[0338]) including triangulation sensors and wherein the method further comprises determining a location of one or more of the first player and the second player based on information received from the triangulation sensors (paragraphs [0347]; again, examiner notes paragraphs [0235], [0349], [0377] teaching that the systems, devices and methods pertaining to a vehicle, or robot, are also applicable to human participants wearing the sensing unit).
With respect to claims 17-18, Wei et al. does not expressly teach after determining the shot hit, providing feedback regarding the shot hit via a feedback sensor of the gaming outfit, wherein the feedback sensor comprises one or more of a light emitting diode (LED), a light, or a vibrator, and wherein said providing feedback comprises activating the LED, the light, or the vibrator. However, analogous art reference Waldman teaches these features to be known in the art (paragraphs [0036], [0040], [0041]). The rationale to combine is the same as stated above.
5. Claims 9-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0321094) in view of Waldman et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0229108) and further in view of Rosenberg (US Pub. No. 2015/0038048).
With respect to claim 9. Wei et al. does not expressly teach wherein said differentiating is based at least in part on correlating two or more of: identifying information emitted by the projectile launcher; information indicative of a shot having been fired by the projectile launcher; a first time at which the shot was fired; a range of the projectile launcher from the first player; and a second time at which the impact was detected. However, analogous art reference Rosenberg teaches this feature to be known in the art – paragraph [0079] teaching correlating between a first time at which the shot was fired and a second time at which the impact was detected by - “processor will check time of the timestamp on the dart 208 to ensure that it hit the target within a reasonable time of being fired”. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine this feature into the game of Wei et al. This will expectantly provide useful game information including determining a hit target and mitigating game cheating Id.
With respect to claim 10, Wei et al. teaches wherein the in-person, live-action game comprises a projectile scoring game (“life points” - paragraph [0239]), but fails to disclose the use of projectile tag to facilitate the game. However, analogous art reference Rosenberg teaches that it is known to provide a tag 504 in a projectile 208 to facilitate tracking of the projectile (paragraph [0079]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a projectile tag. This will expectantly provide useful game information including determining a hit target and mitigating game cheating Id.
With respect to claim 15, Wei et al. fails to expressly teach detecting by the gaming outfit or the projectile launcher that the second player is targeting the first player. However, such a feature is known in the art as evidenced by Rosenberg at paragraph [0079] – examiner notes the combination of pulling the trigger, making a timestamp, and contacting the target within a certain time period is considered to read on “targeting” of a first player by a second player. The rationale to combine is the same as stated above.
6. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0321094) in view of Waldman et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0229108) and further in view of Oetiker (US Pat. No. 3,677,546).
With respect to claim 13, Wei does not expressly disclose wherein the detection of the impact of the projectile is performed based on electrical conductivity of the projectile or a portion of the gaming suit. However, analogous art reference Oetiker teaches this feature to be known in the art of projectile shooting target games – columns 2-3 teaching an electrical circuit being formed, which is based on electrical conductivity, to detect impact from a projectile. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the sensing apparatus of the gaming outfit with the impact determination system of Oetiker. The rationale to combine is to determine a hit from a projectile using a known technique.
7. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0321094), or in the alternative, in view of Waldman et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0229108).
With respect to claim 20, Wei et al. teaches providing a virtual status for a player by the sensors (paragraph [0142]; See also paragraph [0377] teaching wherein the object can be the human player), wherein the virtual status includes “life points”, “damage assessment”, including “alive” or “dead” assessments (paragraph [0142]). Wei et al. further teaches displaying this game information on a display device (paragraphs [0271], [0279]). Wei et al. does not expressly teach that the first and second game players are provided this information. However, Wei et al. also teaches providing a “communal display device” that “may be displayed to individuals at the facility” (paragraphs [0368]-[0373]). A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a communal display showing the game information for the game between the first and second players. This would expectantly inform the players of the situation of the game. In the alternative, secondary reference Waldman teaches providing a light blinking system that intrinsically informs the player of their game status (i.e. hit indicator – paragraph [0040]). The rationale to combine is the same as stated above.
Double Patenting
8. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
9. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 15-16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,408.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the patented claims reads on the present claims.
10. Claims 3, 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,408 in view of Waldman et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0229108).
With respect to claim 3, the patented claims teach a first pattern of the flashing light pattern to confirm the shot hit, but not a second pattern as claimed. However, analogous art reference Waldman et al. teaches a second pattern of a flashing light pattern or the non-flashing light pattern indicates the shot hit has resulted in elimination of the first player from a live in-person, live-action game (paragraph [0040]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the feedback sensor of Waldman et al. into the game of Wei et al. The rationale to combine is to provide sensory feedback
With respect to claims 17-18, the patented claims fail to expressly teach after determining the shot hit, providing feedback regarding the shot hit via a feedback sensor of the gaming outfit, wherein the feedback sensor comprises one or more of a light emitting diode (LED), a light, or a vibrator, and wherein said providing feedback comprises activating the LED, the light, or the vibrator. However, analogous art reference Waldman teaches these features to be known in the art (paragraphs [0036], [0040], [0041]). The rationale to combine is the same as stated above in the prior art rejection.
11. Claims 6-8, 11-12, 14 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,408 in view of Wei et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0321094).
The patented claims fail to expressly teach the limitations of claims 6-8, 11-12 and 14. However, analogous art reference Wei et al. teaches the following to be known:
With respect to claim 6, Wei et al. teaches updating a score for the in-person, live-action game based on the shot hit (“life points” - paragraph [0239]).
With respect to claim 7, Wei et al. teaches wherein the gaming outfit includes a communication circuit operable to transmit information to a central server via a communication network (paragraphs [0135]- [0136], [0140], [0266] – “central game server”) and wherein the method further comprises causing real-time information regarding the in-person, live-action game maintained by the central server to be updated by notifying, by the gaming outfit via the communication circuit, the central server of the shot hit (“life points” - paragraph [0239]; examiner notes paragraphs [0235], [0349], [0377] teaching that the systems, devices and methods pertaining to a vehicle, or robot, are also applicable to humans wearing the sensing unit).
With respect to claim 8, Wei et al. teaches wherein said determining further comprising differentiating between a legitimate shot hit and a false positive hit from a non-projectile impact (via predetermined thresholds – paragraphs [0143]-[0153]); .
With respect to claim 11, Wei et al. teaches wherein the detection of the impact of the projectile is performed by a piezo electric based impact pad of one or more piezo electric based impact pads associated with the gaming outfit that are capable of detecting physical impact (paragraph [0114]).
With respect to claim 12, Wei et al. teaches wherein the gaming outfit includes one or more of a shirt, a pair of pants, a one-piece jumpsuit, and a helmet (paragraph [0237]), wherein the detection of the impact of the projectile is performed by a piezo electric based impact pad of one or more piezo electric based impact pads associated with one or more of the shirt, the pair of pants, the one-piece jumpsuit, or the helmet (paragraph [0114]).
With respect to claim 14, Wei et al. teaches wherein the in-person, live-action game is played within an enclosed indoor arena (paragraph [0334]-[0338]) including triangulation sensors and wherein the method further comprises determining a location of one or more of the first player and the second player based on information received from the triangulation sensors (paragraphs [0347]; again, examiner notes paragraphs [0235], [0349], [0377] teaching that the systems, devices and methods pertaining to a vehicle, or robot, are also applicable to human participants wearing the sensing unit).
At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine these features into the patented game. The rationale to combine is to keep track of the game using a point system and providing the game related information to the players. Moreover, by differentiating hits from non-hits, the accuracy is improved. The piezoelectric sensor provides a known sensing means to detect a projectile impact. Moreover, the prescribed garments will allow game play in a useful manner that permits players to move around easily. Lastly, by having the locations of the players, this information can be used for game purposes, including tracking the projectile launchers.
With respect to claim 19, the patented claims do not teach a piezo electric based impact pad as claimed. However, Wei et al. teaches the following to be known in the art: detection of an impact of the projectile is performed by a piezo electric based impact pad of one or more piezo electric based impact pads associated with the gaming outfit that are capable of detecting physical impact (paragraph [0114] – “The sensors may be … piezoelectric”; See also paragraphs [0104]-[0105] teaching a “flat surface” of the sensing apparatus, which reads on impact pad). A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a piezo electric sensor as this is a known impact sensing means that will expectantly determine a projectile hit of the sensing area.
12. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,408 in view of Wei et al. and further in view of Rosenberg (US Pub. No. 2015/0038048).
With respect to claim 9, the patented invention does not expressly teach wherein said differentiating is based at least in part on correlating two or more of: identifying information emitted by the projectile launcher; information indicative of a shot having been fired by the projectile launcher; a first time at which the shot was fired; a range of the projectile launcher from the first player; and a second time at which the impact was detected. However, analogous art reference Rosenberg teaches this feature to be known in the art – paragraph [0079] teaching correlating between a first time at which the shot was fired and a second time at which the impact was detected by - “processor will check time of the timestamp on the dart 208 to ensure that it hit the target within a reasonable time of being fired”. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine this feature into the game of the patented invention. This will expectantly provide useful game information including determining a hit target and mitigating game cheating Id.
13. Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,408 in view of Rosenberg (US Pub. No. 2015/0038048).
With respect to claim 10, the patented fails to disclose the use of projectile tag to facilitate the game. However, analogous art reference Rosenberg teaches that it is known to provide a tag 504 in a projectile 208 to facilitate tracking of the projectile (paragraph [0079]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a projectile tag. This will expectantly provide useful game information including determining a hit target and mitigating game cheating Id.
14. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,408 in view of Oetiker (US Pat. No. 3,677,546).
With respect to claim 13, the patented invention does not expressly disclose wherein the detection of the impact of the projectile is performed based on electrical conductivity of the projectile or a portion of the gaming suit. However, analogous art reference Oetiker teaches this feature to be known in the art of projectile shooting target games – columns 2-3 teaching an electrical circuit being formed, which is based on electrical conductivity, to detect impact from a projectile. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the sensing apparatus of the gaming outfit with the impact determination system of Oetiker. The rationale to combine is to determine a hit from a projectile using a known technique.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272 4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711